Article Text
Abstract
The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists established a multidisciplinary consensus group comprising experts in surgical gynecological oncology, medical oncology, genetics, and laboratory science, and clinical nurse specialists to identify the optimal pathways to BRCA germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer in routine clinical practice. In particular, the group explored models of consent, quality standards identified at pathology laboratories, and experience and data from pioneering cancer centers. The group liaised with representatives from ovarian cancer charities to also identify patient perspectives that would be important to implementation. Recommendations from these consensus group deliberations are presented in this manuscript.
- BRCA1 protein
- BRCA2 protein
- fallopian tube neoplasms
- ovarian neoplasms
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @sundar_sudha, @ProfManchanda
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.
Contributors The BGCS BAGP BRCA Consensus group drafted this guidance. SS and RG conceived the idea. All authors on the consensus group wrote the manuscript and reviewed the manuscript before submission. SS is guarantor.
Funding We thank Astra Zeneca for funding workshop expenses.
Disclaimer Funder had no role in consensus deliberations or writing the document.
Competing interests SS has received honoraria from Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. CF has received honoraria from Ethicon, Tesaro, MSD/Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Roche, GSK. RM reports grants from Barts Charity, grants from The Eve Appeal, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB reports personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Clovis, from Tesaro, outside the submitted work. RE reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Clovis Pharma, personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.