Gynecologic oncology · 2020
Embedding a genetic counselor into oncology clinics improves testing rates and timeliness for women with ovarian cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rana Huma Q, Kipnis Lindsay, Hehir Kristin, Cronin Angel, Jaung Tim, Stokes Samantha M, Fekrmandi Fatemeh, Vatnick Donna, Matulonis Ursula A, Garber Judy E, Wright Alexi A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Germline genetic testing is crucial to the care of ovarian cancer patients, and as part of the guideline-based care for ovarian cancer patient's adherence to this recommendation has been low. We sought to determine whether embedding a genetic counselor (GC) within a medical and gynecologic oncology clinic would increase testing rates and improve the timeliness of testing.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 358 ovarian cancer patients seen by medical and gynecologic oncologists between 2013 and 2015. Rates of referrals, completion of counseling, and genetic testing and timeliness of counseling were abstracted before and after a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014. An additional year of data (2015) was collected to evaluate sustainability of the intervention.
RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 88-92% of women were referred for genetic testing, but in 2013 only 66% completed counseling and 61% were tested. After a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014, more than 80% of referred women completed counseling and germline genetic testing. Time to genetic counseling also decreased from a median of 107 to 40 days, irrespective of age and cancer family history (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Embedding a GC into the workflow for ovarian cancer patients is an effective way of improving access to genetic counseling, testing rates, and the timeliness of testing.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 358 ovarian cancer patients seen by medical and gynecologic oncologists between 2013 and 2015. Rates of referrals, completion of counseling, and genetic testing and timeliness of counseling were abstracted before and after a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014. An additional year of data (2015) was collected to evaluate sustainability of the intervention.
RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 88-92% of women were referred for genetic testing, but in 2013 only 66% completed counseling and 61% were tested. After a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014, more than 80% of referred women completed counseling and germline genetic testing. Time to genetic counseling also decreased from a median of 107 to 40 days, irrespective of age and cancer family history (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Embedding a GC into the workflow for ovarian cancer patients is an effective way of improving access to genetic counseling, testing rates, and the timeliness of testing.