Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial

Spiritual interventions: Improving the lives of colorectal cancer survivors-A systematic literature review

AIM

To systematically review the types of spiritual interventions available for colorectal cancer survivors and determine if they improve their lives.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCE

A thorough literature search was conducted in July 2023 using PRIMO, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and EMBASE.

REVIEW METHODS

As an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist, the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis reporting guideline was employed. A narrative synthesis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were analysed for this study. The findings suggest that psychoeducational intervention, cognitive behavioural therapy intervention, mindfulness intervention, social intervention, and spiritual counselling improved CRC survivor's coping skills, boosted self-esteem, lessened anxiety, instilled hope, enhanced daily functioning, improved survival rates, improved neurological functional status and quality of life (QoL).

CONCLUSION

There is proof that spiritual interventions help CRC patients and improve their QoL. It has been discovered that spiritual intervention is helpful in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of CRC conditions.

IMPACT

CRC survivors may have impairments in their physical ability and daily functioning as a result of many symptoms, such as pain, bowel dysfunction, and exhaustion. Furthermore, individuals may encounter difficulties in several aspects of their psychological, emotional, social, and role functioning due to the presence of dread symptoms. Therefore, these study will help CRC survivors To implement spiritual interventions in the management of their long-term care. To cultivate problem-solving abilities, foster self-assurance, and enhance self-awareness. To alleviate symptoms, enhance everyday functioning, and improve QoL.

NO INDUCEMENT

No financial incentives were used to compensate patients or members of the public for this review.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling

PURPOSE

Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden.

CONCLUSION

The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress.

Objective

To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023.

Intervention

Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret.

Results

A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling.

Conclusions and Relevance

In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

The Clinical and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women Who Received Unexpected Clinically Actionable Germline Information Identified through Research: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Comparative Study

Background Research identifying and returning clinically actionable germline variants offer a new avenue of access to genetic information. The psychosocial and clinical outcomes for women who have received this ‘genome-first care’ delivering hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk information outside of clinical genetics services are unknown. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case-control study compared outcomes between women who did (cases; group 1) and did not (controls; group 2) receive clinically actionable genetic information from a research cohort in Victoria, Australia. Participants completed an online survey examining cancer risk perception and worry, and group 1 also completed distress and adaptation measures. Group 1 participants subsequently completed a semi structured interview. Results: Forty-five participants (group 1) and 96 (group 2) completed the online survey, and 31 group 1 participants were interviewed. There were no demographic differences between groups 1 and 2, although more of group 1 participants had children (p = 0.03). Group 1 reported significantly higher breast cancer risk perception (p < 0.001) compared to group 2, and higher cancer worry than group 2 (p < 0.001). Some group 1 participants described how receiving their genetic information heightened their cancer risk perception and exacerbated their cancer worry while waiting for risk-reducing surgery. Group 1 participants reported a MICRA mean score of 27.4 (SD 11.8, range 9−56; possible range 0−95), and an adaptation score of 2.9 (SD = 1.1). Conclusion: There were no adverse psychological outcomes amongst women who received clinically actionable germline information through a model of ‘genome-first’ care compared to those who did not. These findings support the return of clinically actionable research results to research participants.

Uptake and Short-term Outcomes of High-risk Screening Colonoscopy Billing Codes: A Population-based Study Among Young Adults

Background

Persons suspected or confirmed with familial colorectal cancer syndrome are recommended to have biennial colonoscopy from late adolescence or early adulthood. Persons without a syndrome but with one or more affected first-degree relatives are recommended to begin colonoscopy 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative, and every 5 to 10 years. Ontario introduced colonoscopy billing codes for these two indications in 2011.

Methods

We identified persons in Ontario under 50 years of age, without a prior history of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, with one or more of these billing claims between 2013 and 2017. We described the index colonoscopy, and subsequent colonoscopy up-to-date status. We computed average annual rates of colorectal and other cancer diagnoses, and displayed mean cumulative function plots, stratified by billing code, age and sex.

Results

Billing claims for ‘familial syndrome’ high-risk screening colonoscopy were identified among 14,846 persons; the average annual rate of CRC diagnoses was 38.6 per 100,000 among males and 22.2 among females. Colonoscopy up-to-date status fell to 50% within 7 years. Billing claims for ‘first-degree relative’ screening colonoscopy was identified among 49,505 persons; average annual rates of CRC diagnoses were 16.3 among males and 13.5 per 100,000 among females, respectively.

Conclusion

Colorectal cancer was more frequent following billing claims for high-risk screening colonoscopy for familial syndromes, as were noncolorectal malignancies potentially associated with these syndromes. This billing claim for familial colorectal cancer syndrome colonoscopy appears to identify a group at elevated short-term risk for cancer.

Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review

Background

Approximately 5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are part of a well-defined inherited genetic syndrome and up to approximately 30% of these cases have a clinically defined familial basis. Psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer address aspects mainly focused on affective, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. The present review aims to systematically map out the available psychosocial interventions for individuals with a family history of CRC and describe the current state of the research.

Methods

An extensive electronic search was conducted to investigate the literature published until June 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of quantitative studies published in English that explored the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC, clearly defined the psychosocial intervention offered and included participants with a family history of CRC.

Results

The analysis included 52 articles. Genetic counselling, educational interventions, psychological interventions and multimodal interventions were identified across the studies. In terms of diagnoses, Lynch Syndrome, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, Familial Colorectal Cancer were the main conditions included in the studies. Affective, cognitive, behavioural aspects and quality of life emerged as the most frequently explored outcomes. The studies included individuals with both personal and familial history of CRC or family history alone.

Conclusions

Our rapid review provides an overview of the literature exploring the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC. The psychosocial interventions identified had an overwhelmingly positive impact across all types of outcomes measured. Genetic counselling appeared to be most beneficial, and this is expected as it is purposively designed to address genetic conditions. Further quantitative analysis of primary empirical research is needed to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions as well as the mechanisms through which they exert their effect.

The FamilyTalk randomized controlled trial: patient-reported outcomes in clinical genetic sequencing for colorectal cancer

As genetics gains favor in clinical oncology, it is important to address patient concerns around confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic information that might otherwise limit its utilization. We designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the social impact of an online educational tool (FamilyTalk) to increase family communication about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening. Of 208 randomized participants, 149 (71.6%) returned six-month surveys. Overall, there was no difference in CRC screening between the study arms. Privacy and confidentiality concerns about medical and genetic information, reactions to genetic test results, and lifestyle changes did not differ between arms. Participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results were more likely than those with negative results to report that the results accurately predicted their disease risks (OR 5.37, p = 0.02 and OR 3.13, p = 0.02, respectively). This trial demonstrated no evidence that FamilyTalk impacted patient-reported outcomes. Low power, due to the limited number of participants with P/LP results in the overall sample, as well as the short follow-up period, could have contributed to the null findings.