Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study.

IMPORTANCE: BRCA genetic testing has substantial public health impact, yet little is known of the real-world experiences of the more than 100 000 Americans undergoing testing annually. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with use of BRCA testing, assess whether delivery of genetic counseling and testing services adheres to professional guidelines, and measure the impact on patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study analyzed data from a consecutive national series of 11 159 women whose clinicians ordered BRCA testing between December 2011 and December 2012. Aetna mailed recruitment information across the United States to commercial health plan members whose clinicians had ordered BRCA testing. A total of 3874 women (34.7%) completed questionnaires. Deidentified clinician-reported data from all respondents and a random sample of 2613 nonrespondents were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of eligible participants who met testing criteria and respondents' report of receiving genetic counseling by a genetics clinician and its association with BRCA knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Among 3628 women respondents whose clinicians ordered comprehensive BRCA testing, most were white non-Hispanic (2502 [69.0%]), college educated (2953 [81.4%]), married (2751 [75.8%]), and had higher incomes (2011 [55.4%]). Approximately 16.4% (596) did not meet testing criteria. Mutations were identified in 161 (5.3%) of these women who received comprehensive testing. Only 1334 (36.8%) reported receiving genetic counseling from a genetics clinician prior to testing; the lowest rates (130 [12.3%]) were among patients of obstetrician/gynecologists. The most commonly reported reason for not receiving this clinical service was lack of clinician recommendation. Those who received it demonstrated greater knowledge about BRCA (mean score difference adjusted for demographics and clinician specialty, ß = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.14]; P < .001) and expressed greater understanding (ß = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.41-0.54]; P < .001) and satisfaction (ß = 2.21 [95% CI, 1.60-2.81]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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.

American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) study: a pragmatic research model that incorporates personalized medicine/patient-centered outcomes in a real world setting.

Research to date regarding identification and management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in the U.S. has been confined primarily to academic center-based studies with limited patient engagement. To begin to understand and address the current gaps and disparities in delivery of services for the appropriate identification and optimal risk management of individuals with HBOC, we designed and have initiated the American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study. ABOUT relies on a collaborative patient advocacy, academic and industry partnership to recruit and engage U.S. individuals who are at increased risk for HBOC and investigate their experiences, decisions and outcomes. It utilizes an extensive research infrastructure, including an interactive web-based data system and electronic interfaces for secure online participation and automated data exchange. We describe the novel recruitment approach that was designed for collaboration with a national commercial health plan partner to identify all individuals for whom a healthcare provider orders a BRCA test and mail to each individual an invitation to participate and study packet. The study packet contains detailed information about the study, a baseline questionnaire and informed consent for participation in the study, for release of relevant medical and health plan records and for ongoing research engagement. This approach employs patient-reported, laboratory-reported and health plan-reported outcomes and facilitates longitudinal engagement. We believe that the type of innovative methodology and collaborative framework we have developed for ABOUT is an ideal foundation for a patient-powered research network. This approach can make substantial contributions to identifying current and best practices in HBOC, leading to improved strategies for clinical care and optimal health outcomes among individuals with high inherited risk for cancer.

Measurement of phospholipids may improve diagnostic accuracy in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of women who undergo surgery for suspected ovarian neoplasm do not have cancer. Our previous results suggest phospholipids as potential biomarkers of ovarian cancer. In this study, we measured the serum levels of multiple phospholipids among women undergoing surgery for suspected ovarian cancer to identify biomarkers that better predict whether an ovarian mass is malignant. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We obtained serum samples preoperatively from women with suspected ovarian cancer enrolled through a prospective, population-based rapid ascertainment system. Samples were analyzed from all women in whom a diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) was confirmed and from benign disease cases randomly selected from the remaining (non-EOC) samples. We measured biologically relevant phospholipids using liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. We applied a powerful statistical and machine learning approach, Hybrid huberized support vector machine (HH-SVM) to prioritize phospholipids to enter the biomarker models, and used cross-validation to obtain conservative estimates of classification error rates. RESULTS: The HH-SVM model using the measurements of specific combinations of phospholipids supplements clinical CA125 measurement and improves diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, the measurement of phospholipids improved sensitivity (identification of cases with preoperative CA125 levels below 35) among two types of cases in which CA125 performance is historically poor - early stage cases and those of mucinous histology. Measurement of phospholipids improved the identification of early stage cases from 65% (based on CA125) to 82%, and mucinous cases from 44% to 88%. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Levels of specific serum phospholipids differ between women with ovarian cancer and those with benign conditions. If validated by independent studies in the future, these biomarkers may serve as an adjunct at the time of clinical presentation, to distinguish between women with ovarian cancer and those with benign conditions with shared symptoms and features.