High Financial Hardship among Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Ovarian cancer is considered the most fatal and costly gynecologic cancer. Although personalized therapies have improved ovarian cancer prognosis, they have resulted in increased financial toxicity concerns among this population. This study evaluated financial toxicity in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Using secondary data from a study of barriers to palliative care, financial toxicity (FT) was measured through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scale. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to assess the relationship between selected demographic (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, education, place of birth, insurance type, yearly household income, employment status) and treatment-specific variables (i.e., years since diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy) with clinically relevant financial toxicity. Characteristics were compared using Fisher's exact or chi squared tests. A total of 38 participants with advanced ovarian cancer were included in this study; 24% (n = 9) reported clinically significant FT. Income (p = .001), place of birth (p = .048) and employment status (p = .001) were related to FT. Study findings highlight that advanced ovarian cancer patients experience high FT, particularly those with low income, who are not able to work and were born outside the US. Further research using larger datasets and more representative samples is needed to inform intervention development and implementation.

Changes in Cancer Screening Knowledge Among a Prospective Cohort of Spanish-Speaking Hispanic Community Outreach Event Participants in Florida and Puerto Rico.

The current study examined cancer prevention and early detection awareness (pre-workshop) and changes in knowledge (from pre- to post-workshop) among Hispanic/Latino (H/L) community members who participated in Spanish-language educational outreach events in Puerto Rico (PR) and Florida (FL). Spanish-language educational outreach events were comprised of an educational session lasting approximately 45-60 min and were delivered to groups in rural and urban community settings by a single trained community health educator (CHE). The research team assessed sociodemographic characteristics, personal and familial cancer health history, as well as awareness and knowledge (pre-test) of a range of cancer prevention and screening topics. Following the presentation, participants completed a post-test knowledge survey which also measured likelihood of engaging in cancer screening, cancer preventive behaviors, and cancer research as a result of information presented during the session. Change in the average knowledge score was evaluated using a paired samples t-test. Post-session likelihood of completing cancer screening and preventive behaviors and engaging in cancer research were examined using descriptive statistics and group/site comparisons. The percentage reporting awareness of screening procedures ranged from 33% (PSA test) to 79% (mammogram). H/L in PR reported higher percentage of stool blood test awareness when compared to H/L in FL (χ2(1)= 19.20, p<.001). The average knowledge score increased from 5.97 at pre-test to 7.09 at post-test (Cohen's d=0.69). The increase was significant across all participants (t(315)= 12.4, p<.001), as well as within the FL site (t(124)= 6.66, p<.001, d=0.59) and the PR site (t(190)=10.66, p<.001, d=0.77). Results from this study suggest that educational outreach events delivered to H/L community members by a CHE are valuable strategies to address challenges regarding cancer screening knowledge and engagement in multiple behaviors.

Examining the association of clinician characteristics with perceived changes in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods assessment.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed method study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings and colposcopies. Methods: In 2021, a national sample of 1251 clinicians completed surveys, including 675 clinicians who performed colposcopy; a subset (n=55) of clinicians completed qualitative interviews. Results: Nearly half of all clinicians reported they were currently performing fewer cervical cancer screenings (47%) and colposcopies (44% of those who perform the procedure) than before the pandemic. About one-fifth (18.6%) of colposcopists reported performing fewer LEEPs than prior to the pandemic. Binomial regression analyses indicated that older, as well as internal medicine and family medicine clinicians (compared to OB-GYNs), and those practicing in community health centers (compared to private practice) had higher odds of reporting reduced screening. Among colposcopists, internal medicine physicians and those practicing in community health centers had higher odds of reporting reduced colposcopies. Qualitative interviews highlighted pandemic-related care disruptions and lack of tracking systems to identify overdue screenings. Conclusions: Reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy among nearly half of clinicians more than 1 year into the pandemic raise concerns that inadequate screening and follow-up will lead to future increases in preventable cancers. Funding: This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study's design, conduct, or reporting.

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed methods study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Methods: Between October 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a national web survey of clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) who performed cervical cancer screening in FQHCs in the United States during the post-acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a sub-set of qualitative interviews via video conference, to examine perceived changes in cervical cancer screening practices during the pandemic. Results: A total of 148 clinicians completed surveys; a subset (n=13) completed qualitative interviews. Most (86%) reported reduced cervical cancer screening early in the pandemic, and 28% reported continued reduction in services at the time of survey completion (October 2021- July 2022). Nearly half (45%) reported staff shortages impacting their ability to screen or track patients. Compared to clinicians in Obstetrics/Gynecology/Women's health, those in family medicine and other specialties more often reported reduced screening compared to pre-pandemic. Most (92%) felt that screening using HPV self-sampling would be very or somewhat helpful to address screening backlogs. Qualitative interviews highlighted the impacts of staff shortages and strategies for improvement. Conclusions: Findings highlight that in late 2021 and early 2022, many clinicians in FQHCs reported reduced cervical cancer screening and of pandemic-related staffing shortages impacting screening and follow-up. If not addressed, reduced screenings among underserved populations could worsen cervical cancer disparities in the future. Funding: This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study's design, conduct, or reporting.

Self-reported barriers to screening breast MRI among women at high risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual screening breast MRI is recommended for women at high (≥ 20% lifetime) breast cancer risk, but is underutilized. Guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM), we assessed factors associated with screening breast MRI among high-risk women. METHODS: From August 2020-January 2021, we recruited an online convenience sample of high-risk women ages 25-85 (N = 232). High-risk was defined as: pathogenic genetic mutation in self or first-degree relative; history of lobular carcinoma in situ; history of thoracic radiation; or estimated lifetime risk ≥ 20%. Participants self-reported predisposing factors (breast cancer knowledge, health locus of control), enabling factors (health insurance type, social support), need factors (perceived risk, screening-supportive social norms, provider recommendation), and prior receipt of screening breast MRI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection identified HSUM factors associated with receipt of screening breast MRI. RESULTS: About half (51%) of participants had received a provider recommendation for screening breast MRI; only 32% had ever received a breast MRI. Breast cancer knowledge (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.04-1.27) and screening-supportive social norms (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.97) were positively related to breast MRI receipt. No other HSUM variables were associated with breast MRI receipt (all p's > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk women reported low uptake of screening breast MRI, indicating a gap in guideline-concordant care. Breast cancer knowledge and screening-supportive social norms are two key areas to target in future interventions. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and generalizability of results is unclear. Future studies with larger, more heterogeneous samples are needed to replicate these findings.

"It doesn't really apply to what I'm going through": a mixed-methods study of barriers to palliative care among patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Palliative care aims to provide symptom relief and general support for patients with serious illness. Despite experiencing significant treatment side effects, specialty palliative care is under-utilized by patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We explored barriers to palliative care in this population. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Qualitative: we interviewed patients with advanced ovarian cancer (N = 7). Guided by the Social Ecological Model (SEM), interviews assessed intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, and policy-level barriers to receipt of specialty palliative care. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Quantitative: patients with advanced ovarian cancer (N = 38) completed self-report surveys assessing knowledge about, attitudes towards, and prior experiences with specialty palliative care. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey responses. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified barriers to specialty palliative care at each SEM level. Intrapersonal factors (e.g., knowledge, attitudes) were most frequently discussed. Other common barriers included insurance coverage and distance/travel time. Survey responses indicated most participants were aware of palliative care (74%) but had mixed attitudes towards palliative care and did not feel they needed for palliative care. No survey respondents had received a physician recommendation for palliative care, and a sizable minority (29%) thought palliative care referral should only take place when patients have no remaining treatment options. CONCLUSION: Among patients with advanced ovarian cancer, barriers to specialty palliative care exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention to support receipt of palliative care in this population.

A cross-sectional survey examining clinician characteristics, practices, and attitudes associated with adoption of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) risk-based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. These guidelines benefit patients by concentrating testing and treatment in those at highest cervical cancer risk. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, with few studies examining the factors associated with guideline-adherent management of abnormal results. METHODS: To elucidate the factors associated with the use of the 2019 ASCCP guidelines among clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening, physicians and advanced practice professionals who perform cervical cancer screening were cross-sectionally surveyed. Clinicians responded to screening vignettes with differing recommendations for management between the 2019 and prior management guidelines. Screening vignette 1 involved reduction of invasive testing on a low-risk patient; screening vignette 2 involved increased surveillance testing on a high-risk patient. Binomial logistic regression models determined the factors associated with the use of the 2019 guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1251 clinicians participated from across the United States. For screening vignettes 1 and 2, guideline-adherent responses were given by 28% and 36% of participants, respectively. Management recommendations differed by specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by obstetrics and gynecology physicians (vignette 1) and inappropriate discontinuation of screening by family and internal medicine physicians (vignette 2). Regardless of their chosen response, over half erroneously believed they were guideline adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinicians who believe they are following appropriate guidelines may not realize their management strategy is inconsistent with the 2019 guidelines. Education initiatives tailored to clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening test management. We surveyed over 1200 obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their screening and abnormal results follow-up practices in relation to guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2019 guidelines. Management recommendations differed by clinician specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by OB/GYN physicians and inappropriate screening discontinuation by family and internal medicine physicians. Education tailored by clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.

HPV vaccine recommendations by age: A survey of providers in federally qualified health centers.

Clinician recommendation remains a critical factor in improving HPV vaccine uptake. Clinicians practicing in federally qualified health centers were surveyed between October 2021 and July 2022. Clinicians were asked how they recommended HPV vaccination for patients aged 9-10, 11-12, 13-18, 19-26, and 27-45 y (strongly recommend, offer but do not recommend strongly, discuss only if the patient initiates the conversation, or recommend against). Descriptive statistics were assessed, and exact binomial logistic regression analyses were utilized to examine factors associated with HPV vaccination recommendation in 9-10-y-old patients. Respondents (n = 148) were primarily female (85%), between the ages of 30-39 (38%), white, non-Hispanic (62%), advanced practice providers (55%), family medicine specialty (70%), and practicing in the Northeast (63%). Strong recommendations for HPV vaccination varied by age: 65% strongly recommended for ages 9-10, 94% for ages 11-12, 96% for ages 13-18, 82% for age 19-26, and 26% for ages 27-45 y. Compared to Women's Health/OBGYN specialty, family medicine clinicians were less likely to recommend HPV vaccination at ages 9-10 (p = .03). Approximately two-thirds of clinicians practicing in federally qualified health centers or safety net settings strongly recommend HPV vaccine series initiation at ages 9-10. Additional research is needed to improve recommendations in younger age groups.

Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial service recommendation and receipt among young Black breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Black cancer survivors are less likely to receive desired psychological services than non-Hispanic White survivors. Black cancer survivors with low socioeconomic status may face additional barriers to receipt of psychological services. This study examined socioeconomic disparities in psychological service recommendation, attempts to access, and receipt among Black breast cancer (BC) survivors. METHODS: Black BC survivors (n = 249) completed surveys at baseline (T1) and follow-up (T2; M 1.6 years post-T1). At T1, participants reported socioeconomic characteristics (employment, income, insurance, and education) and psychological symptoms (hospital anxiety and depression scale [HADS]). Self-reported address was used to identify area deprivation index (ADI), a composite measure of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (least disadvantaged = 1; most disadvantaged = 10). At T2, participants reported provider recommendations for, attempts to access, and receipt of psychological services. Logistic regressions examined relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and psychological service variables, controlling for baseline psychological symptoms. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, being employed was associated with a lower likelihood of attempts to access (OR = 0.25) and receipt of (OR = 0.37) psychological services, above and beyond the effect of psychological symptoms. Univariate analyses demonstrated that participants from more disadvantaged areas (i.e., higher ADI) were more likely to receive psychological services (OR = 1.20), but this effect became non-significant in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the importance of an intersectional perspective in considering mental health care disparities; both race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status should be incorporated when considering barriers and facilitators of psychological care.

Barriers and facilitators to taking CDK4/6 inhibitors among patients with metastatic breast cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Most studies of adherence to treatment for breast cancer have focused on early-stage patients. Findings from these studies may not generalize to patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of adherence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors among patients with MBC, guided by the social ecologic model (SEM). METHODS: Patients with MBC (N = 25), their caregivers (N = 9), and oncology providers (N = 13) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three raters using a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators of adherence at each SEM level. Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors were most frequently discussed. Intrapersonal factors included knowledge/beliefs about CDK4/6 inhibitors, side effects, and establishing a routine. Interpersonal factors included effective communication with/coordination by the care team, support from family and friends, and information from other patients with MBC. Although less frequently discussed, policy factors (i.e., cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors) were of great concern to patients, caregivers, and providers. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention (e.g., patient education, evidence-based strategies for symptom management, tips for open and assertive communication with providers, information about financial resources/support available, and so on) to support adherence in this population.

Health Literacy in Surgical Oncology Patients: An Observational Study at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy is associated with increased resource use and poorer outcomes in medical and surgical patients with various diseases. This observational study was designed to determine (1) the prevalence of low health literacy among surgical patients with cancer at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC), and (2) associations between health literacy and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients receiving surgery (N=218) for gastrointestinal (60%) or genitourinary cancers (22%) or sarcomas (18%) were recruited during their postsurgical hospitalization. Patients self-reported health literacy using the Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool (BRIEF). Clinical data (length of stay [LoS], postacute care needs, and unplanned presentation for care within 30 days) were abstracted from the electronic medical records 90 days after surgery. Multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between health literacy and clinical outcomes, adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Of 218 participants, 31 (14%) showed low health literacy (BRIEF score ≤12). In regression analyses including 212 patients with complete data, low health literacy significantly predicted LoS (ß = -1.82; 95% CI, -3.00 to -0.66; P=.002) and postacute care needs (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.91). However, health literacy was not significantly associated with unplanned presentation for care in the 30 days after surgery (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the prevalence of low health literacy in a surgical cancer population at a high-volume NCI-designated CCC and its association with important clinical outcomes, including hospital LoS and postacute care needs. Universal screening and patient navigation may be 2 approaches to mitigate the impact of low health literacy on postsurgical outcomes.

Using the health belief model to assess racial/ethnic disparities in cancer-related behaviors in an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center catchment area.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic minorities experience well-documented disparities across the cancer trajectory. However, factors underlying these disparities may vary regionally. The Health Belief Model (HBM) was developed to explain and predict health-related prevention and early detection behaviors, particularly uptake of health services. Our goal was to use the HBM to guide an exploration of factors that contribute to racial/ethnic health disparities in the catchment area of a large National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Southeastern United States. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected by the cancer center for its triennial Community Health Needs Assessment, which sampled adults from the center's 15-county catchment area. White non-Hispanics (WNHs; n = 887), Black non-Hispanics (BNHs; n = 78), Hispanics/Latinxs (H/Ls; n = 185), and those identifying as another race/ethnicity ("Others"; n = 39) were compared across key HBM variables, including demographic/psychosocial information, perceived benefits and barriers to preventive health behaviors, risk perception, and health behavior outcomes. RESULTS: Controlling for annual household income, relationship status, and age (for certain screening behaviors), significant differences were seen in information-seeking behaviors, risk perception, community attributes, discrimination, and distress. Non-WNH groups reported worse community attributes, higher everyday discrimination, lower health literacy, less confidence in their ability to get health information, and lower perceived risk of cancer. CONCLUSION: This analysis presents a better understanding of how HBM factors may influence health disparities in the cancer center's catchment area. Results describe the needs of community members from racial and ethnic minority groups, which will inform future research, education, outreach, and service activities.

Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

OBJECTIVE. Supplemental screening breast MRI is recommended for women with an estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20-25%. The performance of risk prediction models varies for each individual and across groups of women. The present study investigates the concordance of three breast cancer risk prediction models among women presenting for screening mammography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In this prospective study, we calculated the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer using the modified Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick version 7, and BRCAPRO models for each woman who presented for screening mammography. Per American Cancer Society guidelines, for each woman the risk was categorized as less than 20% or 20% or greater as well as less than 25% or 25% or greater with use of each model. Venn diagrams were constructed to evaluate concordance across models. The McNemar test was used to test differences in risk group allocations between models, with p ≤ .05 considered to denote statistical significance. RESULTS. Of 3503 screening mammography patients who underwent risk stratification, 3219 (91.9%) were eligible for risk estimation using all three models. Using at least one model, 440 (13.7%) women had a lifetime risk of 20% or greater, including 390 women (12.1%) according to the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model, 18 (0.6%) according to the BRCAPRO model, and 141 (4.4%) according to the modified Gail model. Six women (0.2%) had a risk of 20% or greater according to all three models. Women were significantly more likely to be classified as having a high lifetime breast cancer risk by the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model compared with the modified Gail model, with thresholds of 20% or greater (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 4.7-8.7) or 25% or greater (odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.7-11.9) used for both models. CONCLUSION. To identify women with a high lifetime breast cancer risk, practices should use estimates of lifetime breast cancer risk derived from multiple risk prediction models.

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model. METHODS: Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members. CONCLUSION: Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests.

OBJECTIVE: The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines present a paradigm shift from results- to risk-based management. Patient and provider factors can affect guideline adoption. We sought feedback from stakeholders to inform guideline development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To solicit provider feedback, we surveyed attendees at the 2019 ASCCP annual meeting regarding readiness to adopt proposed changes and used a web-based public comment period to gauge agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines. We elicited patient feedback via a brief survey on preferences around proposed recommendations for treatment without biopsy. Surveys and public comment included both closed-ended and free-text items. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative results were analyzed using content analysis. Results were incorporated into guideline development in real time. RESULTS: Surveys indicated that 98% of providers currently evaluate their patients' past results to determine management; 88% felt formally incorporating history into management would represent an improvement in care. Most providers supported expedited treatment without biopsy: 22% currently perform expedited treatment and 60% were willing to do so. Among patients, 41% preferred expedited treatment, 32% preferred biopsy before treatment, and the remainder were undecided. Responses from the public comment period included agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines, reasons for disagreement, and suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the development of the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Proposed recommendations with less than two-thirds agreement in the public comment period were considered for revision. Findings underscore the importance of stakeholder feedback in developing guidelines that meet the needs of patients and providers.

Patterns and predictors of genetic referral among ovarian cancer patients at a National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Germline mutations (eg, BRCA1/2) have prognostic and treatment implications for ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients. Thus, national guidelines recommend genetic testing for OVCA patients. The present study examines patterns and predictors of genetics referral in OVCA patients. Electronic medical record data were abstracted retrospectively from 557 OVCA patients treated from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2015. Logistic regression models identified sociodemographic characteristics, disease/treatment characteristics, family history data, provider characteristics, and survival data that predicted genetics referral. Overall, 27.5% of patients received referral. Eleven variables predicting referral were selected during stepwise regression: younger age, White race, not having private insurance, professional school education, year of OVCA diagnosis, platinum sensitivity, female gynecologic oncologist, chemotherapy administered by a gynecologic oncologist, clinical trial enrollment, longer overall survival, and family history of OVCA. Genetics referral among OVCA patients was similar to rates reported nationwide. Unique predictive factors will contribute to quality improvement and should be validated at a multi-institutional level to ensure guideline concordant care is provided to all OVCA patients. Future research should identify both patient-level and provider-level factors associated with genetics referral.