Lessons from the Failure to Complete a Trial of Denosumab in Women With a Pathogenic BRCA1/2 Variant Scheduling Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy.

Female carriers of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1/2 variants are at increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Currently, the only effective strategy for ovarian cancer risk reduction is risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RR-BSO), which carries adverse effects related to early menopause. There is ongoing investigation of inhibition of the RANK ligand (RANKL) with denosumab as a means of chemoprevention for breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 P/LP variants. Through the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) Early Phase Clinical Trials Prevention Consortia, a presurgical pilot study of denosumab was developed in premenopausal carriers of P/LP BRCA1/2 variants scheduled for RR-BSO with the goal of collecting valuable data on the biologic effects of denosumab on gynecologic tissue. The study was terminated early due to the inability to accrue participants. Challenges which impacted the conduct of this study included a study design with highly selective eligibility criteria and requirements and the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical to reflect on these issues to enhance the successful completion of future prevention studies in individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Patients' expectations of preventive measures of medical institutions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany in women with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional, web-based survey.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-approved contingency measures for protection of patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 infection and to use these findings to improve staff's preparedness to cope with the course of this pandemic or similar situations. METHODS DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of women with an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer, regardless of whether they had experienced an active malignant disease during the pandemic. A self-reported questionnaire, developed for this study, was used to assess expectations and opinions about preventive measures within medical institutions. RESULTS: Sixty-four (71.9%) of the 89 potential participants responded to at least one question regarding contingency measures within medical institutions. Approximately 37% of the respondents preferred having information about their facility's hygiene protocols before appointment; 57.8% of the respondents endorsed regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients prior to medical appointments and 95.3% endorsed regular testing of HCWs. Additionally, 84.4% of the respondents supported HCWs' use of surgical masks and 68.8% supported HCWs' use of masks with greater protection. Notably, 75.0% of the respondents advocated for the presence of a significant other during medical consultations; 71.9% approved the use of telemedicine and 93.8% endorsed changes in appointment practices to enable social distancing. No significant associations were found between respondents' sociodemographic, disease-specific or pandemic-specific factors and their opinions on hygiene precautions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk of infection or severe course of COVID-19 approve strict contingency measures designed to lower the transmission of COVID-19 in medical facilities. Moreover, vulnerable groups may profit from contingency plans in healthcare facilities in order to follow preventive measures, avoid diagnostic delay or avoid worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, they also value the presence of a significant other during medical consultations and procedures.