Population Study of Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction for Targeted Screening and Prevention

Faiza Gaba,Joe Dennis,Dhivya Chandrasekaran,Andrew Lee,Nishant Lahoti,Rosa Legood,Ranjit Manchanda,Shivam Goyal,Yvonne Wallis,Usha Menon,Andrew Wallace,Ian Jacobs,Jo Waller,Xin Yang,Lucy Side,Craig Luccarini,Antonis C Antoniou,Oleg Blyuss,Xinting Liu,Margarida Kurzer,Jatinderpal Kalsi,Anne Lanceley,Aleksandra Gentry‐Maharaj ,Alison M Dunning ,Saskia C Sanderson ,Maghfoor Ahmed

doi:10.3390/cancers12051241

Abstract

Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessment combining genetic/epidemiology/hormonal data has not previously been undertaken. We aimed to perform a feasibility study of OC risk stratification of general population women using a personalised OC risk tool followed by risk management. Volunteers were recruited through London primary care networks. Inclusion criteria: women ≥18 years. Exclusion criteria: prior ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer, previous genetic testing for OC genes. Participants accessed an online/web-based decision aid along with optional telephone helpline use. Consenting individuals completed risk assessment and underwent genetic testing (BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1, OC susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms). A validated OC risk prediction algorithm provided a personalised OC risk estimate using genetic/lifestyle/hormonal OC risk factors. Population genetic testing (PGT)/OC risk stratification uptake/acceptability, satisfaction, decision aid/telephone helpline use, psychological health and quality of life were assessed using validated/customised questionnaires over six months. Linear-mixed models/contrast tests analysed impact on study outcomes. Main outcomes: feasibility/acceptability, uptake, decision aid/telephone helpline use, satisfaction/regret, and impact on psychological health/quality of life. In total, 123 volunteers (mean age = 48.5 (SD = 15.4) years) used the decision aid, 105 (85%) consented. None fulfilled NHS genetic testing clinical criteria. OC risk stratification revealed 1/103 at ≥10% (high), 0/103 at ≥5%–<10% (intermediate), and 100/103 at <5% (low) lifetime OC risk. Decision aid satisfaction was 92.2%. The telephone helpline use rate was 13% and the questionnaire response rate at six months was 75%. Contrast tests indicated that overall depression (p = 0.30), anxiety (p = 0.10), quality-of-life (p = 0.99), and distress (p = 0.25) levels did not jointly change, while OC worry (p = 0.021) and general cancer risk perception (p = 0.015) decreased over six months. In total, 85.5–98.7% were satisfied with their decision. Findings suggest population-based personalised OC risk stratification is feasible and acceptable, has high satisfaction, reduces cancer worry/risk perception, and does not negatively impact psychological health/quality of life.

Highlights

BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants have a 17–44% ovarian cancer (OC) risk until age 80 years [1].Testing for OC susceptibility genes (CSGs)—RAD51C [2], RAD51D [2] and BRIP1 [3]—is part of clinical practice
Data are presented for these eight participants
Joint |OC FH+ reflects whether the mean outcome scale value at each time point (7 days, 3 months, or 6 months) was jointly different from the baseline within the ovarian cancer family history positive group. * Statistical significance (p < 0.05). This is the first unselected population-based, prospective cohort study recruiting participants without cancer history in self/family, evaluating the feasibility of personalised lifetime OC risk stratification followed by offering risk management options

Summary

Introduction

Newer risk prediction models incorporating validated SNPs as a polygenic risk score with epidemiologic/family history(FH)/hormonal data and moderate–high-penetrance CSGs can be used to predict lifetime OC risk, improving the precision of risk estimation and allowing population division into risk strata, enabling targeted downstream risk-stratified prevention/screening for those at increased risk [4,6]. The current practice of identifying high-risk women uses clinical criteria/FH-based testing for CSGs, misses >50% CSG carriers who do not fulfil genetic testing criteria and requires people to get cancer before identifying unaffected family members who can benefit from prevention [7,8,9,10]. Given the effective cancer risk management/prevention options available, the adequacy of current practice, representing massive missed opportunities for risk-stratified prevention, is questionable

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion