A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: trial design and baseline findings

Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation.

METHODS

The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial.

RESULTS

We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

Uncertainty in the Process of Communicating Cancer-related Genetic Risk Information with Patients: A Scoping Review

In the era of precision medicine, patients must manage the uncertainty caused by ambiguous genetic information. To aid health practitioners in effectively communicating genetic information, this study classified the types of uncertainty involved in these communication processes. A search of recent literature turned up 64 articles that measured and/or discussed patients' perceptions and/or feelings of uncertainty related to the communication process of cancer-related genetic information. In reviewing these papers, six types of uncertainty regarding cancer-related genetic information were identified: (1) uncertainty about understanding genetic information (n = 25; 39.1%); (2) uncertainty about future cancer risks (n = 34; 53.1%); (3) uncertainty about managing known genetic information or mutation status (n = 33; 51.6%); (4) uncertainty about the utility of genetic information (n = 5; 7.8%); (5) uncertainty about genetic test results before undergoing testing or receiving the results (n = 10; 15.6%); and (6) uncertainty about the impact of genetic results on family and life (n = 11; 17.2%). These six types of uncertainty serve as a helpful taxonomy for developing, validating, and utilizing future measures of uncertainty in the context of cancer-related genetic risk communication.

The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation

The purpose of this study was to develop a brief instrument, the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR), to measure the psychosocial impact of returning genomic findings to patients in research and clinical practice. To create the FACToR, we modified and augmented the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire based on findings from a literature review, two focus groups (N = 12), and cognitive interviews (N = 6). We evaluated data from 122 participants referred for evaluation for inherited colorectal cancer or polyposis from the New EXome Technology in (NEXT) Medicine Study, an RCT of exome sequencing versus usual care. We assessed floor and ceiling effects of each item, conducted principal component analysis to identify subscales, and evaluated each subscale's internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. After excluding items that were ambiguous or demonstrated floor or ceiling effects, 12 items forming four distinct subscales were retained for further analysis: negative emotions, positive feelings, uncertainty, and privacy concerns. All four showed good internal consistency (0.66-0.78) and test-retest reliability (0.65-0.91). The positive feelings and the uncertainty subscales demonstrated known-group validity. The 12-item FACToR with four subscales shows promising psychometric properties on preliminary evaluation in a limited sample and needs to be evaluated in other populations.

The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 25 February 2015. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adults in which one group received personalised DNA based estimates of disease risk for conditions where risk could be reduced by behaviour change. Eligible studies included a measure of risk-reducing behaviour.

RESULTS

We examined 10,515 abstracts and included 18 studies that reported on seven behavioural outcomes, including smoking cessation (six studies; n=2663), diet (seven studies; n=1784), and physical activity (six studies; n=1704). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effects of communicating DNA based risk estimates on smoking cessation (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.35, P=0.67), diet (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.24, P=0.05), or physical activity (standardised mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.08, P=0.62). There were also no effects on any other behaviours (alcohol use, medication use, sun protection behaviours, and attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes) or on motivation to change behaviour, and no adverse effects, such as depression and anxiety. Subgroup analyses provided no clear evidence that communication of a risk-conferring genotype affected behaviour more than communication of the absence of such a genotype. However, studies were predominantly at high or unclear risk of bias, and evidence was typically of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations that communicating DNA based risk estimates changes behaviour is not supported by existing evidence. These results do not support use of genetic testing or the search for risk-conferring gene variants for common complex diseases on the basis that they motivate risk-reducing behaviour.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons.

DESIGN

2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360).

SETTING

4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry.

RESULTS

Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42]).

LIMITATION

Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed.

CONCLUSION

In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Predictors of patient uptake of colorectal cancer gene environment risk assessment

Background

In an ongoing clinical trial, the genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) blood test offers subjects information about personal colorectal cancer risk through measurement of two novel low-to-moderate risk factors. We sought to examine predictors of uptake of the GERA blood test among participants randomized to the Intervention arm.

Methods

Primary care patients aged 50 to 74 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening are randomized to receive a mailed stool blood test kit to complete at home (Control) or to the control condition plus an in-office blood test called GERA that includes assessment of red blood cell folate and DNA-testing for two MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (Intervention). For the present study, baseline survey data are examined in participants randomized to the Intervention.

Results

The first 351 intervention participants (161 African American/190 white) were identified. Overall, 249 (70.9%) completed GERA testing. Predictors of GERA uptake included race (African American race, odds ratio (OR) 0.51 (0.29 to 0.87)), and being more knowledgeable about GERA and colorectal cancer screening (OR 1.09 (1.01 to 1.18)). Being married (OR 1.81 (1.09 to 3.00)) was also significant in the multivariable model.

Conclusions

Participant uptake of GERA testing was high. GERA uptake varied, however, according to socio-demographic background and knowledge.

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.