Search

Importance: Unlike other surgical specialties, obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) has been predominantly female for the last decade. The association of this with gender bias and sexual harassment is not known., Objective: To systematically review the prevalence of sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination among OB-GYN clinicians and trainees and interventions aimed at reducing harassment in OB-GYN and other surgical specialties., Evidence Review: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify studies published from inception through June 13, 2023.: For the prevalence of harassment, OB-GYN clinicians and trainees on OB-GYN rotations in all subspecialties in the US or Canada were included. Personal experiences of harassment (sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination) by other health care personnel, event reporting, burnout and exit from medicine, fear of retaliation, and related outcomes were included. Interventions across all surgical specialties in any country to decrease incidence of harassment were also evaluated. Abstracts and potentially relevant full-text articles were double screened.: Eligible studies were extracted into standard forms. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence of included research were assessed. A meta-analysis was not performed owing to heterogeneity of outcomes., Findings: A total of 10 eligible studies among 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies among 2906 participants addressed interventions. The prevalence of sexual harassment (range, 250 of 907 physicians [27.6%] to 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists [70.9%]), workplace discrimination (range, 142 of 249 gynecologic oncologists [57.0%] to 354 of 527 gynecologic oncologists [67.2%] among women; 138 of 358 gynecologic oncologists among males [38.5%]), and bullying (131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists [52.8%]) was frequent among OB-GYN respondents. OB-GYN trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment (253 of 366 respondents [69.1%]), which included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The proportion of OB-GYN clinicians who reported their sexual harassment to anyone ranged from 21 of 250 AAGL (formerly, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists) members (8.4%) to 32 of 256 gynecologic oncologists (12.5%) compared with 32.6% of OB-GYN trainees. Mistreatment during their OB-GYN rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 medical students surveyed (25.1%). Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and operating room staff (7.7%). Various interventions were used and studied, which were associated with improved recognition of bias and reporting (eg, implementation of a video- and discussion-based mistreatment program during a surgery clerkship was associated with a decrease in medical student mistreatment reports from 14 reports in previous year to 9 reports in the first year and 4 in the second year after implementation). However, no significant decrease in the frequency of sexual harassment was found with any intervention., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found high rates of harassment behaviors within OB-GYN. Interventions to limit these behaviors were not adequately studied, were limited mostly to medical students, and typically did not specifically address sexual or other forms of harassment.

Importance: Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress., Objective: To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing., Design, Setting, and Participants: Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023., Intervention: Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret., Results: A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling., Conclusions and Relevance: In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

Importance: Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists., Objective: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2., Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk., Exposures: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2., Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast and ovarian cancer risks., Results: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers., Conclusions and Relevance: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.