1
|
Swisher EM, Rayes N, Bowen D, Peterson CB, Norquist BM, Coffin T, Gavin K, Polinsky D, Crase J, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Blank SV, Munsell MF, Nebgen D, Fleming GF, Olopade OI, Law S, Zhou A, Levine DA, D'Andrea A, Lu KH. Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2023; 9:1547-1555. [PMID: 37707822 PMCID: PMC10502696 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nadine Rayes
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Deborah Bowen
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Christine B Peterson
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Barbara M Norquist
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Tara Coffin
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle
| | | | | | - Jamie Crase
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle
| | | | - Stephanie V Blank
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Mark F Munsell
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Denise Nebgen
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Gini F Fleming
- Section of Hematology and Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | | | | | - Douglas A Levine
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
- Now with Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, New Jersey
| | | | - Karen H Lu
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Qualitative analysis of shared decision-making for chemoprevention in the primary care setting: provider-related barriers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022; 22:208. [PMID: 35927732 PMCID: PMC9354269 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-01954-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Accepted: 07/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Chemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting. Methods Primary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35–75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Results Six primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters. Conclusions Critical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01954-y.
Collapse
|
3
|
Kukafka R, Pan S, Silverman T, Zhang T, Chung WK, Terry MB, Fleck E, Younge RG, Trivedi MS, McGuinness JE, He T, Dimond J, Crew KD. Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2222092. [PMID: 35849397 PMCID: PMC9294997 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk. OBJECTIVE To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. INTERVENTIONS RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months. RESULTS From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita Kukafka
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Samuel Pan
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Tianmai Zhang
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Wendy K. Chung
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Elaine Fleck
- Division of Community and Population Health, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York
| | - Richard G. Younge
- Division of Community and Population Health, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York
| | - Meghna S. Trivedi
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Julia E. McGuinness
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Ting He
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - Katherine D. Crew
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jones T, Howard H, Freeman-Costin K, Creighton A, Wisdom-Chambers K, Underhill-Blazey M. Knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and needs of diverse women with a personal or family history of breast cancer in South Florida. J Community Genet 2021; 12:415-429. [PMID: 33555545 PMCID: PMC8241944 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00507-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The vast majority of (BRCA1/2) genetic testing has been conducted in White women, in particular Ashkenazi Jewish women, with limited information available for Black and Hispanic women. Understanding perspectives of those who are underserved is critical to developing interventions to support inclusive approaches to genetic testing. This qualitative study explored knowledge and perceptions of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among diverse women in South Florida. We also explored participants' information needs. Convenience sampling was used to recruit a diverse group of 15 women with a personal or family history of breast cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews and used grounded theory method to analyze the data. Five themes were identified: (1) lacking awareness and knowledge of BRCA1/2 genetic testing and results among Black women, (2) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and a way to be proactive about cancer risk, (3) perceiving BRCA1/2 genetic testing as beneficial to family members, (4) interactions with healthcare providers and the healthcare system that shape genetic testing experiences, and (5) information needs for reducing cancer risk and promoting health. Our findings suggest that diverse underserved women perceived genetic testing as beneficial to themselves and family members. Women needed more information about the BRCA genes and genetic testing, prevention strategies, and the latest breast cancer research. Healthcare providers, particularly nurse practitioners, need to engage diverse high-risk women in discussions about their cancer risk, address unmet information needs, and, in particular, educate Black women about the benefits of pursuing genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tarsha Jones
- Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.
| | - Heather Howard
- College for Design and Social Inquiry, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, 33431, USA
| | - Katherine Freeman-Costin
- Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, 33431, USA
| | - Ana Creighton
- Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA
| | - Karen Wisdom-Chambers
- Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA
| | - Meghan Underhill-Blazey
- School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, 02215, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Jones T, Guzman A, Silverman T, Freeman K, Kukafka R, Crew K. Perceptions of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Regarding the Use of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Chemoprevention: Qualitative Study Nested Within a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23:e23839. [PMID: 34100769 PMCID: PMC8262666 DOI: 10.2196/23839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Chemopreventive agents such as selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors have proven efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk by 41% to 79% in high-risk women. Women at high risk of developing breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer chemoprevention. RealRisks is a patient-centered, web-based decision aid (DA) designed to promote the understanding of breast cancer risk and to engage diverse women in planning a preference-sensitive course of decision making about taking chemoprevention. Objective This study aims to understand the perceptions of women at high risk of developing breast cancer regarding their experience with using RealRisks—a DA designed to promote the uptake of breast cancer chemoprevention—and to understand their information needs. Methods We completed enrollment to a randomized controlled trial among 300 racially and ethnically diverse women at high risk of breast cancer who were assigned to standard educational materials alone or such materials in combination with RealRisks. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of 21 high-risk women enrolled in the intervention arm of the randomized controlled trial who initially accessed the tool (on average, 1 year earlier) to understand how they interacted with the tool. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and compared with digital audio recordings to ensure the accuracy of the content. We used content analysis to generate themes. Results The mean age of the 21 participants was 58.5 (SD 10.1) years. The participants were 5% (1/21) Asian, 24% (5/21) Black or African American, and 71% (15/21) White; 10% (2/21) of participants were Hispanic or Latina. All participants reported using RealRisks after being granted access to the DA. In total, 4 overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analyses: the acceptability of the intervention, specifically endorsed elements of the DA, recommendations for improvements, and information needs. All women found RealRisks to be acceptable and considered it to be helpful (21/21, 100%). Most women (13/21, 62%) reported that RealRisks was easy to navigate, user-friendly, and easily accessible on the web. The majority of women (18/21, 86%) felt that RealRisks improved their knowledge about breast cancer risk and chemoprevention options and that RealRisks informed their (17/21, 81%) decision about whether or not to take chemoprevention. Some women (9/21, 43%) shared recommendations for improvements, as they wanted more tailoring based on user characteristics, felt that the DA was targeting a narrow population of Hispanic or Latina by using graphic novel–style narratives, wanted more understandable terminology, and felt that the tool placed a strong emphasis on chemoprevention drugs. Conclusions This qualitative study demonstrated the acceptability of the RealRisks web-based DA among a diverse group of high-risk women, who provided some recommendations for improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tarsha Jones
- Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States
| | | | | | | | - Rita Kukafka
- Columbia University, New York, NY, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Samimi G, Heckman-Stoddard BM, Holmberg C, Tennant B, Sheppard BB, Coa KI, Kay SS, Ford LG, Szabo E, Minasian LM. Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2020; 14:205-214. [PMID: 33023915 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-20-0407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2020] [Revised: 09/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/02/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Goli Samimi
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | | | - Christine Holmberg
- Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg, Havel, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Leslie G Ford
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Eva Szabo
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Lori M Minasian
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 183:9-21. [PMID: 32577939 PMCID: PMC7376076 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05741-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2020] [Accepted: 06/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Purpose This systematic review examined educational training interventions for healthcare professionals (HCPs) discussing genetic testing and risk for hereditary breast cancer. There was a particular focus on the presence, and content, of communication elements within these packages. Methods Searches were run via CINAHL, EMBASE, PUBMED, and PsychInfo in February 2019 to identify training interventions available to HCPs with reference to communication skills. Studies were assessed for quality, with relevant intervention and outcome data extracted and synthesized. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019124010). Results Of 3,988 items, seven papers, two of which were linked, were eligible for inclusion. There was a mix of randomized and single arm studies with web-based and face-to-face interventions. Content included an overview of genetics, hereditary and familial background, and recommended practice techniques. Outcomes focused on communication, self-efficacy, knowledge, and satisfaction. Interventions were designed for genetic counselors, physicians, primary care physicians (PCPs), medical students, and nurses. None of the papers featured oncologists or surgeons. Conclusions This review revealed an overall lack of publications which evaluated interventions to assist HCPs discussing hereditary breast cancer risk and testing. Studies failed to operationalize which ‘communication skills’ they included, nor did they consistently report randomization, outcome measures, or analysis. Discussing the need for, and management of, genetic testing for inherited cancer risk with individuals and their families can be challenging. As genetic testing in breast cancer becomes more common, the provision of specific communication-based training programs, with reference to genetic testing, risk assessments, and counseling skills is warranted. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05741-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
8
|
Crew KD, Silverman TB, Vanegas A, Trivedi MS, Dimond J, Mata J, Sin M, Jones T, Terry MB, Tsai WY, Kukafka R. Study protocol: Randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for high-risk women and healthcare providers to increase breast cancer chemoprevention. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2019; 16:100433. [PMID: 31497674 PMCID: PMC6722284 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2019] [Revised: 08/11/2019] [Accepted: 08/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chemoprevention using selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors has been shown to reduce invasive breast cancer incidence in high-risk women. Despite this evidence, few high-risk women who are eligible for chemoprevention utilize it as a risk-reducing strategy. Reasons for low uptake include inadequate knowledge about chemoprevention among patients and healthcare providers, concerns about side effects, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and competing comorbidities. METHODS/DESIGN We describe the study design of a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of two web-based decision support tools on chemoprevention decision antecedents and quality, referral for specialized counseling, and chemoprevention uptake among women at an increased risk for breast cancer. The trial is being conducted at a large, urban medical center. A total of 300 patients and 50 healthcare providers will be recruited and randomized to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the decision support tools. Patient reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, one and six months after randomization, and after their clinic visit with their healthcare provider. DISCUSSION We are conducting this trial to provide evidence on how best to support personalized breast cancer risk assessment and informed and shared decision-making for chemoprevention. We propose to integrate the decision support tools into clinical workflow, which can potentially expand quality decision-making and chemoprevention uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT03069742.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine D. Crew
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Thomas B. Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alejandro Vanegas
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Meghna S. Trivedi
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jill Dimond
- Sassafras Tech Collective, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jennie Mata
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Margaret Sin
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Tarsha Jones
- Christine E Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wei-Yann Tsai
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McGuinness JE, Trivedi MS, Silverman T, Marte A, Mata J, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population. Cancer Genet 2019; 235-236:72-76. [PMID: 31078448 PMCID: PMC6625883 DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2019.04.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Revised: 04/10/2019] [Accepted: 04/18/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Genetic counseling is under-utilized in women who meet family history criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) testing, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities. We evaluated the uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among women presenting for screening mammography in a predominantly Hispanic, low-income population of Washington Heights in New York City. We administered the Six-Point Scale (SPS) to women presenting for screening mammography at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York, NY. The SPS is a family history screener to determine eligibility for BRCA1/2 genetic testing based upon U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines that has been validated in low-income, multiethnic populations. Among women who underwent screening mammography at CUIMC between November 2014 and June 2016, 3,055 completed the SPS family history screener. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (76.7%), and 12% met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, of whom <5% had previously undergone testing. In a multiethnic population, a significant proportion met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, but uptake of genetic testing was low. Such underutilization of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among minorities further underscores the need to develop programs to engage high-risk women from underrepresented populations in genetic testing services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia E McGuinness
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States.
| | - Meghna S Trivedi
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Awilda Marte
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Jennie Mata
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Katherine D Crew
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| |
Collapse
|