Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

BACKGROUND:Genetic testing uptake is low, despite the well-established connection between pathogenic variants in certain cancer-linked susceptibility genes and ovarian cancer risk. Given that most major insurers cover genetic testing for those with a family history suggestive of hereditary cancer, the issue may lie in access to genetic testing. Remotely accessible web-based communication systems may improve awareness, and uptake, of genetic testing services. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to present the development and formative evaluation of the multistep web-based communication system required to support the implementation of, and access to, genetic testing. METHODS:While designing the multistep web-based communication system, we considered various barriers and facilitators to genetic testing, guided by dimensions of accessibility. In addition to conducting usability testing, we performed ongoing assessments focusing on the function of the web-based system and participant response rates, with the goal of continuing to make modifications to the web-based communication system as it is in use. RESULTS:The combined approach of usability testing and expert user experience consultation resulted in several modifications to the multistep web-based communication system, including changes that related to imagery and content, web accessibility, and general organization of the web-based system. All recommendations were made with the goal of improving the overall accessibility of the web-based communication system. CONCLUSIONS:A multistep web-based communication system appears to be an effective way to address many potential barriers to access, which may otherwise make genetic testing difficult for at-risk individuals to participate in. Importantly, some dimensions of access were easy to assess before study recruitment, but other aspects of the communication system required ongoing assessment during the implementation process of the Making Genetic Testing Accessible study.

BACKGROUND:Strong participant recruitment practices are critical to public health research but are difficult to achieve. Traditional recruitment practices are often time consuming, costly, and fail to adequately target difficult-to-reach populations. Social media platforms such as Facebook are well-positioned to address this area of need, enabling researchers to leverage existing social networks and deliver targeted information. The MAGENTA (Making Genetic Testing Accessible) study aimed to improve the availability of genetic testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in at-risk individuals through the use of a web-based communication system along with social media advertisements to improve reach. OBJECTIVE:This paper is aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Facebook as an outreach tool for targeting women aged ≥30 years for recruitment in the MAGENTA study. METHODS:We designed and implemented paid and unpaid social media posts with ongoing assessment as a primary means of research participant recruitment in collaboration with patient advocates. Facebook analytics were used to assess the effectiveness of paid and unpaid outreach efforts. RESULTS:Over the course of the reported recruitment period, Facebook materials had a reach of 407,769 people and 57,248 (14.04%) instances of engagement, indicating that approximately 14.04% of people who saw information about the study on Facebook engaged with the content. Paid advertisements had a total reach of 373,682. Among those reached, just <15% (54,117/373,682, 14.48%) engaged with the page content. Unpaid posts published on the MAGENTA Facebook page resulted in a total of 34,087 reach and 3131 instances of engagement, indicating that around 9.19% (3131/34,087) of people who saw unpaid posts engaged. Women aged ≥65 years reported the best response rate, with approximately 43.95% (15,124/34,410) of reaches translating to engagement. Among the participants who completed the eligibility questionnaire, 27.44% (3837/13,983) had heard about the study through social media or another webpage. CONCLUSIONS:Facebook is a useful way of enhancing clinical trial recruitment of women aged ≥30 years who have a potentially increased risk for ovarian cancer by promoting news stories over social media, collaborating with patient advocacy groups, and running paid and unpaid campaigns. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02993068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02993068.

BACKGROUND:Despite significant increase in COVID-19 publications, characterization of COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer remains limited. Here we present an update of COVID-19 outcomes among people with gynecologic cancer in New York City (NYC) during the initial surge of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). METHODS:Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 NYC area hospital systems between March and June 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to estimate associations between factors and COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS:Of 193 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, the median age at diagnosis was 65.0 years (interquartile range (IQR), 53.0-73.0 years). One hundred six of the 193 patients (54.9%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 13 (12.3%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, 39 (36.8%) required ICU admission. Half of the cohort (49.2%) had not received anti-cancer treatment prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. No patients requiring mechanical ventilation survived. Thirty-four of 193 (17.6%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. In multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11, 4.07), Black race (OR 2.53, CI 1.24, 5.32), performance status ≥2 (OR 3.67, CI 1.25, 13.55) and ≥ 3 comorbidities (OR 2.00, CI 1.05, 3.84). Only former or current history of smoking (OR 2.75, CI 1.21, 6.22) was associated with death due to COVID-19 in multivariable analysis. Administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization (OR 0.83, CI 0.41, 1.68) or mortality (OR 1.56, CI 0.67, 3.53). CONCLUSIONS:The case fatality rate among patients with gynecologic malignancy with COVID-19 infection was 17.6%. Cancer-directed therapy was not associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The density and distribution of the tumor immune microenvironment associated with brain metastases (BM) from gynecologic malignancies are unknown and have not been previously reported. We sought to describe the clinical features of a cohort of patients with BM from gynecologic malignancies and to characterize the tumor immune microenvironment from available archival surgical specimens. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records from 2002 to 2018 for patients with BM from gynecologic malignancies. Data on patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and clinical outcomes were procured. CD4, CD8, CD45RO, CD68, CD163, and FOXP3 immunohistochemistry were evaluated from available archival surgical specimens from primary disease site and neurosurgical resection. RESULTS:in 100%. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:An active tumor immune microenvironment is present with similar distribution in the primary disease site and BM from patients with gynecologic malignancies.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS:We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS:A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS:Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:external genitalia; and, compare bulboclitoris-sparing IMRT (BCS-IMRT) to standard IMRT (S-IMRT) to determine reoptimization feasibility. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:S-IMRT. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Bulboclitoris structure, function and delineation are described herein. The bulboclitoris occupies 20cc (IQR:12-24), largely distinct from the external genitalia (DSC <0.05). BCS-IMRT was superior to S-IMRT in reducing the dose to the bulboclitoris, with the greatest reductions in V30 and V40, with no significant changes in dose to other OARs or PTV 1/V95. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The bulboclitoris can be contoured on planning imaging, largely distinct from the external genitalia. Compared with S-IMRT, BCS-IMRT dramatically reduced dose to the bulboclitoris in anal cancer planning. BCS-IMRT might safely reduce sexual toxicity compared with standard approaches. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE/UNASSIGNED:The structure and function of the bulboclitoris, the critical primary organ responsible for female sexual arousal and orgasm, has yet to be described in the radiotherapy literature. Structure, function and delineation of the bulboclitoris are detailed, delineation and bulboclitoris-sparing IMRT were feasible, and sparing reduces the dose to the bulboclitoris nearly in half in female patients receiving IMRT for anal cancer, warranting further clinical study.

BACKGROUND:Mounting evidence suggests disproportionate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths because of racial disparities. The association of race in a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection is unknown. METHODS:Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 New York City area hospital systems. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for county clustering was used to analyze COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS:Of 193 patients who had gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, 67 (34.7%) were Black, and 126 (65.3%) were non-Black. Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (71.6% [48 of 67] vs 46.0% [58 of 126]; P = .001). Of 34 (17.6%) patients who died from COVID-19, 14 (41.2%) were Black. Among those who were hospitalized, compared with non-Black patients, Black patients were more likely to: have ≥3 comorbidities (81.1% [30 of 37] vs 59.2% [29 of 49]; P = .05), to reside in Brooklyn (81.0% [17 of 21] vs 44.4% [12 of 27]; P = .02), to live with family (69.4% [25 of 36] vs 41.6% [37 of 89]; P = .009), and to have public insurance (79.6% [39 of 49] vs 53.4% [39 of 73]; P = .006). In multivariable analysis, among patients aged <65 years, Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.82-12.99; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS:Although Black patients represented only one-third of patients with gynecologic cancer, they accounted for disproportionate rates of hospitalization (>45%) and death (>40%) because of COVID-19 infection; younger Black patients had a nearly 5-fold greater risk of hospitalization. Efforts to understand and improve these disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among Black patients are critical.