Dataset Information

Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery.

Patients and methods

Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC.

Results

TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient.

Conclusion

Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3927731 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe ongoing integration of cancer genomic testing into routine clinical care has led to increased demand for cancer genetic services. To meet this demand, there is an urgent need to enhance the accessibility and reach of such services, while ensuring comparable care delivery outcomes. This randomized trial compared 1-year outcomes for telephone genetic counseling with in-person counseling among women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer living in geographically diverse areas.Patients and methodsUsing population-based sampling, women at increased risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to in-person (n = 495) or telephone genetic counseling (n = 493). One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year psychosocial, decision-making, and quality-of-life outcomes. Differences in test-uptake proportions for determining equivalency of a 10% prespecified margin were evaluated by 95% CIs.ResultsAt the 1-year follow-up, telephone counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety (difference [d], 0.08; upper bound 97.5% CI, 0.45), cancer-specific distress (d, 0.66; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.28), perceived personal control (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.03). Test uptake was lower for telephone counseling (27.9%) than in-person counseling (37.3%), with the difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 16.8%). Uptake was appreciably higher for rural compared with urban dwellers in both counseling arms.ConclusionAlthough telephone counseling led to lower testing uptake, our findings suggest that telephone counseling can be effectively used to increase reach and access without long-term adverse psychosocial consequences. Further work is needed to determine long-term adherence to risk management guidelines and effective strategies to boost utilization of primary and secondary preventive strategies.

Project description:Background:Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods:Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results:A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions:Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling. METHODS:3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3 months post-result disclosure. DISCUSSION:This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

Project description:ImportanceTo promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.InterventionsRealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months.ResultsFrom December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.