Dataset Information

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Bradbury AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6136932 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Bradbury Angela R AR Patrick-Miller Linda J LJ Egleston Brian L BL Hall Michael J MJ Domchek Susan M SM Daly Mary B MB Ganschow Pamela P Grana Generosa G Olopade Olufunmilayo I OI Fetzer Dominique D Brandt Amanda A Chambers Rachelle R Clark Dana F DF Forman Andrea A Gaber Rikki R Gulden Cassandra C Horte Janice J Long Jessica M JM Lucas Terra T Madaan Shreshtha S Mattie Kristin K McKenna Danielle D Montgomery Susan S Nielsen Sarah S Powers Jacquelyn J Rainey Kim K Rybak Christina C Savage Michelle M Seelaus Christina C Stoll Jessica J Stopfer Jill E JE Yao Xinxin Shirley XS

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20180901 9

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 counsel ...[more]

PMID: 29490071

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:Importance:A critical bottleneck in clinical genomics is the mismatch between large volumes of results and the availability of knowledgeable professionals to return them. Objective:To test whether a web-based platform is noninferior to a genetic counselor for educating patients about their carrier results from exome sequencing. Design, Setting, and Participants:A randomized noninferiority trial conducted in a longitudinal sequencing cohort at the National Institutes of Health from February 5, 2014, to December 16, 2016, was used to compare the web-based platform with a genetic counselor. Among the 571 eligible participants, 1 to 7 heterozygous variants were identified in genes that cause a phenotype that is recessively inherited. Surveys were administered after cohort enrollment, immediately following trial education, and 1 month and 6 months later to primarily healthy postreproductive participants who expressed interest in learning their carrier results. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied. Interventions:A web-based platform that integrated education on carrier results with personal test results was designed to directly parallel disclosure education by a genetic counselor. The sessions took a mean (SD) time of 21 (10.6), and 27 (9.3) minutes, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes and noninferiority margins (?NI) were knowledge (0 to 8, ?NI?=?-1), test-specific distress (0 to 30, ?NI?=?+1), and decisional conflict (15 to 75, ?NI?=?+6). Results:After 462 participants (80.9%) provided consent and were randomized, all but 3 participants (n?=?459) completed surveys following education and counseling; 398 (86.1%) completed 1-month surveys and 392 (84.8%) completed 6-month surveys. Participants were predominantly well-educated, non-Hispanic white, married parents; mean (SD) age was 63 (63.1) years and 246 (53.6%) were men. The web platform was noninferior to the genetic counselor on outcomes assessed at 1 and 6 months: knowledge (mean group difference, -0.18; lower limit of 97.5% CI, -0.63; ?NI?=?-1), test-specific distress (median group difference, 0; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 0; ?NI?=?+1), and decisional conflict about choosing to learn results (mean group difference, 1.18; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 2.66; ?NI?=?+6). There were no significant differences between the genetic counselors and web-based platform detected between modes of education delivery in disclosure rates to spouses (151 vs 159; relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.64-1.69; P?>?.99), children (103 vs 117; RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.36; P?=?.59), or siblings (91 vs 78; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.46; P?=?.18). Conclusions and Relevance:This trial demonstrates noninferiority of web-based return of carrier results among postreproductive, mostly healthy adults. Replication studies among younger and more diverse populations are needed to establish generalizability. Yet return of results via a web-based platform may be sufficient for subsets of test results, reserving genetic counselors for return of results with a greater health threat. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00410241.

Project description:BackgroundBright IDEAS (BI) problem-solving skills training is an evidence-based intervention designed to help parents manage the demands of caring for a child with cancer. However, the resource intensiveness of this in-person intervention has limited its widespread delivery. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial with a noninferiority design to evaluate whether a web-based version of BI requiring fewer resources is noninferior to in-person administration.Methods621 caregivers of children with newly diagnosed cancer were randomly assigned to standard BI delivered face-to-face or a web-based version delivered via mobile device. The primary outcome was caregiver-reported problem-solving skills. The noninferiority margin was defined as 0.2 standard deviation units of the change from baseline to end of intervention. Secondary outcomes included caregiver-reported mood disturbance, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01711944.FindingsThe effect of the standard treatment was preserved; parents in the standard BI arm improved their problem-solving (effect size = 0.53, t = 8.88, p < .001). Parents in the web-based BI group also improved their problem-solving (effect size = 0.32, t = 5.32, p < .001). Although the web-based intervention preserved 60% of the standard treatment effect, the test of noninferiority was non-significant (effect size = -0.21, p = 0.55). Similarly, the web-based intervention preserved > 60% of the standard intervention effect on all secondary outcomes; however, tests of noninferiority were non-significant.InterpretationNoninferiority of web-based BI relative to standard face-to-face administration was not established. Further development of the web-based BI is needed before it can be recommended as a stand-alone intervention. However, the documented benefits of the web-based intervention as well as the advantages of low resource utilization and ease of delivery suggest that further development of web-based BI is indicated, and that it may play a valuable role in alleviating distress in caregivers of children with serious or chronic illness.FundingNational Institutes of Health (U.S.), R01 CA159013 (P.I. Sahler).

Dataset Information

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Publications

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure