METHODS: Insights were gathered through a questionnaire from breast surgeons, gynecologists, oncologists, and genetic clinicians in 10 Asian countries: Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, and Indonesia. The questionnaire covered their knowledge, attitudes, and practices in GT and C for BRCA1/2 mutations, along with information on perceived gaps and unmet needs in the region.
RESULTS: A total of 61 specialists participated in the survey. GT and C for BRCA1/2 mutations were less frequently offered in Asia compared to Western countries. Among the guidelines used, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines alone or in combination with other guidelines (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE], and European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO]) were preferred for both BC and OC. Limited access to genetic counselors posed a significant challenge, resulting in delayed or no GT. Pretest genetic counseling was provided by the respondents themselves. Germline testing was preferred for BC, whereas both germline and somatic testing were preferred for OC, with the most preferred option being a multipanel germline test.
CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in GT and C practices between Asian and Western countries. To address this, steps, such as patient and doctor education, increased accessibility and affordability of GT and C services, and improved infrastructure for identifying gene mutations, should be taken.
METHOD: Four hundred and twenty-three subjects were recruited from center records using a systematic random sampling technique. Subjects who consented were interviewed by telephone using a specially designed semi-structured questionnaire. Descriptive as well as comparative analyses were carried out. Differences between groups were tested using the Chi-square test when applicable.
RESULTS: The majority of users surveyed (89.6%) had called the center from within Khartoum State and 10.4% of users had called from other states. Of the enquiries, 36.1% were from pharmacists, 29.5% from physicians, and 22.3% from laypersons. The vast majority (93.1%) of respondents were educated to degree level or higher. Approximately one fifth, one half, and one third of the users surveyed had consulted the center >5 times, 2-5 times, and once, respectively. More than 90% of users rated the services provided as good to excellent and 94.7% declared their probable intention to continue utilizing the center in the future.
CONCLUSION: The center succeeded in satisfying and retaining its users by providing an acceptable quality of service.