The withdrawal from oncogenetic counselling and testing for hereditary and familial breast and ovarian cancer. A descriptive study of an Italian sample

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oncogenetic counselling is seldom followed through, even when individuals are eligible according to the test criteria. The basic variables which influence the decision to undergo the genetic counselling process are: risk perception, expected benefit or limitations of genetic testing, general psychological distress or cancer-specific distress, lack of trust in one's emotional reactions when faced with negative events, expected level of family support and communications within the family. The aim of this study was to describe the psychosocial variables of an Italian sample that forgoes genetic counselling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From May 2002 to December 2006 a psychological questionnaire was sent out to one hundred and six subjects, who freely requested a first genetic informative consultation, and never asked to have a second visit and the family tree drawn up in order to inquire about their eligibility for genetic testing. Statistical analysis was performed by Pearson chi-square test, t-test and Spearman RHO coefficient.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey presents a lack of emotional cohesion and structured roles and rules within the family system and a positive correlation between the number of children, anxiety and risk perception. The main reasons for giving up on counselling were a sense that testing was a waste of time and the inability to emotionally handle the negative consequences of the test outcome. The subjects who maintained that test and an early diagnosis were a "waste of time" experienced more anxiety.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study revealed the importance to ac knowledging the whole persona and their family system as well as provide information highlighting usefulness of early diagnosis.</p

Molecular analysis of Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy

n/

Is the endometrial evaluation routinely required in patients with adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary?

Granulosa cell tumors (GCTs) are the most common estrogen-secreting ovarian tumors; perhaps due to the persistent hyperestrogenism, a wide spectrum of associated endometrial pathologies ranging from endometrial hyperplasia to carcinoma has been documented in patients with GCTs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of endometrial pathologies in a large series of GCT patients treated in MITO centers

Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide (MOC) in the salvage therapy of heavily treated recurrent ovarian cancer patients: a retrospective, multicenter study

The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide (MOC) in heavily treated, relapsed ovarian cancer (ROC) patients

Management of Metastatic Endometrial Cancer: Physicians' Choices Beyond the First Line. A MITO Survey

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) therapeutic and diagnostic approaches have been changed by the development of a new prognostic molecular classification, the introduction of dostarlimab in microsatellite instability (MSI) high pre-treated advanced EC patients with further expected innovation deriving from lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab regardless MSI status. How this is and will be translated and embedded in the clinical setting in Italy is not known; this is why we developed Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynaecologic malignancies (MITO) survey on the current practice and expected future changes in EC. METHODS: We designed a self-administered, multiple-choice online questionnaire available only for MITO members for one month, starting in April 2021. RESULTS: 75.6% of the respondents were oncologists with a specific focus on gynaecologic malignancies and 73.3% of the respondents declared the availability of clinical trials in second line treatment for advanced EC. The therapeutic algorithm in second line was heterogeneous, being the most frequent choice administering anthracyclines followed by endocrine therapy or enrolling in clinical trials. While more than half of the clinicians declared that they performed the molecular classification, only six/45 respondents (13.3%) ran all the tests needed for it. On the other hand, 80% of them declared regular assessment of MSI status with IHC as recommended. The therapeutic approach in MSI high advanced EC patients has changed since dostarlimab approval. Indeed the most frequent choice in second line has been chemotherapy (53.3%) before its availability, while dostarlimab has been preferred in more than three-fourths of the cases (75.6%) after its approval. As for MSS patients, 77.8% of clinicians would choose lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for them in second line once approved. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the selected sample of respondents from Italian MITO centres showing good knowledge of diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in EC, these are not fully implemented in everyday clinics, except for MSI status assessment

Safety of a 3-weekly schedule of carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as first line chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer: preliminary results of the MITO-2 randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The MITO-2 (Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer) study is a randomized phase III trial comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel to carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in first-line chemotherapy of patients with ovarian cancer. Due to the paucity of published phase I data on the 3-weekly experimental schedule used, an early safety analysis was planned. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (stage Ic-IV), aged < 75 years, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, were randomized to carboplatin AUC 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks. Treatment was planned for 6 cycles. Toxicity was coded according to the NCI-CTC version 2.0. RESULTS: The pre-planned safety analysis was performed in July 2004. Data from the first 50 patients treated with carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin were evaluated. Median age was 60 years (range 34–75). Forty-three patients (86%) completed 6 cycles. Two thirds of the patients had at least one cycle delayed due to toxicity, but 63% of the cycles were administered on time. In most cases the reason for chemotherapy delay was neutropenia or other hematological toxicity. No delay due to palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was recorded. No toxic death was recorded. Reported hematological toxicities were: grade (G) 3 anemia 16%, G3/G4 neutropenia 36% and 10% respectively, G3/4 thrombocytopenia 22% and 4% respectively. Non-haematological toxicity was infrequent: pulmonary G1 6%, heart rhythm G1 4%, liver toxicity G1 6%, G2 4% and G3 2%. Complete hair loss was reported in 6% of patients, and G1 neuropathy in 2%. PPE was recorded in 14% of the cases (G1 10%, G2 2%, G3 2%). CONCLUSION: This safety analysis shows that the adopted schedule of carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin given every 3 weeks is feasible as first line treatment in ovarian cancer patients, although 37% of the cycles were delayed due to haematological toxicity. Toxicities that are common with standard combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (neurotoxicity and hair loss) are infrequent with this experimental schedule, and skin toxicity appears manageable

The withdrawal from oncogenetic counselling and testing for hereditary and familial breast and ovarian cancer. A descriptive study of an Italian sample

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oncogenetic counselling is seldom followed through, even when individuals are eligible according to the test criteria. The basic variables which influence the decision to undergo the genetic counselling process are: risk perception, expected benefit or limitations of genetic testing, general psychological distress or cancer-specific distress, lack of trust in one's emotional reactions when faced with negative events, expected level of family support and communications within the family. The aim of this study was to describe the psychosocial variables of an Italian sample that forgoes genetic counselling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From May 2002 to December 2006 a psychological questionnaire was sent out to one hundred and six subjects, who freely requested a first genetic informative consultation, and never asked to have a second visit and the family tree drawn up in order to inquire about their eligibility for genetic testing. Statistical analysis was performed by Pearson chi-square test, t-test and Spearman RHO coefficient.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey presents a lack of emotional cohesion and structured roles and rules within the family system and a positive correlation between the number of children, anxiety and risk perception. The main reasons for giving up on counselling were a sense that testing was a waste of time and the inability to emotionally handle the negative consequences of the test outcome. The subjects who maintained that test and an early diagnosis were a "waste of time" experienced more anxiety.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study revealed the importance to ac knowledging the whole persona and their family system as well as provide information highlighting usefulness of early diagnosis.</p

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

Subjective versus objective risk in genetic counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers

Background. Despite the fact that genetic counseling in oncology provides information regarding objective risks, it can be found a contrast between the subjective and objective risk. The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of the perceived risk compared to the objective risk estimated by the BRCApro computer model and to evaluate any associations between medical, demographic and psychological variables and the accuracy of risk perception. Methods. 130 subjects were given medical-demographic file, Cancer and Genetic Risk Perception, Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale. It was also computed an objective evaluation of the risk by the BRCApro model. Results. The subjective risk was significantly higher than objective risk. The risk of tumour was overestimated by 56%, and the genetic risk by 67%. The subjects with less cancer affected relatives significantly overestimated their risk of being mutation carriers and made a more innacurate estimation than high risk subjects. Conclusion. The description of this sample shows: general overestimation of the risk, inaccurate perception compared to BRCApro calculation and a more accurate estimation in those subjects with more cancer affected relatives (high risk subjects). No correlation was found between the levels of perception of risk and anxiety and depression. Based on our findings, it is worth pursuing improved communication strategies about the actual cancer and genetic risk, especially for subjects at "intermediate and slightly increased risk" of developing an hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or of being mutation carrier