Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing

Understanding patients' views and willingness toward the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service in Asia

Telehealth is a growing field, its pertinence magnified by COVID-19 causing the accelerated digitalization of the world. Given the significant global demand to provide telehealth services, it is important to explore patient receptiveness toward this alternative service model, particularly from regions where it has yet to be implemented. We conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the views and willingness of patients toward the use of telehealth for cancer genetic counseling. A survey was completed by 160 patients of the National Cancer Centre Singapore, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The study found that 95.6% (n = 153/160) of participants did not have prior telehealth experience. Most participants were willing or neutral toward having genetic counseling by phone (n = 114/160, 71.3%) and video (n = 106/160, 66.3%). However, majority prefer in-person appointments for first (n = 127/160, 79.4%) and follow-up (n = 97/160, 60.6%) visits over telehealth. Majority agreed that a phone/video consultation would meet most of their needs but voiced concerns regarding privacy and sharing of information (n = 79/160, 49.4% for phone; n = 74/160, 46.3% for video) and whether their emotional needs could be met (n = 61/160, 38.1%). Participants' age, employment status, income, mode of transportation to the appointment, and whether special arrangements were made to attend the in-person appointment were associated with receptivity to telehealth genetic counseling (p ≤ .05 for all). This study adds diversity to existing literature and demonstrates that patients from Asia are generally willing and accepting of the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service. This will help meet increasing global demand of telehealth consultations in the post-pandemic new norm. Furthermore, it will also provide services for underserved populations and patients requiring urgent testing in a timely manner. Further studies are needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and fair billing methods, as well as willingness and acceptability of telehealth genetic counseling in post-COVID times.

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.

Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing across medical specialties and the changing workforce demographics of certified genetic counselors (CGCs) have led to concerns of a workforce shortage. We assessed the number of genetic counselors working in the Southern United States-a rural and medically underserved region-using various online and professional resources. We identified 683 practicing genetic counselors across the Southern U.S. and 160 specializing in prenatal genetics. CGCs were concentrated in urban areas; counties with a CGC had a significantly higher proportion of minority residents and median household income than counties without a CGC. There is an average of 2.97 prenatal CGCs per 5000 high-risk births in the South. Alternative delivery models are needed to increase access to counseling services in the Southern U.S., particularly for low income households and those of high risk pregnancies. Increased provider education and patient educational materials can help facilitate informed decision-making in prenatal settings as genetic technologies gain a stronger foothold and bring value to medical practice.

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.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The ongoing integration of cancer genomic testing into routine clinical care has led to increased demand for cancer genetic services. To meet this demand, there is an urgent need to enhance the accessibility and reach of such services, while ensuring comparable care delivery outcomes. This randomized trial compared 1-year outcomes for telephone genetic counseling with in-person counseling among women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer living in geographically diverse areas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using population-based sampling, women at increased risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to in-person (n = 495) or telephone genetic counseling (n = 493). One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year psychosocial, decision-making, and quality-of-life outcomes. Differences in test-uptake proportions for determining equivalency of a 10% prespecified margin were evaluated by 95% CIs.

RESULTS

At the 1-year follow-up, telephone counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety (difference [d], 0.08; upper bound 97.5% CI, 0.45), cancer-specific distress (d, 0.66; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.28), perceived personal control (d, -0.01; lower bound 97.5% CI, -0.06), and decisional conflict (d, -0.12; upper bound 97.5% CI, 2.03). Test uptake was lower for telephone counseling (27.9%) than in-person counseling (37.3%), with the difference of 9.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 16.8%). Uptake was appreciably higher for rural compared with urban dwellers in both counseling arms.

CONCLUSION

Although telephone counseling led to lower testing uptake, our findings suggest that telephone counseling can be effectively used to increase reach and access without long-term adverse psychosocial consequences. Further work is needed to determine long-term adherence to risk management guidelines and effective strategies to boost utilization of primary and secondary preventive strategies.

Alternate Service Delivery Models in Cancer Genetic Counseling: A Mini-Review

Demand for cancer genetic counseling has grown rapidly in recent years as germline genomic information has become increasingly incorporated into cancer care, and the field has entered the public consciousness through high-profile celebrity publications. Increased demand and existing variability in the availability of trained cancer genetics clinicians place a priority on developing and evaluating alternate service delivery models for genetic counseling. This mini-review summarizes the state of science regarding service delivery models, such as telephone counseling, telegenetics, and group counseling. Research on comparative effectiveness of these models in traditional individual, in-person genetic counseling has been promising for improving access to care in a manner acceptable to patients. Yet, it has not fully evaluated the short- and long-term patient- and system-level outcomes that will help answer the question of whether these models achieve the same beneficial psychosocial and behavioral outcomes as traditional cancer genetic counseling. We propose a research agenda focused on comparative effectiveness of available service delivery models and how to match models to patients and practice settings. Only through this rigorous research can clinicians and systems find the optimal balance of clinical quality, ready and secure access to care, and financial sustainability. Such research will be integral to achieving the promise of genomic medicine in oncology.

Genetic counseling content: How does it impact health behavior?

Women with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer face decisions about screening (transvaginal ultrasound, CA125, mammography, breast exams) and proactive (before cancer) or reactive (after cancer) surgery (oophorectomy, mastectomy). The content of genetic counseling and its relation to these key health behaviors is largely unexamined. Ashkenazi Jewish women (n = 78) were surveyed through the process of genetic testing and had audiorecorded counseling sessions available for Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count analysis. Proportions for participant and counselor cognitive and affective content during sessions were used as primary predictor variables in linear mixed models for change in intentions for screening and treatment and in self-reported screening. Cognitive and affective content were important predictors of behavior. Counselor cognitive content was associated with ovarian screening. An interaction effect also emerged for CA-125, such that counselor cognitive content plus participant cognitive content or counselor affective content were associated with more screening. Teasing out the factors in risk communication that impact decision-making are critical, and affect from a risk communicator can spur action, such as cancer screening.

Predictive Genetic Testing and Alternatives to Face to Face Results Disclosure: A Retrospective Review of Patients Preference for Alternative Modes of BRCA 1 and 2 Results Disclosure in the Republic of Ireland

The traditional model of providing cancer predictive testing services is changing. Many genetic centres are now offering a choice to patients in how they receive their results instead of the typical face-to-face disclosure. In view of this shift in practice and the increasing demand on the ROI cancer predictive testing service, a 2 year retrospective study on patient preference in how to receive a Breast Cancer (BRCA) predictive result was carried out. Results showed that 71.7 % of respondents would have liked to have the option of obtaining their results by telephone or by letter. However, when asked about their actual experience of BRCA predictive results disclosure 40.6 % did still value the face-to-face contact, while 44.9 % would still have preferred to receive results by either post or telephone. No significant difference was found between males and females (p > 0.05) and those who tested negative or positive for the BRCA mutation (p > 0.05) in wanting a choice in how their results were disclosed. While the majority expressed a wish to have a choice in how to receive their results, it is important not to underestimate the value of a face-to-face encounter in these circumstances.

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.

Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC.

RESULTS

TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

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

OBJECTIVES

With an increasing demand for genetic services, effective and efficient delivery models for genetic testing are needed.

METHODS

In this prospective single-arm communication study, participants received clinical BRCA1/2 results by telephone with a genetic counselor and completed surveys at baseline, after telephone disclosure (TD) and after in-person clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of women agreed to participate; 73% of decliners preferred in-person communication. Anxiety decreased from baseline to post-TD (p=0.03) and satisfaction increased (p<0.01). Knowledge did not change significantly from baseline to post-TD, but was higher post-clinical follow-up (p=0.04). Cancer patients had greater declines in state anxiety and African-American participants reported less increase in satisfaction. 28% of participants did not return for in-person clinical follow-up, particularly those with less formal education, and higher post-disclosure anxiety and depression (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results may not be associated with negative cognitive and affective responses among willing patients, although some subgroups may experience less favorable responses. Some patients do not return for in-person clinical follow-up and longitudinal outcomes are unknown.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further evaluation of longitudinal outcomes of telephone disclosure and differences among subgroups can inform how to best incorporate telephone communication into delivery of genetic services.

Allocation of work activities in a comprehensive cancer genetics program

Hereditary cancer programs that provide risk assessment, genetic education, and counseling services are becoming increasingly common. This article describes one possible approach to providing comprehensive cancer genetics care by a credentialed genetics advanced practice nurse. In addition to the description of the program, data from a recently conducted time study are included to provide insight into work allocation of different program components. Findings from the study indicate that about 41% of the time is spent in direct clinical time with patients and families, including initial visit counseling, phone consultation, and follow-up visits. The rest of the time is spent in other indirect care activities, including previsit activities, risk calculation, clinical trials enrollment, correspondence, teaching, and administrative duties. For those developing or expanding a cancer genetics program, considering all activities that will occur and the time allocated to each activity is important.

Report from the National Society of Genetic Counselors service delivery model task force: a proposal to define models, components, and modes of referral

The Service Delivery Model Task Force (SDMTF) was appointed in 2009 by the leadership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with a charge to research and assess the capacity of all existing service delivery models to improve access to genetic counseling services in the context of increasing demand for genetic testing and counseling. In approaching this charge, the SDMTF found that there were varying interpretations of what was meant by "service delivery models" and the group held extensive discussions about current practices to arrive at consensus of proposed definitions for current genetic service delivery models, modes of referral and components of service delivery. The major goal of these proposed definitions is to allow for conversations to begin to address the charge to the committee. We propose that current models of service delivery can be defined by: 1) the methods in which genetic counseling services are delivered (In-person, Telephone, Group and Telegenetics), 2) the way they are accessed by patients (Traditional referral, Tandem, Triage, Rescue and Self-referral) and 3) the variable components that depend upon multiple factors unique to each service setting. This report by the SDMTF provides a starting point whereby standardized terminology can be used in future studies that assess the effectiveness of these described models to overcome barriers to access to genetic counseling services.