The limits of personalization in precision medicine: Polygenic risk scores and racial categorization in a precision breast cancer screening trial

Population-based genomic screening is at the forefront of a new approach to disease prevention. Yet the lack of diversity in genome wide association studies and ongoing debates about the appropriate use of racial and ethnic categories in genomics raise key questions about the translation of genomic knowledge into clinical practice. This article reports on an ethnographic study of a large pragmatic clinical trial of breast cancer screening called WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of Risk). Our ethnography illuminates the challenges of using race or ethnicity as a risk factor in the implementation of precision breast cancer risk assessment. Our analysis provides critical insights into how categories of race, ethnicity and ancestry are being deployed in the production of genomic knowledge and medical practice, and key challenges in the development and implementation of novel Polygenic Risk Scores in the research and clinical applications of this emerging science. Specifically, we show how the conflation of social and biological categories of difference can influence risk prediction for individuals who exist at the boundaries of these categories, affecting the perceptions and practices of scientists, clinicians, and research participants themselves. Our research highlights the potential harms of practicing genomic medicine using under-theorized and ambiguous categories of race, ethnicity, and ancestry, particularly in an adaptive, pragmatic trial where research findings are applied in the clinic as they emerge. We contribute to the expanding literature on categories of difference in post-genomic science by closely examining the implementation of a large breast cancer screening study that aims to personalize breast cancer risk using both common and rare genomic markers.

Creating accessible Spanish language materials for Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium genomic projects: challenges and lessons learned

Aim: To increase Spanish speakers' representation in genomics research, accessible study materials on genetic topics must be made available in Spanish. Materials & methods: The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium is evaluating genome sequencing for underserved populations. All sites needed Spanish translation of recruitment materials, surveys and return of results. Results: We describe our process for translating site-specific materials, as well as shared measures across sites, to inform future efforts to engage Spanish speakers in research. Conclusion: In translating and adapting study materials for roughly 1000 Spanish speakers across the USA, and harmonizing translated measures across diverse sites, we overcame numerous challenges. Translation should be performed by professionals. Studies must allocate sufficient time, effort and budget to translate and adapt participant materials.

Graves K, Fejerman L. Community research collaboration to develop a promotores-based hereditary breast cancer education program for Spanish-speaking Latinas

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in Latinas and the leading cause of cancer death. Latinas tend to be diagnosed at later stages, receive poorer quality care and have a higher risk of mortality than non-Latina White (NLW) women. Among women with a genetic predisposition to hereditary BC, genetic counseling can be beneficial. Latinas participate in genetic counseling at lower rates than NLW women. The goal of this study was to develop comprehensive, culturally appropriate materials for community health educators (promotores)-led hereditary BC education program for Spanish-speaking Latinas. We developed the curriculum through feedback from 7 focus groups, with a total of 68 participants (35 promotores and 33 community members). We used a mixed-methods approach that relied on quantitative analysis of survey questions and qualitative content analysis of the focus groups transcripts. Pre and post promotores' training survey responses suggested improvement in the promotores' cancer-related knowledge. Themes that emerged from the qualitative analyses were (i) barriers to health education and/or care; (ii) importance of educating the Latino community about BC and genetics and (iii) role of the promotores. Future research will further evaluate the impact of the program in promotores' knowledge and community members' screening behaviors.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

METHODS

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

CURRICULUM

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

CONCLUSION

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, we developed a web-based consent approach that featured plain language, multimedia, and separate descriptions of clinical care and research activities. CHARM offered clinical exome sequencing to individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer. We interviewed CHARM participants about their reactions to the consent approach. We audio recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews using a deductively and inductively derived codebook. We reviewed coded excerpts as a team to identify overarching themes. Results: We conducted 32 interviews, including 12 (38%) in Spanish. Most (69%) enrolled without assistance from study staff, usually on a mobile phone. Those who completed enrollment in one day spent an average of 12 minutes on the consent portion. Interviewees found the information simple to read but comprehensive, were neutral to positive about the multimedia support, and identified increased access to testing in the study as the key difference from clinical care. Conclusions: This study showed that interviewees found our literacy-focused, web-based consent approach acceptable; did not distinguish the consent materials from other online study processes; and valued getting access to testing in the study. Overall, conducting empirical bioethics research in an ongoing clinical trial was useful to demonstrate the acceptability of our novel consent approach but posed practical challenges.

Abstract PO-050: Reducing disparities in genomic medicine using a literacy-focused genetic counseling model for cancer risk assessment

Genetic and genomic testing is reaching more people than ever, yet disparities in access to and application of hereditary cancer screening remain. Further, with the advent of lower cost sequencing, the amount and complexity of information that is conveyed to patients, including secondary results, has increased. As part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study implemented a hereditary cancer risk assessment program for healthy adults aged 18-49. Participants were recruited in English and Spanish from two primary care settings (Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Denver Health). Participants underwent clinical exome sequencing and were randomized to receive their test results via usual care or a “literacy-focused” genetic counseling approach (n=845). Genetic counselors in the literacy- focused arm received in-depth training to adapt and apply evidence-based methods for effective communication with individuals of all literacy levels. We hypothesized that the literacy-focused approach would be non-inferior to usual care genetic counseling and generate higher satisfaction, engagement, and understanding of and adherence to recommended care. We also collected qualitative data to explore the experience of receiving exome sequencing results in this setting. Here, we present findings from qualitative interviews with participants conducted within a month (n=35) and again at 6 months (n=15) after receiving results, including: pathogenic cancer risk variants, medically actionable secondary findings and carrier results; variants of uncertain significant (VUS) in cancer genes; and negative results. The mean age of participants was 33. 72% spoke English and 75% were considered medically underserved by CHARM criteria. Participants in both trial arms expressed overall satisfaction; however, some participants in the literacy-focused arm indicated that specific elements of the approach, such as teach-back and plain language, helped facilitate their understanding, while some in the usual care arm said the information was overly technical. Younger participants in both arms, whose sequencing results will not be clinically actionable for many years, reported less worry and recalled fewer details about their results than older participants. While participants recognized the utility of positive results for family, at six months only some had spoken with them about testing, and few relatives had undergone cascade testing offered by CHARM. Genomic medicine requires clear communication of disease risk and prevention recommendations. Our qualitative findings suggest that the literacy-focused approach to genetic counseling can help facilitate patient understanding of cancer and other genomic risk. These results can guide effective disclosure of sequencing results and have implications for training clinical genetics professionals in the provision of equitable care for diverse patients.

Citation Format: Leslie Riddle, Laura M. Amendola, Marian J. Gilmore, Brad Rolf, Jamilyn Zepp, Claudia Guerra, Barbara Biesecker, Mikaella Caruncho, Katherine P. Anderson, Alan F. Rope, Tia L. Kauffman, Hannah Lewis, Stephanie A. Kraft, Devan M. Duenas, Benjamin Wilfond, Katrina A.B. Goddard, Galen Joseph. Reducing disparities in genomic medicine using a literacy-focused genetic counseling model for cancer risk assessment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-050.

Abstract PO-012: Acceptance and refusal among multi-lingual safety net patients to participate in a trial comparing genetic counseling delivery modes

Introduction While still low, diversity among clinical trial participants has improved in recent years due to efforts to eliminate health disparities. Here we present and endeavor to explain participation rates in our multicenter partially randomized preference noninferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of phone, video, and in person genetic counseling among high-risk English-, Spanish-, and Chinese-speaking patients. Methods High-risk patients were identified using a family history screener in clinics and via physician referrals. After reviewing forms received, bilingual/bicultural clinical research coordinators (CRC) called patients considered eligible in their preferred language (English, Spanish or Cantonese, Mandarin or Toisanese). Patients were informed that their hospital was conducting the study in conjunction with an academic institution. The CRC went over each patient’s family history of cancer to confirm eligibility and to explain the study components, including free genetic counseling. Because previous research had significant refusals due to patients’ preferences for a single mode, our consented patients were asked if they would accept random assignment to phone, video, or in person counseling or if they had a strong preference. Patients who declined were asked their reasons. Results Out of 1,403 patients reached (70% English-, 26% Spanish-, and 3% Chinese- speaking), 86% agreed to participate. The highest acceptance rate was among Spanish-speakers (94%), followed by English-speakers (83%) and Chinese-speakers (67%). Among the 201 patients who declined, 49% did so upon contact, while 51% declined after eligibility was confirmed. Reasons for declining are available for 71% of decliners as follows: 22% not interested; 19% no time; 10% cited no benefit them or family members; 7% did not want to talk about cancer; 7% had too many other medical issues; and 6% provided a range of other reasons. Discussion and Conclusions We believe that our study’s high initial participation rate for patients contacted was due to the purpose which was particularly meaningful to those with a family history of cancer. Also, patients trusted their own hospitals which co- sponsored the study. It was helpful that providers in the 3 public hospitals strongly supported the research which provided much needed genetic counseling and pursued questions important to access to genetic services. Importantly, our study design addressed significant known barriers to minority and low SES participation in clinical trials through the use of bilingual/bicultural investigators, multi-language study materials, and strong, positive working relationships with gatekeeper medical and clinic support staff. Reasons given for declining may indicate the existence of a socio-economic structural ceiling for participation due to patient vulnerabilities and societal burdens, causes outside the investigative scope of our study that are likely to continue to hamper efforts to improve participation if not addressed.

Citation Format: Robin Lee, Miya Frick, Celia Kaplan, Galen Joseph, Janice Tsoh, Selina Flores, Niharika Dixit, Heather Cedermaz, Lly Wang, Amal Khoury, Brittany Campbell, Rena Pasick, Claudia S. Guerra, Susan L. Stewart. Acceptance and refusal among multi-lingual safety net patients to participate in a trial comparing genetic counseling delivery modes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-012.

Abstract PO-051: Genetic counseling for high-risk public hospital patients: A randomized and preference-based trial compares delivery in person, by phone, and video

In public health settings, where availability of genetic counseling (GC) and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is limited, telehealth could expand access to academic centers where these services are concentrated. However, little is known about the effectiveness of remote modes for ethnically diverse and low health literacy patients. Methods. From 2017-20 UCSF researchers partnered with 3 public hospitals to conduct a partially randomized preference noninferiority trial with English-, Spanish-, and Cantonese-speaking patients with strong personal and/or family history of cancer. Participants received GC in person, by phone, or via video. Pre- and post-GC telephone surveys measured study outcomes: knowledge, cancer- specific distress, decisional conflict, risk perception, and satisfaction. A subset of 23 participants was recruited for case studies (CS) to elucidate quantitative findings. CS integrated patient and counselor in-depth interviews, GC session transcripts, and survey and tracking data for a multi-dimensional understanding of each individual’s GC experience. Results. Among 23,633 family history forms collected, 1,574 patients were eligible; 1404 were reached and 708 consented. Of 394 randomized, 322 attended GC and 312 completed the final survey. After GC, mean knowledge scores increased, and cancer-specific distress and decisional conflict decreased overall.

Counseling attendance varied significantly by assigned mode (75% via video at a clinic, 77% in person, and 92% by phone), but the modes yielded noninferior outcomes. Respondents overwhelmingly rated all modes as “very convenient” and satisfaction with counseling as “very high.” Compared with baseline, knowledge increased significantly regardless of mode. However, this increase was significantly less for African Americans and for those with less education (with each adjusted for the other) across all modes. Completion of genetic testing (GT) was the inverse of counseling attendance: 94% in person, 93% video, and 65% by phone. Case studies (CS) revealed the complexities of counseling public hospital patients. Phone patients valued the access despite connection issues, but phone appointments tended to be briefer, and qualitative interviews suggested that communication was less effective by phone. While many phone patients said they would not be able to access GC any other way, several felt they would get more out it in person. Importantly, GT was offered on the spot to in-person patients while some counseled by phone had second thoughts and other barriers. CS of video counseling found benefits similar to in-person GC such as use of visual cues and formation of meaningful connections. Conclusion. Our findings indicate that GC can be delivered to high-risk public hospital patients remotely by phone, video, or in-person in order to fill a gap in access to critical genetic services. Further research is needed to achieve optimal outcomes for all patients and to increase the rate of testing for those counseled by phone.

Citation Format: Rena J Pasick, Susan L. Stewart, Robin Lee, Claudia Guerra, Celia Kaplan, Galen Joseph, Selina Flores, Janice Tsoh, Niharika Dixit, Miya Frick, Heather Cedermaz, Lily Wong, Amal Khoury, Brittany Campbell. Genetic counseling for high-risk public hospital patients: A randomized and preference-based trial compares delivery in person, by phone, and video [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-051.

Abstract PR02: Using web-based tools to assess familial cancer risk in diverse populations

Introduction: The Cancer Health Risk Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study (NCT03426878) aims to increase access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer in low-income, low-literacy, and minority populations (hereafter referred to as “underserved”). To implement the study, we have capitalized on the availability of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, developed innovative web-based tools, and designed a novel telemedicine protocol for return of clinical genetic testing results.

Methods: Patients aged 18-49 years are recruited from two centers: Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW; an integrated health care system in Portland, OR) and Denver Health (DH; a federally qualified health care center in Denver, CO). Specific protocols were developed to identify potentially eligible patients from the EMR and invite them to complete a web-based family history assessment. KPNW patients were recruited using email, text messaging, and in-clinic booths; DH patients were recruited via mail, phone, and provider referral. Validated risk assessment tools for Lynch syndrome (PREMM5) and heredity breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (B-RST) were adapted for our low-literacy and bilingual (English and Spanish) target population. Genetic testing is offered to patients with greater than average risk for hereditary cancer, or where risk cannot be assessed because of unknown family history or limited family structure. Eligible patients review a multipart, multimedia online consent. Those who consent to participate provide a saliva sample for clinical exome sequencing. Genetic counselors return results by telephone using traditional (usual care active comparator) or modified, communication-focused (experimental) counseling for pathogenic variants, likely pathogenic variants, and select variants of uncertain significance in 39 genes related to cancer risk, pathogenic variants in 79 genes related to medically actionable secondary findings, and 14 genes related to carrier status.

Results: In the first four months of recruitment, 258 patients have completed the risk assessment tool (48% are underserved). Of those, 180 (70%) had greater than average risk of hereditary cancer (or limited family history information) and were invited to participate (53% were underserved); 86% of underserved patients and 78% of patients who do not meet criteria for the underserved category have consented. The vast majority of participants complete enrollment without assistance from study staff, and in-person visits are not required for participation. Telephone genetic test result disclosure will begin in December 2018.

Conclusions: We have successfully developed online tools for cancer risk assessment that are accessible to underserved and low-literacy populations. These tools may be a cost-effective approach for improving the capture of family history data in the EMR. It does not require a provider to gather the information and the patient gets immediate feedback on results of the risk assessment and appropriate next steps.

This abstract is also being presented as Poster A37.

Citation Format: Heather Spencer Feigelson, Kathleen F. Mittendorf, Tia L. Kauffman, Katherine Anderson, Sonia Okuyama, Benjamin Wilfond, Gail P. Jarvik, Laura M. Amendola, Carmit McMullen, Fances Lynch, Donna Eubanks, Elizabeth Shuster, Jake Allen, Stephanie A. Kraft, Galen Joseph, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Katrina A.B. Goddard. Using web-based tools to assess familial cancer risk in diverse populations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Modernizing Population Sciences in the Digital Age; 2019 Feb 19-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PR02.

Abstract A006: Can expert second opinions reduce treatment disparities for African American breast cancer patients? An exploratory study

Purpose: The excess breast cancer mortality among African Americans is well documented, and insufficient treatment quality in low-resource settings is a key cause. The second opinion could connect patients with the best available medical knowledge. We explored the extent to which treatment plans can be improved through consultations at NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) that deliver the latest treatments, and to describe the experience of patients and consulting clinicians.

Methods: Eligible patients, those who self-identify as African American and have concerns about breast cancer, were recruited from communities and clinics. The research grant covered the cost of consultations. Ethnographic methods (audio-recorded observations and in-depth interviews) were used to ascertain consultation impacts. Data sources were transcripts from consultations; post-consult patient interviews, once following the consultation and again after treatment decisions were made; and one clinician interview per consultation. Standard grounded theory analytic methods were used.

Results: A total of 17 consultations were conducted with 14 female patients ages 32-71. Treating health care institutions were public hospitals, an integrated health care delivery system, an academic medical center, private not-for-profit community hospitals, and a private cancer center. Patients sought consults for concerns such as the possibility that a breast change was cancer, diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), treatment plans for invasive breast cancers at every stage, management of metastases, and prevention of recurrence. Some changes were recommended in every case, from simple routine procedures to major transformations. For example: An LCIS patient was advised to start an aromatase inhibitor, have yearly mammograms and MRIs, and to change her diet.A patient with advanced disease was advised to add CDK 4/6 inhibitor to her treatment.Whether and how to administer complex intrathecal chemotherapy (injection into the space between the thin layers of tissue that cover the brain and spinal cord) was discussed for a young patient with brain metastases.A clinical trial and genetic testing were recommended to a Stage IV breast cancer patient.

Overall consulting doctors' proposals were adopted. Patients learned about their cancer, the benefits and limitations of their current treatment, and about clinical trials. They appreciated confirmation that they were receiving quality care or recommended changes. CCC clinicians were eager to help patients with the greatest needs.

Conclusions: Second opinion consultations can open communication channels between leading cancer experts and oncologists in low-resource settings, increasing prospects for equal treatment.

Citation Format: Brittany Campbell, Marion Harris, Hope Rugo, Galen Joseph, Rena Pasick. Can expert second opinions reduce treatment disparities for African American breast cancer patients? An exploratory study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr A006.

Abstract D078: Unlocking the vault: Can 2nd opinions by Comprehensive Cancer Center breast oncologists improve treatment quality for African Americans?

Research increasingly points to inadequate treatment as a factor in the excess breast cancer mortality experienced by African Americans. Likely causes include lack of guideline-concordant care, underuse of medical advances, and limited opportunities to participate in clinical trials and genetic counseling. African Americans are disproportionately affected because they are more likely to receive care in low-resource settings. Importantly, emerging research shows that NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) have the best cancer outcomes compared with other clinical settings - yet African Americans and Latinx are under-represented as patients in CCCs. It is as if the leading cancer clinicians and the resources at their disposal are locked in a vault inaccessible to those with the greatest need. We used ethnographic methods to explore the feasibility of and extent to which the simple mechanism of a CCC 2nd opinion can improve the quality of treatment offered to African American breast cancer patients receiving care in a range of other institutions. Through community outreach, 14 patients were recruited and 17 CCC consultations were conducted at no charge. Each visit was observed and audio-taped to capture the consulting oncologist’s recommendations. Patients were interviewed 3 weeks after the consultation and again up to 1 year later to document the impact of the consultation on their treatment. Consulting oncologists were also interviewed. Our findings reveal a variety of ways in which the CCC 2nd opinion substantially improved the quality of treatment for African American breast cancer patients. In all cases CCC clinicians offered important recommendations, from complete revision of a treatment plan to adding/changing medications, modifying the plan for monitoring, and/or improving management of side effects. Patients reported that all major recommendations were implemented by their treating clinicians. In one dramatic case, chemotherapy was failing to slow the growth a young public hospital patient’s stage 3 tumor associated with a P53 mutation. The CCC clinician recommended and advocated for an entirely different treatment. In remission two years later, the patient has had another child. To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the CCC consultation as an intervention to reduce mortality disparities. It appears highly feasible to target CCC 2nd opinions to vulnerable patients at relatively low cost to the CCC. Many CCC clinicians are eager to see high-risk under-represented patients, and go beyond the consultation by communicating with treating clinicians and seeing patients more than once. Patients readily recognized the expertise of CCC clinicians and were deeply grateful for the opportunity. Based on this pilot study, the 2nd opinion concept warrants further testing via a randomized trial. Comprehensive Cancer Centers can and must take greater responsibility for disparities in their region through innovations that extend their expertise beyond their walls.

Citation Format: Rena J Pasick, Brittany Campbell, Hope S Rugo, Christen Dillard, Marion Harris, Galen Joseph. Unlocking the vault: Can 2nd opinions by Comprehensive Cancer Center breast oncologists improve treatment quality for African Americans? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr D078.

Abstract A034: Extending the reach of genetic counseling to the safety net: Study design and recruitment challenges of a randomized trial

Genetic counseling (GC) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is available mainly in academic settings. Despite equal risk, most low income public hospital patients remain unaware and untested. Remote counseling may be a solution, but research has been limited to phone counseling for insured patients. Our study compares in-person, phone, and video conference GC among high-risk patients in 3 public hospitals to determine the comparative effectiveness of GC delivered across modes with regard to patients’ knowledge, cancer distress, decisional conflict, perceived stress, risk perception, satisfaction, and recall. We also assessed whether patients have a preference for counseling mode and how that affects outcomes. This report describes the study design and lessons learned regarding recruitment. We conducted a multicenter partially randomized preference noninferiority trial with English-, Spanish-, and Cantonese-speaking patients assigned by randomization or patients´ preference to one of the three GC modes. High-risk patients were identified using a family history screener in clinics or by physician referral. Study staff verified risk by phone, invited participation, conducted informed consent, and administered a baseline survey. Enrollees were asked whether they could be randomized or if they preferred one GC mode. They were then given a GC appointment and called again within 2 weeks of counseling for a follow-up survey. Power calculations required 270 randomized patients. A total of 23,401 screener forms yielded 824 likely to be high-risk; 656 completed baseline surveys. Race/ethnic composition was 40% Latinx, 25% white, 19% African American, and 8% Asian. Of these, 531 were counseled, and 505 completed final surveys (283 from randomized patients). The majority (64%) of non-randomized patients chose counseling by phone, 33% chose in person, 3% chose video. • At every step, participation exceeded our projections, showing that diverse low-income patients were interested in participating in research that they deemed relevant. • Our greatest recruitment challenges were due more to settings than to patients. Collection of screeners varied greatly by month and/or clinic. Oncologists valued the risk services offered by the study, but intensive engagement was necessary with front-line staff/supervisors because of their job demands. • Partial randomization functioned well. Prior studies showed that many high-risk women refuse randomization for GC. Adding a preference arm necessitated a larger sample, but greater inclusiveness yields more generalizable findings. • Recruitment of Chinese-speaking patients was low (2.5%) due largely to structural barriers which we continue to explore. Practice-based safety net research presents numerous challenges that require close partnerships, extensive planning, and highly skilled staff capable of sensitive personnel engagement. The work is rewarded by real-world findings, the sine qua non in efforts to eliminate cancer disparities.

Citation Format: Claudia Guerra, Robin Lee, Susan L Stewart, Celia Kaplan, Galen Joseph, Janice Tsoh, Niharika Dixit, Heather Cedermaz, Jin Kim, Jane Campbell, Lily X Wang, Amal Khoury, Cindy Hellman-Wylie, Rena J Pasick. Extending the reach of genetic counseling to the safety net: Study design and recruitment challenges of a randomized trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr A034.

Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution

PURPOSE

This study describes challenges faced while incorporating sometimes conflicting stakeholder feedback into study design and development of patient-facing materials for a translational genomics study aiming to reduce health disparities among diverse populations.

METHODS

We conducted an ethnographic analysis of study documents including summaries of patient advisory committee meetings and interviews, reflective field notes written by study team members, and correspondence with our institutional review board (IRB). Through this analysis, we identified cross-cutting challenges for incorporating stakeholder feedback into development of our recruitment, risk assessment, and informed consent processes and materials.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed three key challenges: (1) balancing precision and simplicity in the design of study materials, (2) providing clinical care within the research context, and (3) emphasizing potential study benefits versus risks and limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

While involving patient stakeholders in study design and materials development can increase inclusivity and responsiveness to patient needs, patient feedback may conflict with that of content area experts on the research team and IRBs who are tasked with overseeing the research. Our analysis highlights the need for further empirical research about ethical challenges when incorporating patient feedback into study design, and for dialogue with genomic researchers and IRB representatives about these issues.

Lessons learned about harmonizing survey measures for the CSER consortium

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium.

METHODS

A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing.

RESULTS

Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.

Genetic Counselor and Healthcare Interpreter Perspectives on the Role of Interpreters in Cancer Genetic Counseling

Cancer genetic counseling (CGC) combines psychosocial counseling and genetic education provided by genetic counselors to patients and families who have a history of cancer and are considering or have undergone genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. The quantity and complexity of information provided can be challenging for any patient, but is even more so for those with limited English proficiency (LEP). This exploratory study investigated healthcare interpreters' and genetic counselors' perspectives on the role of interpreters in providing care to LEP patients during CGC. Through a survey of 18 interpreters and conventional content analysis of semi-structured interviews with 11 interpreters and 10 GCs at two California public hospitals, we found that: 1) interpreters viewed their role as patient advocate, cultural broker, and emotional support, not simply a conduit; 2) interpreters were challenged by remote interpretation, lack of genetic knowledge, and the emotional content of encounters; 3) interpreters and GCs held conflicting views of the value of counselors' limited Spanish knowledge; and 4) trust, the foundation of the interpreter-provider dyad, was often lacking. The challenges identified here may result in poor healthcare experiences and outcomes for LEP patients. As genomics becomes more widespread and more LEP patients encounter CGC, the role of healthcare interpreters in facilitating effective communication must be further defined in order to facilitate better working relationships between interpreters and genetic counselors, and optimal communication experiences for patients.

P5727All-cause mortality and cardiovascular death according to blood pressure thresholds recommended by ACC/AHA

Background

The cut-off values for defining hypertension remains a matter of debate. Recently published guidelines from American College of Cardiology (ACC) /American Heart Association (AHA) defines hypertension at blood pressure (BP) of ≥130/80 in contrast to guidelines from European Society of Cardiology (ESC) defining hypertension as BP≥140/90. Adopting the ACC/AHA recommendation will lead to higher prevalence of hypertension in the general population and probably unnecessary medical treatment of persons at a low cardiovascular risk.

Aim

We aimed to explore whether the new definition of hypertension as defined from the ACC/AHA guidelines is associated with higher risk of mortality and cardiovascular death in the general population compared to their definition of normal BP.

Methods

A random sample of 20,000 Caucasian men and women aged 20–98 years were examined in a prospective cardiovascular population study. The population sample went through four examinations in 1976–78, 1981–83, 1991–94, and 2001–03. We defined the blood pressure levels according to the ACC/AHA guidelines: normal <130/80mmHg; Stage 1 hypertension: 130–139/80–89 mmHg; Stage II hypertension: ≥140/90 mmHg. The population was followed until April 2018 or until death. Cox regression with time varying covariates was performed. The analysis was adjusted for following confounders: age, sex, body mass index, level of daily physical activity, previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, educational status, smoking status, cardiac medication, cholesterol, and calendar time. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death defined as death from acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure.

Results

All outcomes were assessed according to the ACC/AHA BP thresholds. Primary outcome: Considering normal BP (<130/80 mmHg) as reference, we did not find higher mortality in stage 1 hypertension (130–139/80–89 mmHg) in the multivariable analyses [HR 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93–1.05), p=0.67]. In stage 2 hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg), the mortality was significantly higher [HR 1.13 (95% 1.07–1.20), p<0.001]. We found the same pattern for the secondary outcome: The risk of cardiovascular death in stage 1 hypertension (130–139/80–89 mmHg) did not differ significantly from normal BP (<130/80 mmHg) [HR 1.08 (95% CI: 0.95–1.22), p=0.25]. In stage 2 hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg), cardiovascular death was significantly higher [HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.35–1.66), p<0.001].

Mortality in BP thresholds by ACC/AHA

Conclusion

Hypertension as defined by the ACC/AHA guidelines is not associated with higher all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in the general population. Applying ACC/AHA guidelines might lead to unnecessary medical treatment of a low-risk population. In contrast, the ESC-definition of hypertension refers to a high-risk population in terms of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Danish Heart Foundation

Engaging limited English proficient and ethnically diverse low-income women in health research: A randomized trial of a patient navigator intervention

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate a community-based navigator intervention to increase breast cancer patients' and survivors' access to information about health research participation opportunities.

METHODS

In the context of a Community Based Participatory Research collaboration, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of the Health Research Engagement Intervention with pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 133). The primary outcome was health research information-seeking behavior. Secondary outcomes were health research knowledge, willingness to participate in health research, and health empowerment. Qualitative interviews (n = 11) elucidated participant perspectives on the intervention.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups' information-seeking behavior. Knowledge that not all health research studies are about drugs or treatments increased significantly from pre- to post-test among intervention group participants (32% to 48%, p = 0.012), but not in the control group (43% to 30%, p = 0.059); the difference between arms was statistically significant (p = 0.0012). Although survey responses indicated willingness to participate, qualitative interviews identified competing priorities that limited participants' motivation to seek enrollment information.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Community-based navigators are a trusted, and therefore promising link between health research and low-income underserved communities. However, systemic barriers in health research infrastructures need to be addressed to include low income, LEP and immigrant populations.

Self-monitoring and reminder text messages to increase physical activity in colorectal cancer survivors (Smart Pace): a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Over 1.3 million people live with colorectal cancer in the United States. Physical activity is associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer recurrence and mortality. Interventions are needed to increase physical activity in colorectal cancer survivors.

Methods

We conducted a 2-arm non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial at the University of California, San Francisco among 42 individuals who had completed curative-intent treatment for colorectal cancer to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a 12-week (84 days) physical activity intervention using a Fitbit Flex™ and daily text messages. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive the intervention with print educational materials or print educational materials alone. We explored the impact of the intervention versus usual care on physical activity using ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers pre−/post-intervention.

Results

We screened 406 individuals and randomized 42 to intervention (n = 21) or control (n = 21) groups. During the 12-week study, the intervention arm wore their Fitbits a median of 74 days [88% of days in study period, interquartile range: 23–83 days] and responded to a median of 34 (out of 46) text messages that asked for a reply (interquartile range: 13–38 text messages). Among the 16 intervention participants who completed the feedback survey, the majority (88%) reported that the intervention motivated them to exercise and that they were satisfied with their experience. No statistically significant difference in change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was found from baseline to 12 weeks between arms.

Conclusion

A 12-week physical activity intervention with a Fitbit and text messages was feasible and acceptable among colorectal cancer patients after curative treatment. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the intervention increases physical activity.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02966054. Registered 17 November 2016, retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5427-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: A pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication

Effective communication, where all parties share a common understanding, is necessary to realize the promise of Genomic Medicine. It is especially salient given the imperative to increase the participation of diverse populations in genomics research and to expand the reach of clinical genomics. We have previously shown that cancer genetic counseling is suboptimal for patients with limited health literacy. To address this finding, we implemented a pilot study to improve verbal communication between genetic counselors and their patients of limited health literacy that consisted of: i) curriculum development and delivery of a Genetic Counselors (GC) communication workshop; ii) two-month post-workshop interviews with GC participants (n = 9); iii) observations/audio recordings of counseling sessions involving 24 patients and two GC workshop participants; iv) post-counseling interviews with patients (n = 9). The 4.5-h workshop presented evidenced-based principles and strategies for effective communication with limited health literacy patients (e.g. use of plain language and teach-back), and offered specific techniques and exercises to practice adoption of such practices in the genetic counseling context. GCs expressed appreciation for the opportunity to refine their skills; however, they reported that some strategies were challenging given their professional training and communication habits. For example, GCs were concerned that use of plain language could undermine efforts to obtain informed consent and provide scientifically accurate information. Observations and patient interviews after the workshop revealed that GCs were able to employ the communication strategies with positive effects, with patients indicating sufficient understanding of the genetic test and its implications as well as satisfaction with the counselors' communication. While derived from research on communication with those of limited health literacy, the communication approaches taught in the GC workshop could benefit most patients, given the high rates of low health literacy in many countries, and the many factors beyond health literacy that can contribute to reduced comprehension in health care environments.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, now in its second funding cycle, is investigating the effectiveness of integrating genomic (exome or genome) sequencing into the clinical care of diverse and medically underserved individuals in a variety of healthcare settings and disease states. The consortium comprises a coordinating center, six funded extramural clinical projects, and an ongoing National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project. Collectively, these projects aim to enroll and sequence over 6,100 participants in four years. At least 60% of participants will be of non-European ancestry or from underserved settings, with the goal of diversifying the populations that are providing an evidence base for genomic medicine. Five of the six clinical projects are enrolling pediatric patients with various phenotypes. One of these five projects is also enrolling couples whose fetus has a structural anomaly, and the sixth project is enrolling adults at risk for hereditary cancer. The ongoing NHGRI intramural project has enrolled primarily healthy adults. Goals of the consortium include assessing the clinical utility of genomic sequencing, exploring medical follow up and cascade testing of relatives, and evaluating patient-provider-laboratory level interactions that influence the use of this technology. The findings from the CSER consortium will offer patients, healthcare systems, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges of providing genomic medicine in diverse populations and settings, and contribute evidence toward developing best practices for the delivery of clinically useful and cost-effective genomic sequencing in diverse healthcare settings.