Gynecologic oncology · 2019
Differences in referral patterns based on race for women at high-risk for ovarian cancer in the southeast: Results from a Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Boitano Teresa K L, Barrington David A, Batra Sadhvi, McGwin Gerald, Turner Taylor B, Farmer Meagan B, Brown Aimee M, Straughn Michael J, Leath Charles A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare referral patterns, genetic testing and pathogenic variant rates in Black women (BW) and White women (WW) in a large academic Gynecologic Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic (GCRAC).
METHODS: Cross sectional study of an IRB-approved prospective, cohort study from a GCRAC. Data evaluated included: age, race, referral provider specialty and indication, genetic testing frequency, as well as frequency and types of pathogenic variants.
RESULTS: 588 WW and 57 BW were evaluated from 1/2010-12/2015. Although approximately one-third of BW and WW were referred for family history alone, referral indications varied. BW were more likely referred for a known pathogenic variant (20.0% vs. 6.2%) although less likely referred for a personal history of ovarian cancer (24.0% vs. 46.8%; p = 0.0023). While gynecologic oncologists referred most patients (BW 43.6% vs. WW 63.0%), BW were more likely to be referred by surgical oncologist (23.0% vs. 12.8%) or genetic counselor (12.8% vs. 5.9%) than WW (p = 0.0234). Referral from non-OBGYN primary care providers was <3% in both groups. Genetic testing rates were similar in both races (82.4% vs. 85.5%). Rates of BRCA1 mutations (12.7% vs. 11.5%) were similar; however, BW had more BRCA2 mutations (21.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.0194).
CONCLUSIONS: Since BW are more likely to be referred by surgical oncology or genetics counselor, breast clinics might be an entry point to ensure genetic counseling and testing. Continued efforts to increase awareness regarding the importance of patient referral at the primary care level may help identify the subset of women not currently undergoing counseling and testing.
METHODS: Cross sectional study of an IRB-approved prospective, cohort study from a GCRAC. Data evaluated included: age, race, referral provider specialty and indication, genetic testing frequency, as well as frequency and types of pathogenic variants.
RESULTS: 588 WW and 57 BW were evaluated from 1/2010-12/2015. Although approximately one-third of BW and WW were referred for family history alone, referral indications varied. BW were more likely referred for a known pathogenic variant (20.0% vs. 6.2%) although less likely referred for a personal history of ovarian cancer (24.0% vs. 46.8%; p = 0.0023). While gynecologic oncologists referred most patients (BW 43.6% vs. WW 63.0%), BW were more likely to be referred by surgical oncologist (23.0% vs. 12.8%) or genetic counselor (12.8% vs. 5.9%) than WW (p = 0.0234). Referral from non-OBGYN primary care providers was <3% in both groups. Genetic testing rates were similar in both races (82.4% vs. 85.5%). Rates of BRCA1 mutations (12.7% vs. 11.5%) were similar; however, BW had more BRCA2 mutations (21.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.0194).
CONCLUSIONS: Since BW are more likely to be referred by surgical oncology or genetics counselor, breast clinics might be an entry point to ensure genetic counseling and testing. Continued efforts to increase awareness regarding the importance of patient referral at the primary care level may help identify the subset of women not currently undergoing counseling and testing.