Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results

Utilization of A Third-Party Partnership in Tele-genetic Risk Assessment Program in Genitourinary Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To meet the increasing demands of genetic risk assessment for genitourinary cancers due to expanded clinical guidelines, we established an academic/industry partnership to create a streamlined workflow to overcome the barriers to access to care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Genome Medical offers multilingual genetic counseling. A pilot program evaluated patients at risk for hereditary genitourinary syndromes. Between 1/1/20 and 07/01/22, all patients in need of germline testing were offered hybrid in-clinic telehealth pre-test counseling and when indicated, genetic testing. Post-test counseling was offered based on results and encouraged if positive. Testing results, patient satisfaction, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 146 of 182 (80.0%) patients agreed to participate, with 130 (89.0%) completing pre-test counseling. Median age was 65 (range 22-95), with 91% being male and approximately 60% having prostate cancer. The median time from referral to pre-test counseling was 11 days (IQR 7-20). After assessment, testing was recommended for 127 (97.7%) of which 123 (96.8%) completed testing. The median time from testing to result release was 15 days (IQR 10 - 20.8). Forty (32.5%) had post-test counseling. Reimbursement by private insurers increased annually from $17.2 to $52.4. Patient satisfaction was high with a mean Genetic Counselor Satisfaction Scale of 27.9 out of 30.

CONCLUSIONS

Our program provided high patient satisfaction, rapid access to genetic counseling, prompt genetic testing, timely release of results, and was cost-effective compared to traditional models. This approach is scalable across community and academic settings and across cancer types.

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing.

METHODS

The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services.

DISCUSSION

With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Incorporating telehealth education into the genetic counseling curriculum

As the provision of telehealth genetic counseling (THGC) services continues to expand, it is imperative that genetic counseling students gain proficiency in telehealth service delivery. To prepare students to provide THGC services, the MSGC program at the University of Pennsylvania has included didactic sessions on THGC, THGC role plays, THGC standardized patient sessions, and THGC fieldwork experiences and clinical rotations. This article highlights best practices in THGC and guidance for Master of Science in Genetic Counseling (MSGC) programs training the next generation of genetic counselors providing THGC services.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

The growing needs of genetic counselling-Feasibility in utilization of tele-genetic counselling in Asia and Hong Kong

The need for the expansion of genomic services has been at a record time high in the past decade. As technological advancement continues to strengthen the entire genetic and genomic pipeline and clinical operational workflow, the major challenge remains to be the speed of workforce development to meet service growth. In particular, the international expansion of genetic counselling (GC) services has been a topic of interest for the past few years. GC is an emerging profession in most of Asia, and in many countries the profession of GC often refers to physicians or front-line health workers with expertise in genetics to provide GC services rather than being a specific independent profession. As genetic and genomic services, especially pre-test and post-test GC, expand globally, the need to tackle the longstanding obstacles of GC personnel shortage and funding issues must not be overlooked. There is an urgent need internationally, and especially in Asia, where GC profession is comparatively less well-established, to seek alternative approaches to meet service demand. The present review examines the global development and feasibility of tele-genetics and tele-genetic counselling (TGC), and serves as the foundation to explore a possible roadmap in Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Genome Project.

Remote vs in-person BRCA1/2 non-carriers test disclosure: patients' choice during Covid-19 pandemic restriction

During Covid-19 pandemic most hospitals have restricted in-person delivery of non-essential healthcare services, including genetic testing delivery, to slow the spread of the virus. Our Onco-Genetic Service also faced this challenging period and had to re-organize its clinical practice with the use of tele-health. Aim of the present paper is to understand whether and how Covid-19-related changes in medical practice influenced patients' satisfaction about the health service provided. 125 BRCA1/2 non carriers (109/125, 87.2% female and 16/125, 12.8% male) in Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari were enrolled. All participants were asked to choose whether they prefer in-person or remote post-test counselling session. Basing on patients' choice, two groups of subjects were composed. One week after the post-test counselling session, participants were phone called and asked to complete: a socio-demographic form, a brief structured interview about their Covid-19 related worries and their satisfaction with the health service provided, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fear of Covid-19 scale. Qualitative information about patients' choice were also collected. No significant difference about patients' satisfaction with the health service provided emerged between groups. Patients who preferred remote post-test counselling had higher anxiety, worries and fear-of Covid-19 than the others. All remote-counselling subjects preferred tele-genetics because of Covid-19 security, would choose it again and would recommend it to others. Cancer tele-genetics offers good guarantees of comfort and efficacy, but patients' choices are related to personal and psychological variables. The use of tele-genetics has to be a patient's choice.

Risk Communication After Health Care Exposures: An Experimental Vignette Survey With Patients

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants (N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.

Patient-Reported Outcomes following Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs) are real-world evidence that can help capture patient experiences and perspectives regarding a clinical intervention such as genetic testing. Objective: To identify and capture methods and qualitative PRO themes among studies reporting PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome. Methods: A systematic review was conducted via PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Yale University’s TRIP Medical Databases on articles published by April 2021. Results: We identified 24 studies published between 1996 and 2021 representing 4279 participants that reported PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome. Studies collected and reported PROs from validated PROM instruments (n = 12; 50%), validated surveys (n = 7; 26%), and interviews (n = 10; 42%). PRO themes ranged across all collection methods (e.g., psychological, knowledge, coping and satisfaction, concern about stigma/discrimination, etc.). Conclusions: Important gaps identified include (1) most studies (n = 18; 75%) reported PROs following genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer, and (2) populations reporting PROs overall were largely of White/Caucasian/Northern European/Anglo-Saxon descent. We offer recommendations and describe real-world implications for the field moving forward.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Breaking potentially bad news of cancer workup to well-informed patients by telephone versus in-person: A randomised controlled trial on psychosocial consequences

BACKGROUND

The use of telephone in delivering cancer care increases, but not in cancer workup. Current protocols for breaking bad news assume a single in-person meeting. Cancer workup involves multiple opportunities for patient information. We investigated the psychosocial consequences in gradually informed patients of receiving lung cancer workup results by telephone versus in-person.

METHODS

A randomised, controlled, open-label, assessor-blinded, single-centre trial including patients referred for invasive workup for suspected malignancy (clinical trials no. NCT04315207). Patients were informed on probable cancer at referral, after imaging, and on the day of invasive workup (Baseline visit). Primary endpoint: change (Δ) from baseline to follow-up (4 weeks after receiving workup results) in scores of a validated, sensitive, condition-specific questionnaire (COS-LC) assessing consequences on anxiety, behaviour, dejection and sleep.

RESULTS

Of 492 eligible patients, we randomised 255 patients (mean age: 68 years; female: 38%; malignancy diagnosed: 68%) to the telephone (n = 129) or in-person (n = 126) group. Groups were comparable at baseline and follow-up, and no between-groups difference in ΔCOS-LC was observed in the intention-to-treat population, or in subgroups diagnosed with or without malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Breaking final result of cancer workup by telephone is not associated with adverse psychosocial consequences compared to in-person conversation in well-informed patients.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

PURPOSE

Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).

RESULTS

Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.

CONCLUSION

This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Longitudinal outcomes with cancer multigene panel testing in previously tested BRCA1/2 negative patients

Although multigene panel testing (MGPT) is increasingly utilized in clinical practice, there remain limited data on patient-reported outcomes. BRCA 1/2 negative patients were contacted and offered MGPT. Patients completed pre- and posttest counseling, and surveys assessing cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes at baseline, postdisclosure and 6 and 12 months. Of 317 eligible BRCA1/2 negative patients who discussed the study with research staff, 249 (79%) enrolled. Decliners were more likely to be older, non-White, and recruited by mail or email. Ninety-five percent of enrolled patients proceeded with MGPT. There were no significant changes in anxiety, depression, cancer specific distress or uncertainty postdisclosure. There were significant but small increases in knowledge, cancer-specific distress and depression at 6-12 months. Uncertainty declined over time. Those with a VUS had significant decreases in uncertainty but also small increases in cancer specific distress at 6 and 12 months. Among those with a positive result, medical management recommendations changed in 26% of cases and 2.6% of all tested. Most BRCA1/2 negative patients have favorable psychosocial outcomes after receipt of MGPT results, although small increases in depression and cancer-specific worry may exist and may vary by result. Medical management changed in few patients.

Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Program: Development of an APOE genetic counseling and disclosure process in the context of clinical trials

Introduction

As the number of Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies grows, many individuals will need to learn their genetic and/or biomarker risk for the disease to determine trial eligibility. An alternative to traditional models of genetic counseling and disclosure is needed to provide comprehensive standardized counseling and disclosure of apolipoprotein E (APOE) results efficiently, safely, and effectively in the context of AD prevention trials.

Methods

A multidisciplinary Genetic Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure Committee was established and charged with operationalizing the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative (API) Genetic Counseling and Disclosure Process for use in the API Generation Program trials. The objective was to provide consistent information to research participants before and during the APOE counseling and disclosure session using standardized educational and session materials.

Results

The Genetic Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure Committee created a process consisting of eight components: requirements of APOE testing and reports, psychological readiness assessment, determination of AD risk estimates, guidance for identifying providers of disclosure, predisclosure education, APOE counseling and disclosure session materials, APOE counseling and disclosure session flow, and assessing APOE disclosure impact.

Discussion

The API Genetic Counseling and Disclosure Process provides a framework for large-scale disclosure of APOE genotype results to study participants and serves as a model for disclosure of biomarker results. The process provides education to participants about the meaning and implication(s) of their APOE results while also incorporating a comprehensive assessment of disclosure impact. Data assessing participant safety and psychological well-being before and after APOE disclosure are still being collected and will be presented in a future publication.

•

Participants may need to learn their risk for Alzheimer's disease to enroll in studies.

•

Alternatives to traditional models of apolipoprotein E counseling and disclosure are needed.

•

An alternative process was developed by the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative.

•

This process has been implemented by the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Program.

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

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.

Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study

Purpose

Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown.

Methods

We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment.

Results

Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing.

Conclusion

MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

The utility of Leventhal's model in the analysis of the psycho-behavioral implications of familial cancer - a literature review

INTRODUCTION

We aim to highlight the utility of this model in the analysis of the psycho-behavioral implications of family cancer, presenting the scientific literature that used Leventhal's model as the theoretical framework of approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in six databases (EBSCO, ScienceDirect, PubMed Central, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science) with empirical studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English with regard to the Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSMR) and familial/hereditary cancer. The key words used were: illness representations, common sense model, self regulatory model, familial/hereditary/genetic cancer, genetic cancer counseling. The selection of studies followed the PRISMA-P guidelines (Moher et al., 2009; Shamseer et al., 2015), which suggest a three-stage procedure.

RESULTS

Individuals create their own cognitive and emotional representation of the disease when their health is threatened, being influenced by the presence of a family history of cancer, causing them to adopt or not a salutogenetic behavior. Disease representations, particularly the cognitive ones, can be predictors of responses to health threats that determine different health behaviors. Age, family history of cancer, and worrying about the disease are factors associated with undergoing screening. No consensus has been reached as to which factors act as predictors of compliance with cancer screening programs.

CONCLUSIONS

This model can generate interventions that are conceptually clear as well as useful in regulating the individuals' behaviors by reducing the risk of developing the disease and by managing as favorably as possible health and/or disease.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Genetic Testing: Challenges and Changes in Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

BACKGROUND

The practice of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has changed dramatically in recent years, and patients often approach oncology nurses requesting information about genetic testing.
.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to explore changes in cancer genetics, the role of genetics professionals in providing comprehensive genetic care, and the implications of these new developments in genetics for oncology nurses.
.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted and focused on articles about the updating of genetic tests with panel testing, insurance changes, alternative genetic counseling strategies, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses play an important role in identifying and referring patients, including those who have tested negative for hereditary susceptibility genes, to genetics professionals. Genetics professionals can assist with insurance issues, interpretation of test results, clarification when a variant of unknown clinical significance is detected, and recommendations for care based on personal and family history and testing results. Oncology nurses can assist families with understanding the limitations of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

A randomized controlled trial of disclosing genetic risk information for Alzheimer disease via telephone

Purpose

Telephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. To date, studies of its impact have focused on return of Mendelian risk information, principally hereditary cancer syndromes.

Methods

In a multisite trial of Alzheimer’s disease genetic risk disclosure, asymptomatic adults were randomized to receive test results in-person or via telephone. Primary analyses examined patient outcomes 12 months after disclosure.

Results

Data from 257 participants showed that telephone disclosure occurred 7.4 days sooner and were 30% shorter, on average, than in-person disclosure (both p<0.001). Anxiety and depression scores were well below cutoffs for clinical concern across protocols. Comparing telephone and in-person disclosure protocols, 99% CIs of mean differences were within non-inferiority margins on scales assessing anxiety, depression, and test-related distress, but inconclusive about positive impact. No differences were observed on measures of recall and subjective impact. Sub-analyses supported non-inferiority on all outcomes among APOE ε4-negative participants. Sub-analyses were inconclusive for APOE ε4-positive participants, although mean anxiety and depression scores were still well below cutoffs for clinical concern.

Conclusion

Telephone disclosure of APOE results and risk for Alzheimer’s disease is generally safe and helps providers meet demands for services, even when results identify an increased risk for disease.

Utilizing Remote Real-Time Videoconferencing to Expand Access to Cancer Genetic Services in Community Practices: A Multicenter Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Videoconferencing has been used to expand medical services to low-access populations and could increase access to genetic services at community sites where in-person visits with genetic providers are not available.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of, patient feedback of, and cognitive and affective responses to remote two-way videoconferencing (RVC) telegenetic services at multiple sociodemographically diverse community practices without access to genetic providers.

METHODS

Patients at 3 community sites in 2 US states outside the host center completed RVC pretest (visit 1, V1) and post-test (visit 2, V2) genetic counseling for cancer susceptibility. Surveys evaluated patient experiences, knowledge, satisfaction with telegenetic and cancer genetics services, anxiety, depression, and cancer worry.

RESULTS

A total of 82 out of 100 (82.0%) approached patients consented to RVC services. A total of 61 out of 82 patients (74%) completed pretest counseling and 41 out of 61 (67%) proceeded with testing and post-test counseling. A total of 4 out of 41 (10%) mutation carriers were identified: BRCA2, MSH2, and PMS2. Patients reported many advantages (eg, lower travel burden and convenience) and few disadvantages to RVC telegenetic services. Most patients reported feeling comfortable with the video camera--post-V1: 52/57 (91%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--and that their privacy was respected--post-V1: 56/57 (98%); post-V2: 40/41 (98%); however, some reported concerns that RVC might increase the risk of a confidentiality breach of their health information--post-V1: 14/57 (25%); post-V2: 12/41 (29%). While the majority of patients reported having no trouble seeing or hearing the genetic counselor--post-V1: 47/57 (82%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--51 out of 98 (52%) patients reported technical difficulties. Nonetheless, all patients reported being satisfied with genetic services. Compared to baseline, knowledge increased significantly after pretest counseling (+1.11 mean score, P=.005); satisfaction with telegenetic (+1.74 mean score, P=.02) and genetic services (+2.22 mean score, P=.001) increased after post-test counseling. General anxiety and depression decreased after pretest (-0.97 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.37 mean depression score, P=.046) and post-test counseling (-1.13 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.75 mean depression score, P=.01); state anxiety and cancer-specific worry did not significantly increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote videoconferencing telegenetic services are feasible, identify genetic carriers in community practices, and are associated with high patient satisfaction and favorable cognitive and affective outcomes, suggesting an innovative delivery model for further study to improve access to genetic providers and services. Potential barriers to dissemination include technology costs, unclear billing and reimbursement, and state requirements for provider licensure.

Patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex breast cancer susceptibility testing

PURPOSE

The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.

METHODS

BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing.

RESULTS

Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing.

CONCLUSION

Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.

Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition

Background

Dissemination of genetic testing for disease susceptibility, one application of “personalized medicine”, holds the potential to empower patients and providers through informed risk reduction and prevention recommendations. Genetic testing has become a standard practice in cancer prevention for high-risk populations. Heightened consumer awareness of “cancer genes” and genes for other diseases (eg, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease), as well as the burgeoning availability of increasingly complex genomic tests (ie, multi-gene, whole-exome and -genome sequencing), has escalated interest in and demand for genetic risk assessment and the specialists who provide it. Increasing demand is expected to surpass access to genetic specialists. Thus, there is urgent need to develop effective and efficient models of delivery of genetic information that comparably balance the risks and benefits to the current standard of in-person communication.

Objective

The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a theoretically grounded and rigorously developed protocol for telephone communication of BRCA1/2 (breast cancer) test results that might be generalizable to genetic testing for other hereditary cancer and noncancer syndromes.

Methods

Stakeholder data, health communication literature, and our theoretical model grounded in Self-Regulation Theory of Health Behavior were used to develop a telephone communication protocol for the communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Framework analysis of selected audiotapes of disclosure sessions and stakeholders’ feedback were utilized to evaluate the efficacy and inform refinements to this protocol.

Results

Stakeholder feedback (n=86) and audiotapes (38%, 33/86) of telephone disclosures revealed perceived disadvantages and challenges including environmental factors (eg, non-private environment), patient-related factors (eg, low health literacy), testing-related factors (eg, additional testing needed), and communication factors (eg, no visual cues). Resulting modifications to the communication protocol for BRCA1/2 test results included clarified patient instructions, scheduled appointments, refined visual aids, expanded disclosure checklist items, and enhanced provider training.

Conclusions

Analyses of stakeholders’ experiences and audiotapes of telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results informed revisions to communication strategies and a protocol to enhance patient outcomes when utilizing telephone to disclose genetic test results.

Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine

Advances in genome sequencing technology have fostered a new era of clinical genomic medicine. Genetic counselors, who have begun to support patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, will review brief clinical vignettes, and discuss early experiences with clinical genomic testing. Their experiences will frame a discussion about how current testing may challenge patient understanding and expectations toward the evaluation of cancer risk and downstream preventive behaviors.