1
|
Kilbride M, Egleston BL, Chung WK, Olopade O, Maxwell KN, Shah P, Churpek JE, Fleisher L, Terry MB, Fetzer D, Gaieski JB, Bulafka J, Espinal A, Karpink K, Walser S, Singleton D, Palese M, Siljander I, Brandt A, Clark D, Koval C, Wynn J, Long JM, McKenna D, Powers J, Nielsen S, Domchek SM, Nathanson KL, Bradbury AR. Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:4905-4915. [PMID: 37611220 PMCID: PMC10617912 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Revised: 05/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/25/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madison Kilbride
- Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Wendy K. Chung
- Department of Pediatrics and Medicine, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY
| | | | - Kara N. Maxwell
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Payal Shah
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Linda Fleisher
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY
| | - Dominique Fetzer
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jill Bennett Gaieski
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jessica Bulafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY
| | - Aileen Espinal
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY
| | - Kelsey Karpink
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Sarah Walser
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Davone Singleton
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Amanda Brandt
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Dana Clark
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Carrie Koval
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, NY
| | - Julia Wynn
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York City, NY
| | - Jessica M. Long
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Danielle McKenna
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jacquelyn Powers
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Katherine L. Nathanson
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Angela R. Bradbury
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Comeaux JG, Culver JO, Lee JE, Dondanville D, McArthur HL, Quinn E, Gorman N, Ricker C, Li M, Lerman C. Risk‐reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high‐ and moderate‐ penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2022; 10:e2031. [PMID: 36054727 PMCID: PMC9544212 DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.2031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Revised: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Women harboring mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes are at increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and are faced with decisions about risk management, including whether to undergo high‐risk screening or risk‐reducing mastectomy (RRM). National guidelines recommend BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers consider RRM, but that carriers of moderate penetrance mutations (e.g., ATM or CHEK2) should be managed based on family history. We aimed to investigate determinants of decision for RRM, and hypothesized that mutation status, age, family history, partner status, and breast cancer would impact RRM decision making. Methods We performed a retrospective study assessing RRM decisions for 279 women. Results Women with BRCA and moderate penetrance gene mutations, a personal history of breast cancer, or a first degree relative with a history of breast cancer were more likely to undergo RRM. Breast cancer status and age showed an interaction effect such that women with breast cancer were less likely to undergo RRM with increasing age. Conclusion Although national guidelines do not recommend RRM for moderate penetrance carriers, the rates of RRM for this population approached those for BRCA mutation carriers. Further insights are needed to better support RRM decision‐making in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob G. Comeaux
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | - Julie O. Culver
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | - John E. Lee
- Samuel Oschin Cancer CenterCedars‐Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | | | - Heather L. McArthur
- Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasTexasUSA
| | - Emily Quinn
- Human Genetics and GenomicsKeck Graduate InstituteClaremontCaliforniaUSA
| | - Nicholas Gorman
- Human Genetics and GenomicsKeck Graduate InstituteClaremontCaliforniaUSA
| | - Charité Ricker
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | - Ming Li
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | - Caryn Lerman
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carlsson L, Thain E, Gillies B, Metcalfe K. Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2022; 20:25. [PMID: 35733200 PMCID: PMC9215075 DOI: 10.1186/s13053-022-00229-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients. PURPOSE The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication. RESULTS Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings. CONCLUSION The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsay Carlsson
- Drug Development Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 620 University Avenue, 8-132, Toronto, ON, Canada. .,Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Emily Thain
- Bhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Brittany Gillies
- Bhalwani Familial Cancer Clinic, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Kelly Metcalfe
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Women's College Research Institute , Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Patient-Reported Outcomes following Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11090850. [PMID: 34575627 PMCID: PMC8467628 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11090850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Revised: 08/23/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
5
|
Cacioppo CN, Egleston BL, Fetzer D, Burke Sands C, Raza SA, Reddy Malleda N, McCarty Wood E, Rittenburg I, Childs J, Cho D, Hosford M, Khair T, Khatri J, Komarnicky L, Poretta T, Rahman F, Shah S, Patrick-Miller LJ, Domchek SM, Bradbury AR. Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors. Cancer Med 2021; 10:4532-4541. [PMID: 34102012 PMCID: PMC8267134 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3968] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2020] [Revised: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To examine the benefit of telehealth over current delivery options in oncology practices without genetic counselors. Methods Participants meeting cancer genetic testing guidelines were recruited to this multi‐center, randomized trial comparing uptake of genetic services with remote services (telephone or videoconference) to usual care in six predominantly community practices without genetic counselors. The primary outcome was the composite uptake of genetic counseling or testing. Secondary outcomes compare telephone versus videoconference services. Results 147 participants enrolled and 119 were randomized. Eighty percent of participants in the telehealth arm had genetic services as compared to 16% in the usual care arm (OR 30.52, p < 0.001). Five genetic mutation carriers (6.7%) were identified in the telehealth arm, compared to none in the usual care arm. In secondary analyses, factors associated with uptake were lower anxiety (6.77 vs. 8.07, p = 0.04) and lower depression (3.38 vs. 5.06, p = 0.04) among those who had genetic services. There were no significant differences in change in cognitive or affective outcomes immediately post‐counseling and at 6 and 12 months between telephone and videoconference arms. Conclusion Telehealth increases uptake of genetic counseling and testing at oncology practices without genetic counselors and could significantly improve identification of genetic carriers and cancer prevention outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cara N Cacioppo
- Penn Telegenetics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Brian L Egleston
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Dominique Fetzer
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Colleen Burke Sands
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Syeda A Raza
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | | | - India Rittenburg
- Penn Telegenetics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - David Cho
- Cape Regional Medical Center, Cape May Court House, NJ, USA
| | | | - Tina Khair
- Gettysburg Cancer Center, Gettysburg, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Satish Shah
- Gettysburg Cancer Center, Gettysburg, PA, USA
| | - Linda J Patrick-Miller
- Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Susan M Domchek
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Angela R Bradbury
- Penn Telegenetics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Culver JO, Ricker CN, Bonner J, Kidd J, Sturgeon D, Hodan R, Kingham K, Lowstuter K, Chun NM, Lebensohn AP, Rowe‐Teeter C, Levonian P, Partynski K, Lara‐Otero K, Hong C, Morales Pichardo J, Mills MA, Brown K, Lerman C, Ladabaum U, McDonnell KJ, Ford JM, Gruber SB, Kurian AW, Idos GE. Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients. Cancer 2021; 127:1275-1285. [PMID: 33320347 PMCID: PMC8058169 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Revised: 09/28/2020] [Accepted: 10/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie O. Culver
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia
| | - Charité N. Ricker
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia
| | - Joseph Bonner
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | | | - Duveen Sturgeon
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | - Rachel Hodan
- Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordCalifornia
| | - Kerry Kingham
- Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordCalifornia
| | - Katrina Lowstuter
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia
| | | | | | | | - Peter Levonian
- Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordCalifornia
| | - Katlyn Partynski
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia
| | | | - Christine Hong
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | - Jennifer Morales Pichardo
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | | | | | - Caryn Lerman
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCalifornia
| | - Uri Ladabaum
- Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordCalifornia
| | - Kevin J. McDonnell
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | - James M. Ford
- Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordCalifornia
| | - Stephen B. Gruber
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| | | | - Gregory E. Idos
- Center for Precision MedicineCity of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research InstituteDuarteCalifornia
| |
Collapse
|