No abstract

To examine the awareness and attitudes about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in individuals who made contact with a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome advocacy group. This is a descriptive study of individuals (n = 1,699) who were invited via email and advertisements to complete an online questionnaire available from August 2009 through December 2010. Response distributions of relevant subgroups were compared using cross tabulation and Chi-squared tests were used. The majority of respondents (69.2 %) had undergone genetic testing (n = 1,156) and 30.2 % had not. Of those who did not undergo genetic testing, the most common reason given for declining testing was cost (28.8 %), followed by concerns about insurance discrimination (19.5 %). More than half (60.5 %) were worried about health insurance discrimination when they first considered genetic testing and 28.6 % were worried about employment discrimination. Slightly more individuals were worried about health insurance discrimination if they had no prior knowledge of GINA. While "cost" was cited most frequently as the reason not to test, "fear of insurance discrimination" was the second most common reason. Knowledge of GINA among consumers is still limited and public education may help promote reduction in fear.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE Given emerging evidence for the fimbria as the site of origin for many serous carcinomas in BRCA mutation carriers, consideration is being given to studying prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (PSDO) as risk-reducing surgery. We aimed to determine the interest in a study of PSDO among these women. METHODS We evaluated the results of an online survey conducted by Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), a patient advocacy group, from October 2010 to August 2012. Premenopausal BRCA mutation carriers with no history of ovarian cancer or prior bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) were included. RESULTS Of the 204 women meeting inclusion criteria, median age was 35 years, 92.5% were white, 25.7% Jewish, and 16.7% had a history of breast cancer. Overall, 34.3% reported interest in a study of salpingectomy, 35.3% were unsure, and 30.4% were not interested in the study. Women noted the possibility of lowering ovarian cancer risk without menopause as a compelling reason to participate (83.8%). Reasons for not participating in a salpingectomy study included surgical complications (46.6%), potential ovarian damage (42.2%), planning BSO soon (32.4%), and surgical costs (32.8%). Acceptable study risks included the need for two surgeries (77.2%), possibility of not lowering ovarian cancer risk (68%), and disruption of ovarian blood supply (66.5%). CONCLUSIONS One-third of BRCA mutation carriers indicated definite interest in a PSDO study. Potential study risks were acceptable to most women. These findings suggest that patient accrual for a clinical trial of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is possible.

Members of families affected by hereditary cancer are often concerned about passing on risk to offspring. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure performed to identify embryos that inherit mutations placing them at risk for hereditary conditions. Little is known about attitudes toward the use of this technology among individuals at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We sought to determine high risk women's attitudes. This study is a qualitative examination of comments from women who participated in an online survey regarding knowledge and attitudes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis among individuals affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. More than half the respondents held less favorable attitudes about the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for both themselves and others. However, among the women who felt favorable about its usage, the majority said it became a new option for them to pursue parenthood whereas previously they had opted to not have a biological child. The high percentage of respondents who have never heard of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and who were in favor of this technology for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer indicates the need for educational campaigns to increase awareness and provide information about the procedure, access and affordability. Further research is needed to determine how this population would like this information presented to them and how best to instruct health care professionals to present this topic to women who do not know to ask about it.

Despite improved patient knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction among patients who receive genetic counseling provided by a genetics clinician, as well as multiple guidelines emphasizing the importance of genetic counseling, most US women undergoing BRCA genetic testing do not receive this clinical service. Lack of physician recommendation is the most commonly reported reason. These findings demonstrate important gaps in clinical genetics services. Recently mandated coverage of genetic counseling services as a preventive service without patient cost sharing should contribute to improving clinical genetics services and associated outcomes in the future.

Racial and ethnic diversity has historically been difficult to achieve in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials, even while as many as 80% of those trials have faced difficulty in meeting overall recruitment targets. In an attempt to address these issues, NRG Oncology recently convened a comprehensive workshop titled "Clinical Trials Enrollment: Challenges and Opportunities." Discussants at the workshop included representatives of the three legacy groups of the NRG (ie, Gynecologic Oncology Group, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), a minority-based community clinical oncology program, a large integrated health care system, the leadership of the National Cancer Institute, and a large patient advocacy group. This article summarizes the concepts discussed at the workshop, which included: needs assessments, infrastructural support, training of investigators and research staff, specific clinical trial recruitment strategies (both system and community based), and development and mentoring of young investigators. Many new, more specific tactics, including use of diverse cancer care settings, direct-to-consumer communication, and the need for centralized information technology such as the use of software to match trials to special populations, are presented. It was concluded that new, innovative trial designs and the realities of limited funding would require the adoption of effective and efficient recruiting strategies, specialized training, and stakeholder engagement. US clinical research programs must generate and embrace new ideas and pilot test novel recruitment strategies if they are to maintain their historic role as world leaders in cancer care innovation and delivery.

No abstract