PURPOSE Tubo-ovarian cancer (TOC) is a sentinel cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs). Identification of a PV in the first member of a family at increased genetic risk (the proband) provides opportunities for cancer prevention in other at-risk family members. Although Australian testing rates are now high, PVs in patients with TOC whose diagnosis predated revised testing guidelines might have been missed. We assessed the feasibility of detecting PVs in this population to enable genetic risk reduction in relatives. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this pilot study, deceased probands were ascertained from research cohort studies, identification by a relative, and gynecologic oncology clinics. DNA was extracted from archival tissue or stored blood for panel sequencing of 10 risk-associated genes. Testing of deceased probands ascertained through clinic records was performed with a consent waiver. RESULTS We identified 85 PVs in 84 of 787 (11%) probands. Familial contacts of 39 of 60 (65%) deceased probands with an identified recipient (60 of 84; 71%) have received a written notification of results, with follow-up verbal contact made in 85% (33 of 39). A minority of families (n = 4) were already aware of the PV. For many (29 of 33; 88%), the genetic result provided new information and referral to a genetic service was accepted in most cases (66%; 19 of 29). Those who declined referral (4 of 29) were all male next of kin whose family member had died more than 10 years before. CONCLUSION We overcame ethical and logistic challenges to demonstrate that retrospective genetic testing to identify PVs in previously untested deceased probands with TOC is feasible. Understanding reasons for a family member's decision to accept or decline a referral will be important for guiding future TRACEBACK projects.

No abstract

Background In the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), exposure to all three active cytotoxic agents, 5‐fluorouracil/capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, improves overall survival. The addition of biologic agents (bevacizumab and cetuximab/panitumumab) further improves survival. The uptake of available systemic agents for mCRC in routine practice in Australia is poorly described. Methods The ACCORD database was interrogated to determine demographics, treatments and outcomes for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2016 at six Melbourne centres. Results About 1130 mCRC patients were identified: median age was 69 years (range 26–105); 61% had synchronous disease. KRAS status was known in 62%, of whom 49% were KRAS wild‐type. At the time of analysis, 67% of all patients had commenced systemic treatment, 50% had received two or more lines of therapy and 19% of KRAS wild‐type patients had received all five active drugs. Of KRAS‐mutated patients, 35% had received all four Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme–reimbursed active drugs. Patients who had not received chemotherapy included 72 patients who underwent metastasectomy alone. At a median follow up of 34 months, median overall survival was 25 months for all patients and 69 months for those who underwent metastasectomy. Conclusion In this community‐based cohort, 33% of patients had not received any systemic therapy for mCRC, and few patients had received all available active systemic agents. As many patients remain alive, these figures will likely increase over time. The overall survival of patients with mCRC in this community‐based cohort was 25 months and not dissimilar to that achieved in recent clinical trials.

No abstract