CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 381BRCA gene mutations in cancerOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentPARP inhibition in cancer therapy

Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline

Open access
Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A., Norquist, Barbara, Lacchetti, Christina, Armstrong, Deborah, Grisham, Rachel N., Goodfellow, Paul J., Kohn, Elise C., Levine, Douglas A. +4 more·2020·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.19.02960PMC PMC8842911
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on genetic and tumor testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer based on available evidence and expert consensus. METHODS: A literature search and prospectively defined study selection criteria sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and comparative observational studies published from 2007 through 2019. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 19 eligible studies. The evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, and RCTs. RECOMMENDATIONS: All women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer should have germline genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. In women who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants should be performed. Women with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes should be offered treatments that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the upfront and the recurrent setting. Women diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer should be offered somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Women with identified dMMR should be offered FDA-approved treatment based on these results. Genetic evaluations should be conducted in conjunction with health care providers familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer. First- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer with a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant should be offered individualized genetic risk evaluation, counseling, and genetic testing. Clinical decision making should not be made based on a variant of uncertain significance. Women with epithelial ovarian cancer should have testing at the time of diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.19.02960

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 107 · Cited by 381

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. [2]Walsh T, Casadei S, Lee MK,: Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 18032– 18037, 2011 22006311 PMC3207658
  2. [3]Catenacci DV, Amico AL, Nielsen SM,: Tumor genome analysis includes germline genome: Are we ready for surprises? Int J Cancer 136: 1559– 1567, 2015 25123297 PMC4303936
  3. [4]Raymond VM, Gray SW, Roychowdhury S,: Germline findings in tumor-only sequencing: Points to consider for clinicians and laboratories. J Natl Cancer Inst 108: djv351, 2015 26590952 PMC4849259
  4. [5]Kurian AW, Ward KC, Howlader N,: Genetic testing and results in a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients and ovarian cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 37: 1305– 1315, 2019 30964716 PMC6524988
  5. [6]Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA,: Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10, 2007 17302989 PMC1810543
  6. [7]Shiffman RN, Michel G, Rosenfeld RM,: Building better guidelines with BRIDGE-Wiz: Development and evaluation of a software assistant to promote clarity, transparency, and implementability. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19: 94– 101, 2012 21846779 PMC3240753
  7. [8]Cai J, Xu L, Tang H,: The role of the PTEN/PI3K/Akt pathway on prognosis in epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis. Oncologist 19: 528– 535, 2014 24718516 PMC4012960
  8. [9]Helder-Woolderink JM, Blok EA, Vasen HF,: Ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 55: 65– 73, 2016 26773421
  9. [10]Huang YW: Association of BRCA1/2 mutations with ovarian cancer prognosis: An updated meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 97: e9380, 2018 29480828 PMC5943891
  10. [11]Sun C, Li N, Ding D,: The role of BRCA status on the prognosis of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9: e95285, 2014 24788697 PMC4006804
  11. [12]Xu K, Yang S, Zhao Y: Prognostic significance of BRCA mutations in ovarian cancer: An updated systematic review with meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8: 285– 302, 2017 27690218 PMC5352118
  12. [13]Zhong Q, Peng HL, Zhao X,: Effects of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related mutations on ovarian and breast cancer survival: A meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res 21: 211– 220, 2015 25348513 PMC4286460
  13. [14]Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D,: Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390: 1949– 1961, 2017 28916367 PMC5901715
  14. [15]Domchek SM, Aghajanian C, Shapira-Frommer R,: Efficacy and safety of olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with advanced ovarian cancer and three or more lines of prior therapy. Gynecol Oncol 140: 199– 203, 2016 26723501 PMC4992984
  15. [16]Dougherty BA, Lai Z, Hodgson DR,: Biological and clinical evidence for somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 as predictive markers for olaparib response in high-grade serous ovarian cancers in the maintenance setting. Oncotarget 8: 43653– 43661, 2017 28525389 PMC5546431
  16. [17]Kristeleit R, Shapiro GI, Burris HA,: A phase I-II study of the oral PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian carcinoma or other solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 23: 4095– 4106, 2017 28264872
  17. [18]Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C,: Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 366: 1382– 1392, 2012 22452356
  18. [19]Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C,: Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: A preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15: 852– 861, 2014 24882434
  19. [20]Ledermann JA, Harter P, Gourley C,: Overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy: An updated analysis from a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17: 1579– 1589, 2016 27617661
  20. [21]Matulonis UA, Harter P, Gourley C,: Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: Overall survival adjusted for postprogression poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy. Cancer 122: 1844– 1852, 2016 27062051
  21. [22]Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J,: Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 375: 2154– 2164, 2016 27717299
  22. [23]Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G,: Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 379: 2495– 2505, 2018 30345884
  23. [24]Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F,: Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18: 1274– 1284, 2017 28754483
  24. [25]Swisher EM, Lin KK, Oza AM,: Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): An international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 18: 75– 87, 2017 27908594
  25. [26]Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C,: BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: A report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 30: 2654– 2663, 2012 22711857 PMC3413277
  26. [27]Bolton KL, Chenevix-Trench G, Goh C,: Association between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and survival in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. JAMA 307: 382– 390, 2012 22274685 PMC3727895
  27. [28]Coleman RL, Fleming GF, Brady MF,: Veliparib with first-line chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 381: 2403– 2415 PMC6941439 31562800
  28. [30]González-Martín A, Pothuri B, Vergote I,: Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 381: 2391– 2402 31562799
  29. [31]National Collaborating Centre for Cancer: Familial Breast Cancer: Classification and Care of People at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer and Management of Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer. Cardiff, United Kingdom, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2013 25340237
  30. [32]Capoluongo E, Ellison G, López-Guerrero JA,: Guidance statement on BRCA1/2 tumor testing in ovarian cancer patients. Semin Oncol 44: 187– 197, 2017 29248130
  31. [33]Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A,: A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med 17: 70– 87, 2015 25394175
  32. [34]Lancaster JM, Powell CB, Chen LM,: Society of Gynecologic Oncology statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 136: 3– 7, 2015 25238946
  33. [35]Losa F, Iglesias L, Pané M,: 2018 consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of unknown primary. Clin Transl Oncol 20: 1361– 1372, 2018 29808414 PMC6182632
  34. [38]Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Sessa C,: Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol 27: v103– v110, 2016 (suppl 5) 27664246
  35. [39]Randall LM, Pothuri B, Swisher EM,: Multi-disciplinary summit on genetics services for women with gynecologic cancers: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology White Paper. Gynecol Oncol 146: 217– 224, 2017 28596016
  36. [42]US Preventive Services Task Force: Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 322: 652– 665, 2019 31429903
  37. [43]Moyer VA US Preventive Services Task Force: Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160: 271– 281, 2014 24366376
  38. [45]Athens BA, Caldwell SL, Umstead KL,: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess outcomes of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 26: 902– 933, 2017 28255928 PMC7350655
  39. [46]Stratton JF, Pharoah P, Smith SK,: A systematic review and meta-analysis of family history and risk of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105: 493– 499, 1998 9637117
  40. [47]Kerber RA, Slattery ML: Comparison of self-reported and database-linked family history of cancer data in a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 244– 248, 1997 9247008
  41. [48]Davidson BA, Ehrisman J, Reed SD,: Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 6: 1, 2019 30693090 PMC6341581
  42. [49]Norquist B, Wurz KA, Pennil CC,: Secondary somatic mutations restoring BRCA1/2 predict chemotherapy resistance in hereditary ovarian carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 29: 3008– 3015, 2011 21709188 PMC3157963
  43. [50]Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI,: Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 20: 764– 775, 2014 24240112 PMC3944197
  44. [51]Zhang S, Royer R, Li S,: Frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among 1,342 unselected patients with invasive ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 121: 353– 357, 2011 21324516
  45. [52]Norquist BM, Harrell MI, Brady MF,: Inherited mutations in women with ovarian carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2: 482– 490, 2016 26720728 PMC4845939
  46. [53]Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E,: Germline mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN genes in women with ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107: djv214, 2015 26315354 PMC4643629
  47. [54]Song H, Dicks E, Ramus SJ,: Contribution of germline mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D genes to ovarian cancer in the population. J Clin Oncol 33: 2901– 2907, 2015 26261251 PMC4554751
  48. [55]Loveday C, Turnbull C, Ruark E,: Germline RAD51C mutations confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 44: 475– 476, 2012 22538716
  49. [56]Loveday C, Turnbull C, Ramsay E,: Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 43: 879– 882, 2011 21822267 PMC4845885
  50. [57]Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C,: Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 42: 410– 414, 2010 20400964
  51. [58]Pelttari LM, Heikkinen T, Thompson D,: RAD51C is a susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer. Hum Mol Genet 20: 3278– 3288, 2011 21616938
  52. [59]Rafnar T, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P,: Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 43: 1104– 1107, 2011 21964575
  53. [60]Antoniou AC, Casadei S, Heikkinen T,: Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med 371: 497– 506, 2014 25099575 PMC4157599
  54. [61]Kanchi KL, Johnson KJ, Lu C,: Integrated analysis of germline and somatic variants in ovarian cancer. Nat Commun 5: 3156, 2014 24448499 PMC4025965
  55. [62]Lilyquist J, LaDuca H, Polley E,: Frequency of mutations in a large series of clinically ascertained ovarian cancer cases tested on multi-gene panels compared to reference controls. Gynecol Oncol 147: 375– 380, 2017 28888541 PMC5801741
  56. [63]Baglietto L, Lindor NM, Dowty JG,: Risks of Lynch syndrome cancers for MSH6 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 102: 193– 201, 2010 20028993 PMC2815724
  57. [64]Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S,: Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 305: 2304– 2310, 2011 21642682
  58. [65]Watson P, Vasen HFA, Mecklin JP,: The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer 123: 444– 449, 2008 18398828 PMC2627772
  59. [66]Ten Broeke SW, van der Klift HM, Tops CMJ,: Cancer Risks for PMS2-associated Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 36: 2961– 2968, 2018 30161022 PMC6349460
  60. [67]Lynce F, Isaacs C: How far do we go with genetic evaluation? Gene, panel, and tumor testing. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 35: e72– e78, 2016 27249773 PMC6054472
  61. [68]Kessous R, Octeau D, Klein K,: Distinct homologous recombination gene expression profiles after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with clinical outcome in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 148: 553– 558, 2018 29395310
  62. [69]Norquist BM, Brady MF, Harrell MI,: Mutations in homologous recombination genes and outcomes in ovarian carcinoma patients in GOG 218: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Clin Cancer Res 24: 777– 783, 2018 29191972 PMC5815909
  63. [70]Morice P, Gouy S, Leary A: Mucinous ovarian carcinoma. N Engl J Med 380: 1256– 1266, 2019 30917260
  64. [71]Jensen KC, Mariappan MR, Putcha GV,: Microsatellite instability and mismatch repair protein defects in ovarian epithelial neoplasms in patients 50 years of age and younger. Am J Surg Pathol 32: 1029– 1037, 2008 18469706
  65. [72]Murphy MA, Wentzensen N: Frequency of mismatch repair deficiency in ovarian cancer: A systematic review—This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America. Int J Cancer 129: 1914– 1922, 2011 21140452 PMC3107885
  66. [73]Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Kumar A,: Systematic review and meta-analysis of ovarian cancers: Estimation of microsatellite-high frequency and characterization of mismatch repair deficient tumor histology. Clin Cancer Res 14: 6847– 6854, 2008 18980979 PMC2655731
  67. [74]Howitt BE, Strickland KC, Sholl LM,: Clear cell ovarian cancers with microsatellite instability: A unique subset of ovarian cancers with increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-1/PD-L1 expression. Oncoimmunology 6: e1277308, 2017 28344892 PMC5353914
  68. [75]Giri VN, Hyatt C, Gomella LG: Germline testing for men with prostate cancer: Navigating an expanding new world of genetic evaluation for precision therapy and precision management. J Clin Oncol 37: 1455– 1459, 2019 30978156
  69. [76]Lindor RA, Marchant GE: A review of medical malpractice claims related to clinical genetic testing. J Clin Oncol 29, 2011 (suppl 15; abstr 6073)
  70. [77]Zakas AL, Leifeste C, Dudley B,: The impact of genetic counseling on patient engagement in a specialty cancer clinic. J Genet Couns 28: 974– 981, 2019 31293033
  71. [78]Yuen J, Lee SY, Courtney E,: Evaluating empowerment in genetic counseling using patient-reported outcomes. Clin Genet 97: 246– 256 31571202
  72. [79]Kashaf MS, McGill E: Does shared decision making in cancer treatment improve quality of life? A systematic literature review. Med Decis Making 35: 1037– 1048, 2015 26246515
  73. [80]Hauser K, Koerfer A, Kuhr K,: Outcome-relevant effects of shared decision making. Dtsch Arztebl Int 112: 665– 671, 2015 26517594 PMC4640070
  74. [81]Gan C, Love C, Beshay V,: Applicability of next generation sequencing technology in microsatellite instability testing. Genes (Basel) 6: 46– 59, 2015 25685876 PMC4377833
  75. [82]Niu B, Ye K, Zhang Q,: MSIsensor: Microsatellite instability detection using paired tumor-normal sequence data. Bioinformatics 30: 1015– 1016, 2014 24371154 PMC3967115
  76. [83]Salipante SJ, Scroggins SM, Hampel HL,: Microsatellite instability detection by next generation sequencing. Clin Chem 60: 1192– 1199, 2014 24987110
  77. [84]Huang MN, McPherson JR, Cutcutache I,: MSIseq: Software for assessing microsatellite instability from catalogs of somatic mutations. Sci Rep 5: 13321, 2015 26306458 PMC4549793
  78. [85]Nowak JA, Yurgelun MB, Bruce JL,: Detection of mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability in colorectal adenocarcinoma by targeted next-generation sequencing. J Mol Diagn 19: 84– 91, 2017 27863258 PMC5225299
  79. [86]Stadler ZK, Battaglin F, Middha S,: Reliable detection of mismatch repair deficiency in colorectal cancers using mutational load in next-generation sequencing panels. J Clin Oncol 34: 2141– 2147, 2016 27022117 PMC4962706
  80. [87]Zhang L: Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: Part II. The utility of microsatellite instability testing. J Mol Diagn 10: 301– 307, 2008 PMC2438197 18556776
  81. [88]McConechy MK, Talhouk A, Li-Chang HH,: Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 137: 306– 310, 2015 25636458
  82. [89]Wang Y, Shi C, Eisenberg R,: Differences in microsatellite instability profiles between endometrioid and colorectal cancers: A potential cause for false-negative results? J Mol Diagn 19: 57– 64, 2017 27810331 PMC5225298
  83. [90]Rodrigues DN, Rescigno P, Liu D,: Immunogenomic analyses associate immunological alterations with mismatch repair defects in prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 128: 5185, 2018 PMC6205373 30382943
  84. [91]Konstantinopoulos PA, Luo W, Liu JF: Phase II study of avelumab in patients with mismatch repair deficient and mismatch repair proficient recurrent/persistent endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 37: 2786– 2794, 2019 31461377 PMC9798913
  85. [92]Shia J: Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: Part I. The utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn 10: 293– 300, 2008 PMC2438196 18556767
  86. [93]Grisham R, Monk B, Banerjee S,: 1 MILO/ENGOT-OV11: Phase-3 study of binimetinib versus physician’s choice chemotherapy (PCC) in recurrent or persistent low-grade serous carcinomas of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum, 2019 International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 29(Suppl3): A1.1– A1 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-IGCS.1 Conference: IGCS Annual 2019 Meeting · DOI
  87. [94]Weren RD, Mensenkamp AR, Simons M,: Novel BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumor test as basis for treatment decisions and referral for genetic counselling of patients with ovarian carcinomas. Hum Mutat 38: 226– 235, 2017 27767231 PMC5248611
  88. [95]Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474: 609– 615, 2011 21720365 PMC3163504
  89. [98]Kondrashova O, Nguyen M, Shield-Artin K,: Secondary somatic mutations restoring RAD51C and RAD51D associated with acquired resistance to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Discov 7: 984– 998, 2017 28588062 PMC5612362
  90. [99]Lin KK, Harrell MI, Oza AM,: BRCA reversion mutations in circulating tumor DNA predict primary and acquired resistance to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in high-grade ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Discov 9: 210– 219, 2019 30425037
  91. [105]Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS,: Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol 34: 2925– 2934, 2016 27247218
  92. [106]Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS,: American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 33: 2563– 2577, 2015 26101248 PMC5015427
  93. [107]Streeter SB, Schwartzberg L, Husain N,: Patient and plan characteristics affecting abandonment of oral oncolytic prescriptions. J Oncol Pract 7: 46s– 51s, 2011 (suppl 3) 21886519 PMC3092458
  94. [108]Dusetzina SB, Winn AN, Abel GA,: Cost sharing and adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 32: 306– 311, 2014 24366936
  95. [110]Moya-Alarcón C, González-Domínguez A, Simon S,: Cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol 21: 1076– 1084, 2019 30617925
  96. [111]Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ,: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: The cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 27: 3868– 3874, 2009 19581533
  97. [112]Miller CE, Krautscheid P, Baldwin EE,: Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet A 164A: 1094– 1101, 2014 24665052
  98. [113]Haidle JL, Sternen DL, Dickerson JA,: Genetic counselors save costs across the genetic testing spectrum. Am J Manag Care 23: SP428– SP430, 2017 29087642
  99. [114]Hodgson DR, Dougherty BA, Lai Z,: Candidate biomarkers of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in ovarian cancer beyond the BRCA genes. Br J Cancer 119: 1401– 1409, 2018 30353044 PMC6265286

Authors
Konstantinopoulos, P. A., Norquist, B., Lacchetti, C., Armstrong, D., Grisham, R. N., Goodfellow, P. J., Kohn, E. C., Levine, D. A., Liu, J. F., Lu, K. H., Sparacio, D., & Annunziata, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Patient Representative, Hightstown, NJ
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2020-04-10
Volume
38
Issue
11
Pages
1222-1245
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.19.02960
PMC
PMC8842911
OpenAlex
W3001210504
Cited by
381
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 28 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (ZIABC011584)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › PARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Keywords
epithelial ovarian cancer, germline genetic testing, BRCA1, BRCA2, hereditary cancer predisposition, mismatch repair deficiency, ovarian clear cell carcinoma, endometrioid ovarian cancer, mucinous ovarian carcinoma, variants of uncertain significance, genetic counseling, targeted therapy
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial, Female, Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Humans, Ovarian Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Germ-Line Mutation, Genes, BRCA1, Genes, BRCA2, Health Status Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review