BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

Real-world use of blinatumomab in adult patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in clinical practice : results from the NEUF study

Altres ajuts: Amgen (Europe) GmbHThis retrospective observational study (NEUF) included adult patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-cell ALL) who had received blinatumomab for the treatment of minimal residual disease-positive (MRD+) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell ALL via an expanded access program (EAP). Patients were eligible if blinatumomab was initiated via the EAP between January 2014 and June 2017. Patients were followed from blinatumomab initiation until death, entry into a clinical trial, the end of follow-up, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2017), whichever occurred first. Of the 249 adult patients included, 109 were MRD+ (83 Philadelphia chromosome-negative [Ph−] and 26 Philadelphia chromosome-positive [Ph+]) and 140 had a diagnosis of R/R B-cell ALL (106 Ph− and 34 Ph+). In the MRD+ group, within the first cycle of blinatumomab treatment, 93% (n = 49/53) of Ph− and 64% (n = 7/11) of Ph+ patients with evaluable MRD achieved an MRD response (MRD <0.01%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached over a median follow-up time of 18.5 months (Ph−, 18.8 [range: 5.1-34.8] months; Ph+, 16.5 [range: 1.8-31.6] months). In the R/R group, within two cycles of blinatumomab, 51% of Ph− and 41% of Ph+ patients achieved complete hematologic remission (CR/CRh/CRi), and 83% of Ph− and 67% of Ph+ MRD-evaluable patients in CR/CRh/CRi achieved an MRD response. Median (95% confidence interval) OS was 12.2 (7.3-24.2) months in the R/R Ph− subgroup and 16.3 (5.3-not estimated) months in the R/R Ph+ subgroup. This large, real-world data set of adults with B-cell ALL treated with blinatumomab confirms efficacy outcomes from published studies

Routine clinical care for chronic immune thrombocytopenia purpura in Denmark, 2009?2015

Objectives: To describe routine treatment and clinical characteristics of patients with chronic ITP (cITP). Methods: We used data from Danish nationwide registers and medical records to examine routine clinical care, including splenectomy and medical treatment, of Danish patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (cITP, defined as two or more ITP diagnoses at least 6 months apart), i.e. treatment initiation before cITP diagnosis and treatment initiation within one year post-diagnosis for treatment-naïve patients. Results: Nearly half of all 964 cITP patients diagnosed during 2009–2015 initiated treatment between initial ITP diagnosis and chronic onset; 43% received glucocorticoids, 12% received IVIG and 18% received rituximab. Within one year post-diagnosis, 9.2% of previously untreated patients commenced therapy, most often corticosteroids and rituximab. Discussion: Our results are in line with findings of recent studies from other countries. Conclusion: We found that corticosteroids, IVIG, and rituximab are common first- choice of ITP drugs. Bleeding events occurred in nearly one third of treated patients in the year before cITP diagnosis and in 5% of the treatment-naïve patients. A substantial number of patients do not need treatment during the first 6–12 months. However, some of these patients will subsequently need treatment as the disease may worsen, indicating the need for continuous follow-up of these patients