Dataset Information

Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for BRCA testing among high risk breast Cancer patients: a retrospective chart review study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Testing for BRCA variants can impact treatment decisions for breast cancer patients and affect surveillance and prevention strategies for both patients and their relatives. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend testing for patients at heightened risk of BRCA pathogenic variant. We examined the BRCA testing rate among high risk breast cancer patients treated in community oncology practices.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective medical chart review among community-based US oncologists using a physician panel approach. High risk breast cancer patients with a known family history of cancer and diagnosis with breast cancer at age???18?years between January 2013-October 2017 were included. We assessed the proportions of patients tested for BRCA variants in accordance with NCCN guidelines.

Results

Charts from 63 physicians, averaging 16?years of practice, were included; 97% were medical oncologists and 66.7% had a genetic counselor in their practice. We analyzed data for 410 randomly-selected patients with mean age of 52?years; 95% were female, 74% were White, and 19% had Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Among all patients, 94% were tested for BRCA variants. The testing rate ranged from 78 to 100% in various high risk groups; lower rates were observed among Black patients (91%), men (92%), and patients meeting NCCN criteria based on family history of male breast cancer (78%) and prostate cancer (87%). We observed a higher testing rate in patients treated by physicians with a genetic counselor in their practice (95% versus 91%).

Conclusions

Adherence to NCCN BRCA testing guidelines is high in this group of predominantly medical oncologists with extensive experience, with a high proportion having a genetic counselor in practice. Testing rates can be improved in patients with risk factors related to male relatives. High level of compliance to guidelines in a community setting is possible with a delivery model for genetic counseling and testing.

SUBMITTER: Bobbili P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7275608 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for <i>BRCA</i> testing among high risk breast Cancer patients: a retrospective chart review study.

Bobbili Priyanka P Olufade Temitope T DerSarkissian Maral M Shenolikar Rahul R Yu Hong H Duh Mei Sheng MS Tung Nadine N

Hereditary cancer in clinical practice 20200606

<h4>Background</h4>Testing for <i>BRCA</i> variants can impact treatment decisions for breast cancer patients and affect surveillance and prevention strategies for both patients and their relatives. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend testing for patients at heightened risk of <i>BRCA</i> pathogenic variant. We examined the <i>BRCA</i> testing rate among high risk breast cancer patients treated in community oncology practices.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospec ...[more]

PMID: 32518611

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association of sociodemographic and hospital characteristics with adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer and to analyze the relationship between adherent care and survival. METHODS:This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with stage IB-IIA invasive cervical cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2009. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care was defined by year- and stage-appropriate surgical procedures, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier estimate, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline adherence and cervical cancer-specific 5-year survival. RESULTS:A total of 6,063 patients were identified. Forty-seven percent received National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-adherent care, and 18.8% were treated in high-volume centers (20 or more patients/year). On multivariate analysis, lowest socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84), low-middle socioeconomic status (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.92), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) were patient characteristics associated with receipt of nonguideline care. Receiving adherent care was less common in low-volume centers (45.9%) than in high-volume centers (50.9%) (effect size 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96). Death from cervical cancer was more common in the nonadherent group (13.3%) than in the adherent group (8.6%) (effect size 1.55, 95% CI 1.34-1.80). Black race (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.27), Medicaid payer status (adjusted hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87), and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score 1 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.68-2.56) were all associated with increased risk of dying from cervical cancer. CONCLUSION:Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-nonadherent care was independently associated with increased cervical cancer-specific mortality along with black race and Medicaid payer status. Nonadherence was more prevalent in patients with older age, lower socioeconomic status, and receipt of care in low-volume centers. Attention should be paid to increase guideline adherence.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend testing for EGFR, BRAF, ERBB2, and MET mutations; ALK, ROS1, and RET rearrangements; and MET amplification. We investigated the feasibility and utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) test, in clinical practice.MethodsCGP was performed to a mean coverage depth of 576× on 6,832 consecutive cases of NSCLC (2012-2015). Genomic alterations (GAs) (point mutations, small indels, copy number changes, and rearrangements) involving EGFR, ALK, BRAF, ERBB2, MET, ROS1, RET, and KRAS were recorded. We also evaluated lung adenocarcinoma (AD) cases without GAs, involving these eight genes.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 64 years (range: 13-88 years) and 53% were female. Among the patients studied, 4,876 (71%) harbored at least one GA involving EGFR (20%), ALK (4.1%), BRAF (5.7%), ERBB2 (6.0%), MET (5.6%), ROS1 (1.5%), RET (2.4%), or KRAS (32%). In the remaining cohort of lung AD without these known drivers, 273 cancer-related genes were altered in at least 0.1% of cases, including STK11 (21%), NF1 (13%), MYC (9.8%), RICTOR (6.4%), PIK3CA (5.4%), CDK4 (4.3%), CCND1 (4.0%), BRCA2 (2.5%), NRAS (2.3%), BRCA1 (1.7%), MAP2K1 (1.2%), HRAS (0.7%), NTRK1 (0.7%), and NTRK3 (0.2%).ConclusionCGP is practical and facilitates implementation of the NCCN guidelines for NSCLC by enabling simultaneous detection of GAs involving all seven driver oncogenes and KRAS. Furthermore, without additional tissue use or cost, CGP identifies patients with "pan-negative" lung AD who may benefit from enrollment in mechanism-driven clinical trials.Implications for practiceNational Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend testing for several genomic alterations (GAs). The feasibility and utility of comprehensive genomic profiling were studied in NSCLC and in lung adenocarcinoma (AD) without GAs. Of patients with NSCLC, 71% harbored at least one GA to a gene listed in the guidelines or KRAS; 273 cancer-related genes were altered in at least 0.1% of the AD cases. Although logistical and administrative hurdles limit the widespread use of next-generation sequencing, the data confirm the feasibility and potential utility of comprehensive genomic profiling in clinical practice.

Project description:PurposeThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines influence medical practice, payor coverage, and standards of care. The levels of evidence underlying radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN have not been systematically explored. Herein, we aim to systematically investigate the NCCN recommendations pertaining to the categories of consensus and evidence (CE) for radiation therapy.Methods and materialsWe evaluated the distribution of CE underlying current treatment recommendations for the 20 most prevalent cancers in the United States with at least 10 radiation therapy recommendations in the NCCN clinical guidelines. For context, the distribution of evidence in the radiation therapy guidelines was compared with that of systemic therapy using a χ2 test. The proportion of category I CE between radiation and systemic therapy was compared using a 2-proportion, 2-tailed z-test in total and for each disease site. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.ResultsAmong all radiation therapy recommendations, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III CE were 9.7%, 80.6%, 8.4%, and 1.3%, respectively. When analyzed by disease site, cervix and breast cancer had the highest portion of category I CE (33% and 31%, respectively). There was no radiation therapy category I CE for hepatobiliary, bone, pancreatic, melanoma, and uterine cancers. There was a significant difference in the distribution of CE between the systemic therapy recommendations and the radiation therapy recommendations (χ2 statistic 64.16, P < .001). Overall, there was a significantly higher proportion of category I CE in the systemic therapy recommendations compared with the radiation therapy recommendations (12.3% vs 9.7%, P = .043).ConclusionsOnly 9.7% of radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN guidelines are category I CE. The highest levels of evidence for radiation therapy are in breast and cervical cancers. Despite major advances in the field, these data underline that the majority of NCCN radiation therapy recommendations are based on uniform expert opinion and not on higher level evidence.

Project description:PURPOSE:Engaging in positive health behaviors post-treatment is important for cancer survivors' health. However, little is known about whether survivors are practicing health promoting behaviors. We aimed to explore whether survivors are meeting the recent health behavior guidelines set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and to examine associations between health behaviors and distress. METHODS:Sixty-six survivors completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing health behaviors prior to an initial appointment at a survivorship care clinic. Information about sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables and six health behavior recommendations, including physical activity, sunscreen use, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, weight management, and annual primary care provider visits, was collected. FINDINGS:Only 7.6% of survivors met all six NCCN health behavior guidelines. One in ten (10.6%) survivors had smoked a cigarette in the previous 30 days, and half did not use sunscreen regularly (50%), had an unhealthy body mass index (53%), and did not engage in >10 MET-h/week of physical activity (50%). Approximately 1 in 6 (15.1%) survivors reported drinking beyond the recommended limit, and a similar proportion had not seen a PCP in the previous year (27.3%). Clinically significant levels of distress (>5; range 0-10) on the NCCN distress scale were reported by 64.6% of survivors. Participants with clinical levels of distress were less likely to adhere to health behavior guidelines than those who were not distressed (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, survivors engaged at a survivorship clinic did not meet the NCCN recommended health behavior guidelines. Implications for Psychosocial Providers or Policy: Survivors' health behaviors and distress should be assessed and intervened upon during survivorship care. Survivorship clinics may provide a unique forum in which to provide ongoing behavioral health counseling and psychosocial support for these patients.

Project description:Identification of BRCA mutations in breast cancer (BC) patients influences treatment and survival and may be of importance for their relatives. Testing is often restricted to women fulfilling high-risk criteria. However, there is limited knowledge of the sensitivity of such a strategy, and of the clinical aspects of BC caused by BRCA mutations in less selected BC cohorts. The aim of this report was to address these issues by evaluating the results of BRCA testing of BC patients in South-Eastern Norway.1371 newly diagnosed BC patients were tested with sequencing and Multi Ligation Probe Amplification (MLPA). Prevalence of mutations was calculated, and BC characteristics among carriers and non-carriers compared. Sensitivity and specificity of common guidelines for BRCA testing to identify carriers was analyzed. Number of identified female mutation positive relatives was evaluated.A pathogenic BRCA mutation was identified in 3.1%. Carriers differed from non-carriers in terms of age at diagnosis, family history, grade, ER/PR-status, triple negativity (TNBC) and Ki67, but not in HER2 and TNM status. One mutation positive female relative was identified per mutation positive BC patient. Using age of onset below 40 or TNBC as criteria for testing identified 32-34% of carriers. Common guidelines for testing identified 45-90%, and testing all below 60 years identified 90%. Thirty-seven percent of carriers had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive BRCA testing. A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) was identified in 4.9%.Mutation positive BC patients differed as a group from mutation negative. However, the commonly used guidelines for testing were insufficient to detect all mutation carriers in the BC cohort. Thirty-seven percent had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive testing before they were diagnosed with BC. Based on our combined observations, we suggest it is time to discuss whether all BC patients should be offered BRCA testing, both to optimize treatment and improve survival for these women, but also to enable identification of healthy mutation carriers within their families. Health services need to be aware of referral possibility for healthy women with cancer in their family.

Project description:Importance:Reproducible research practices are essential to biomedical research because these practices promote trustworthy evidence. In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reproducible research practices ensure that summary effects used to guide patient care are stable and trustworthy. Objective:To evaluate the reproducibility in theory of meta-analyses in oncology systematic reviews cited by the 49 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the treatment of cancer by site and evaluate whether Cochrane reviews or systematic reviews that report adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines use more reproducible research practices. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional investigation of all systematic reviews with at least 1 meta-analysis and at least 1 included randomized clinical trial (RCT) that are cited by NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site. We scanned the reference list of all NCCN guidelines (n?=?49) for potential systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All retrieved studies were screened, and data were extracted, independently and in duplicate. The analysis was carried out between May 6, 2018, and January 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The frequency of reproducible research practices, defined as (1) effect estimate and measure of precision (eg, hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval); (2) clear list of studies included for each analysis; and (3) for subgroup and sensitivity analyses, it must be clear which studies were included in each group or level. Results:We identified 1124 potential systematic reviews, and 154 meta-analyses comprising 3696 meta-analytic effect size estimates were included. Only 2375 of the 3696 meta-analytic estimates (64.3%), including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were reproducible in theory. Forest plots appear to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. All meta-analytic estimates were reproducible in theory in 100 systematic reviews (64.9%), and in 15 systematic reviews (9.7%), no meta-analytic estimates could potentially be reproduced. Data were said to be imputed in 29 meta-analyses, but none specified which data. Only 1 meta-analysis included a link to an online data set. Conclusions and Relevance:More reproducible research practices are needed in oncology meta-analyses, as suggested by those that are cited by the NCCN. Reporting meta-analyses in forest plots and requirements for full data sharing are recommended.