Exploring the perspectives of stakeholders for homologous recombination deficient (HRD) biomarker testing to guide precision medicine for advanced ovarian cancer treatment

Exploring inequities in access to life-saving genetic testing for patients with advanced ovarian cancer

A pan-Canadian research team led by Dr. Helen McTaggart-Cowan (BC Cancer) will receive $183,500 from the Marathon of Hope Cancer Centres Network’s Patient Voices in Research Initiative to examine barriers to accessing homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) testing for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Through interviews with patients, families, and healthcare providers, the project will investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and experiences surrounding HRD testing. The findings aim to highlight the need for equitable access to this critical test, which tailors treatment based on a patient’s genetic profile, and to support advocacy for publicly funded testing in Canada. 

By addressing inequities and improving awareness, this initiative strives to enhance treatment outcomes and quality of life for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Read our Q&A with the research team to learn more about the project.

How would you describe your project to a lay audience?

Homologous recombination deficient (HRD) test results can guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Currently, patients pay for this test out-of-pocket to gain information on the effective management of their disease. Through the use of interviews, we will explore the knowledge, attitudes, and experiences of patients and healthcare providers regarding the HRD test. Findings from this work will help improve care for patients with ovarian cancer and influence future healthcare funding policies. 

What do you hope to achieve by the end of the project?

By the end of the project, we aim to understand stakeholders’ perspectives on HRD testing, particularly how patients, families, and healthcare providers view its accessibility and usefulness. Our research findings will add to the evidence that improved access to HRD testing is needed and that increased awareness is essential to equip stakeholders with the necessary information and tools for informed decision-making. Additionally, these findings will support the co-development of a larger research agenda with our team and other stakeholders to advocate for publicly funded HRD testing, ultimately aiming to improve care and outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Why is this project important? How does it advance precision medicine for cancer? What potential impact could it have on patients?

We aim to advance the role of precision medicine for patients living with advanced ovarian cancer by highlighting the need for improved access to HRD testing. The HRD test result helps tailor treatment option based on the patient’s genetic profile. This, in turn, will empower patients to make informed decisions about the targeted treatment management of their cancer (e.g., niraparib); the current use of a clinical biomarker does not align with a patient-centered approach. Findings from this work will contribute to the evidence on whether to support public funding for the HRD test, thereby reducing any equity concerns regarding access and improving treatment outcomes and quality of life.

This funding opportunity was designed and adjudicated by members of the Network’s Patient Working Group, who are all cancer patients and survivors or caregivers and family members. Why do you think it’s important for the Network to fund this type of patient-centric research? Have you ever encountered a funding opportunity like this before?

Special kudos to the Network’s Patient Working Group for designing and adjudicating the funding opportunity. This opportunity endeavours that research, healthcare and policy priorities align with the perspectives and real-world needs of the patients. The input and engagement of patients and caregivers ensure that research is relevant and meaningful to the population of interest.

This is the first time the Principal Investigator (PI) has encountered a funding opportunity solely conceptualized and reviewed by patients. The PI has been involved in other opportunities that have patients involved as members of the review team; however, this step is only one part of the grant application process.