1
|
Lahiri S, Mersch J, Zimmerman J, Mauer Hall C, Moriarty K, Gemmell A, Lee M, Clark C, Luong M, Stokes C, Romano K, James CA, Pirzadeh-Miller S. Randomized control trial comparing genetic counseling service delivery models in an underserved population. J Genet Couns 2025; 34:e1975. [PMID: 39370944 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2024] [Revised: 09/06/2024] [Accepted: 09/11/2024] [Indexed: 10/08/2024]
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial compares outcomes of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling service models in underserved, bilingual patient populations referred for cancer genetic counseling. Between 2022 and 2023, a two-arm (telephone vs. in-person genetic counseling) prospective, randomized controlled study with 201 participants was conducted at two county hospital cancer genetics clinics. Primary outcomes included comparison of pre- and post-genetic counseling genetics knowledge (Multi-dimensional Model of Informed Choice, MMIC), genetic counseling visit satisfaction (Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, GCSS), and genetic counseling visit completion rates. Secondary outcomes included comparison of genetic testing attitudes and informed choice (MMIC), genetic counseling-specific empowerment (Genomic Outcomes Scale, GOS), and genetic testing completion and cancellation/failure rates, using linear regression models (significance ≤0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between arms in pre/post-genetic counseling MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS or GCSS scores or genetic counseling completion. While more participants in the telephone versus in-person arm made an informed choice about testing (52.5% v. 39.0%, p = 0.0552), test completion was lower (74% v. 100%, p < 0.05) for this group. Genetic counseling completion rates and MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS, and GCSS scores suggest telephone genetic counseling is comparable to in-person genetic counseling for underserved populations. Higher informed choice scores and significantly lower testing completion rates for telephone visits require further study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sayoni Lahiri
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Jacqueline Mersch
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - John Zimmerman
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Caitlin Mauer Hall
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Kelsey Moriarty
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Amber Gemmell
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - MinJae Lee
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Cheyla Clark
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Michelle Luong
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Caroline Stokes
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Kathryn Romano
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Cynthia A James
- Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Sara Pirzadeh-Miller
- Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yi JC, Ballard S, Walsh C, Friedman DN, Ganz PA, Jacobs LA, Partridge AH, Mitchell SA, Leisenring WM, Syrjala KL, Baker KS. INteractive survivorship program to improve health care REsources [INSPIRE]: A study protocol testing a digital intervention with stepped care telehealth to improve outcomes for adolescent and young adult survivors. Contemp Clin Trials 2025; 148:107745. [PMID: 39561920 PMCID: PMC11700757 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107745] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2024] [Revised: 11/07/2024] [Accepted: 11/13/2024] [Indexed: 11/21/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAs, ages 15-39 at the time of diagnosis) experience significant adverse health and psychosocial outcomes. AYAs live with emotional distress and health care demands that exceed those of their healthy peers but can have difficulty accessing care. Digitally delivered interventions are an attractive option for AYA survivors, a population that routinely utilizes online resources when seeking health information and support. AIM By improving access to survivorship resources and support and strengthening health literacy and self-management skills, the INteractive Survivorship Program to Improve Health care REsources [INSPIRE] is designed to improve adherence to AYA health care guidelines and reduce cancer-related distress. We describe the protocol for a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the AYA-adapted INSPIRE program. METHODS/DESIGN The intervention includes an interactive mobile app, study website, and social media platforms, adding telehealth for those with continued distress, lower survivorship health care literacy, or poor engagement with the digital program at 6 weeks. Participants are randomized to INSPIRE or an active control. In the active control arm, survivors receive access to a study website with links to existing AYA survivor resources followed by delayed access to the INSPIRE program. Participants are not blinded; study staff not providing telehealth are blinded. The primary outcomes are cancer-related distress and health care adherence specific to second cancer and cardiometabolic screenings. DISCUSSION If effective, the program is positioned for accelerated implementation to improve care for AYA survivors by using a scalable informatics-based administration and largely digital intervention program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Sandra A Mitchell
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Handorf EA, McDougall JA, Heidt E, An J, Walters ST, Toppmeyer DL, Kinney AY. Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation for Hereditary Genetic Risk Assessment Uptake: Economic Evaluation From the Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment Trial. JCO Oncol Pract 2024:OP2400617. [PMID: 39661922 DOI: 10.1200/op-24-00617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2024] [Revised: 10/07/2024] [Accepted: 11/12/2024] [Indexed: 12/13/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment Project demonstrated that tailored counseling and navigation (TCN) substantially increased the rate of genetic evaluation (GE) in women with high-risk breast or ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 8.9 [95% CI, 3.4 to 23.5] for TCN v usual care [UC]). This study sought to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of TCN in a clinic setting from a societal perspective. METHODS We identified the components of the intervention and downstream outcomes which would result in resource use. We assessed time spent by staff, cost of mailings, cost of patient time, and cost of testing and counseling in 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for outcomes of interest. We assessed the sensitivity of our results to assumptions via one-way sensitivity analyses. In addition, we assessed how results would change if a higher volume of patients was given TCN, with a health coach working full-time. RESULTS TCN costs $68,924 in US dollars (USD) to deliver per 212 patients, or $325 USD per patient. The intervention cost was $2,154 USD per record-verified GE. Much of this was attributed to training costs for health coaches ($50,223 USD). When including testing and counseling, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of TCN versus UC was $3,250 USD per additional GE. This was most sensitive to TCN effectiveness (ie, GE rate in TCN patients) and cost of testing. Cost-effectiveness would be more favorable with higher coaching volume (ICER of $1,730 USD/GE). CONCLUSION Implementing TCN in a clinic setting would come with notable costs, and current reimbursement policies for telemedicine may not be sufficient. Cost-effectiveness of TCN can be improved if subsequent interventions are more efficacious or are delivered to greater patient volumes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth A Handorf
- Rutgers University School of Public Health, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
- Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | | | - Jinghua An
- Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Scott T Walters
- University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX
| | | | - Anita Y Kinney
- Rutgers University School of Public Health, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ
- Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Binion S, Sorgen LJ, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir H, Isaacs C, Nusbaum R, Graves KD, DeMarco T, Wood M, McKinnon W, Garber J, McCormick S, Ladd MK, Schwartz MD. Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes. J Telemed Telecare 2024; 30:334-343. [PMID: 34779303 PMCID: PMC9902210 DOI: 10.1177/1357633x211052220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. METHODS We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. RESULTS Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20). CONCLUSION Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Savannah Binion
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Lia J. Sorgen
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
- Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Rachel Nusbaum
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Current Affiliation: University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Kristi D. Graves
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Tiffani DeMarco
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Current Affiliation: Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA
| | - Marie Wood
- Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
| | - Wendy McKinnon
- Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
| | - Judy Garber
- Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Shelley McCormick
- Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
- Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - Mary K. Ladd
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang C, Bertrand KA, Trevino-Talbot M, Flynn M, Ruderman M, Cabral HJ, Bowen DJ, Hughes-Halbert C, Palmer JR. Ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and challenges in the design of a randomized controlled trial to test the online return of cancer genetic research results to U.S. Black women. Contemp Clin Trials 2023; 132:107309. [PMID: 37516165 PMCID: PMC10544717 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 06/27/2023] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A central challenge to precision medicine research efforts is the return of genetic research results in a manner that is effective, ethical, and efficient. Formal tests of alternate modalities are needed, particularly for racially marginalized populations that have historically been underserved in this context. METHODS We are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test scalable modalities for results return and to examine the clinical utility of returning genetic research results to a research cohort of Black women. The primary aim is to compare the efficacy of two communication modalities for results return: 1) a conventional modality that entails telephone disclosure by a Board-certified genetic counselor, and 2) an online self-guided modality that entails results return directly to participants, with optional genetic counselor follow-up via telephone. The trial is being conducted among participants in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS), where targeted sequencing of 4000 participants was previously completed. RESULTS Several ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) and challenges presented, which necessitated substantial revision of the original study protocol. Challenges included chain of custody, re-testing of research results in a CLIA lab, exclusion of VUS results, and digital literacy. Bioethical principles of autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence were considered in the design of the study protocol. CONCLUSION This study is uniquely situated to provide critical evidence on the effectiveness of alternative models for genetic results return and provide further insight into the factors influencing access and uptake of genetic information among U.S. Black women. CLINICALTRIALS gov: NCT04407611.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catharine Wang
- Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
| | - Kimberly A Bertrand
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, 72 East Concord St, L-7, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
| | | | - Maureen Flynn
- MGH Institute of Health Professions, 36 1st Ave, Boston, MA 02129, USA.
| | - Maggie Ruderman
- Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
| | - Howard J Cabral
- Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
| | - Deborah J Bowen
- University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
| | - Chanita Hughes-Halbert
- University of Southern California, 1845 North Soto Street, MC 9C 9239, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.
| | - Julie R Palmer
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, 72 East Concord St, L-7, Boston, MA 02118, USA; Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chu ATW, Chung CCY, Hue SPY, Chung BHY. The growing needs of genetic counselling-Feasibility in utilization of tele-genetic counselling in Asia and Hong Kong. Front Genet 2023; 14:1239817. [PMID: 37600657 PMCID: PMC10435751 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1239817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 08/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The need for the expansion of genomic services has been at a record time high in the past decade. As technological advancement continues to strengthen the entire genetic and genomic pipeline and clinical operational workflow, the major challenge remains to be the speed of workforce development to meet service growth. In particular, the international expansion of genetic counselling (GC) services has been a topic of interest for the past few years. GC is an emerging profession in most of Asia, and in many countries the profession of GC often refers to physicians or front-line health workers with expertise in genetics to provide GC services rather than being a specific independent profession. As genetic and genomic services, especially pre-test and post-test GC, expand globally, the need to tackle the longstanding obstacles of GC personnel shortage and funding issues must not be overlooked. There is an urgent need internationally, and especially in Asia, where GC profession is comparatively less well-established, to seek alternative approaches to meet service demand. The present review examines the global development and feasibility of tele-genetics and tele-genetic counselling (TGC), and serves as the foundation to explore a possible roadmap in Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Genome Project.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Brian Hon Yin Chung
- Hong Kong Genome Institute, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
- Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Green S, Hartzfeld D, Terry AB, Fissell K, Friedman S, Paolino N, Principe K, Sandbach J, Trzupek K, Winheld S, Malinowski J. An evidence-based practice guideline of the National Society of Genetic Counselors for telehealth genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 2023; 32:4-17. [PMID: 36054686 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2021] [Revised: 07/22/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
There are currently no practice guidelines available for genetic counseling using telehealth modalities. This evidence-based practice guideline was developed in response to increasing use of alternative service delivery models for genetic counseling, specifically telephone and video-based genetic counseling (telehealth genetic counseling or THGC). A recent systematic evidence review (SER) compared outcomes of THGC with in-person genetic counseling and found that for the majority of studied outcomes, THGC was a non-inferior and comparable service delivery model. The SER results were used to develop this guideline. The current and anticipated future use of THGC, including the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides the context for this guideline. Recommendation: The Telehealth Practice Guideline author workgroup conditionally recommends telehealth genetic counseling, either via telephone or video, as a delivery method for genetic counseling. Depending on factors unique to individual healthcare systems and provider and patient populations, THGC may be the only service delivery model available or may be utilized in addition to other service delivery models including in-person genetic counseling. The evidence shows large desirable effects, minor undesirable effects, and increased equity for patients when THGC is available. THGC may reduce or remove existing barriers to patient access to genetic counseling, such as medical conditions and/or disabilities that may affect a patient's ability to travel, inflexible work or school schedules, and lack of reliable transportation, finances, or dependent care. THGC is likely acceptable to key groups impacted by its use and is feasible to implement. Certain patient populations may require additional resources or encounter more barriers in using telemedicine services in general. For these populations, THGC can still be a valuable option if solutions are available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Green
- Institute for Digital Health and Innovation, High Risk Pregnancy Program, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Deborah Hartzfeld
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Genomic Medicine Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Alissa Bovee Terry
- New York Mid-Atlantic-Caribbean Regional Genetics Network, Binghamton, New York, USA
| | | | - Sue Friedman
- Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), Tampa, Florida, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lahiri S, Pirzadeh-Miller S, Moriarty K, Kubiliun N. Implementation of a Population-Based Cancer Family History Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome. Cancer Control 2023; 30:10732748231175011. [PMID: 37161761 DOI: 10.1177/10732748231175011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Lynch syndrome increases risks for colorectal and other cancers. Though published Lynch syndrome cancer risk-management guidelines are effective for risk-reduction, the condition remains under-recognized. The Cancer Genetics Program at an academic medical center implemented a population-based cancer family history screening program, Detecting Unaffected Individuals with Lynch syndrome, to aid in identification of individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS In this retrospective cohort study, simple cancer family history screening questionnaires were used to identify those at risk for Lynch syndrome. Program navigators triaged and educated those who screened positive about hereditary cancer, and genetic counseling and testing services, offering genetic counseling if eligible. Genetic counseling was provided primarily via telephone. Genetic counselors performed hereditary cancer risk assessment and offered genetic testing via hereditary cancer panels to those eligible. Remote service delivery models via telephone genetic counseling and at-home saliva testing were used to increase access to medical genetics services. RESULTS This program screened 212,827 individuals, over half of whom were considered underserved, and identified 133 clinically actionable genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer. Of these, 47 (35%) were associated with Lynch syndrome while notably, 70 (53%) were not associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. Of 3,344 patients offered genetic counseling after initial triage, 2,441 (73%) elected to schedule the appointment and 1,775 individuals (73%) completed genetic counseling. Among underserved patients, telephone genetic counseling completion rates were significantly higher than in-person appointment completion rates (P < .05). While remote service delivery improved appointment completion rates, challenges with genetic test completion using at-home saliva sample collection kits were observed, with 242 of 1592 individuals (15%) not completing testing. CONCLUSION Population-based cancer family history screening and navigation can help identify individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes across diverse patient populations, but logistics of certain downstream service delivery models can impact outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sayoni Lahiri
- Department of Cancer Genetics, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | | | - Kelsey Moriarty
- Department of Cancer Genetics, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Nisa Kubiliun
- Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cao P, Smith L, Mandelblatt JS, Jeon J, Taylor KL, Zhao A, Levy DT, Williams RM, Meza R, Jayasekera J. Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 6:pkac048. [PMID: 35818125 PMCID: PMC9382714 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Revised: 06/17/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are limited data on the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening settings. We conducted an economic analysis embedded in a national randomized trial of 2 telephone counseling cessation interventions. METHODS We used a societal perspective to compare the short-term cost per 6-month bio-verified quit and long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Trial data were used to micro-cost intervention delivery, and the data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established Cancer Intervention Surveillance and Modeling Network lung cancer model. We modeled the impact of screening accompanied by 8 weeks vs 3 weeks of telephone counseling (plus nicotine replacement) vs screening alone based on 2021 screening eligibility. Lifetime downstream costs (2021 dollars) and effects (life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) saved were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying quit rates and costs; all analyses assumed nonrelapse after quitting. RESULTS The costs for delivery of the 8-week vs 3-week protocol were $380.23 vs $144.93 per person, and quit rates were 7.14% vs 5.96%, respectively. The least costly strategy was a 3-week counseling approach. An 8-week (vs 3-week) counseling approach increased costs but gained QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4029 per QALY. Screening alone cost more and saved fewer QALYs than either counseling strategy. Conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS Telephone-based cessation interventions with nicotine replacement are considered cost-effective in the lung screening setting. Integrating smoking cessation interventions with lung screening programs has the potential to maximize long-term health benefits at reasonable costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pianpian Cao
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Laney Smith
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jihyoun Jeon
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Kathryn L Taylor
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Amy Zhao
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - David T Levy
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Randi M Williams
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Rafael Meza
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Singh S, Fletcher GG, Yao X, Sussman J. Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:3488-3506. [PMID: 34590602 PMCID: PMC8482228 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28050301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2021] [Revised: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Virtual care in cancer care existed in a limited fashion globally before the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly driven by geographic constraints. The pandemic has required dramatic shifts in health care delivery, including cancer care. We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating virtual versus in-person care in patients with cancer. Embase, APA PsycInfo, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for literature from January 2015 to 6 August 2020. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines and used the modified GRADE approach to evaluate the data. We included 34 full-text publications of 10 randomized controlled trials, 13 non-randomized comparative studies, and 5 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Evidence was divided into studies that provide psychosocial or genetic counselling and those that provide or assess medical and supportive care. The limited data in this review support that in the general field of psychological counselling, virtual or remote counselling can be equivalent to in-person counselling. In the area of genetic counselling, telephone counselling was more convenient and noninferior to usual care for all outcomes (knowledge, decision conflict, cancer distress, perceived stress, genetic counseling satisfaction). There are few data for clinical outcomes and supportive care. Future research should assess the role of virtual care in these areas. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020202871.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simron Singh
- Person-Centred Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada;
| | - Glenn G. Fletcher
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; (G.G.F.); (X.Y.)
| | - Xiaomei Yao
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; (G.G.F.); (X.Y.)
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jonathan Sussman
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; (G.G.F.); (X.Y.)
- Correspondence: or ; Tel.: +1-905-387-9495
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Danylchuk NR, Cook L, Shane-Carson KP, Cacioppo CN, Hardy MW, Nusbaum R, Steelman SC, Malinowski J. Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review. J Genet Couns 2021; 30:1361-1378. [PMID: 34355839 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 06/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelle R Danylchuk
- Department of Genetic Counseling, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Lola Cook
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana U School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Kate P Shane-Carson
- Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Cara N Cacioppo
- Penn Telegenetics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Rachel Nusbaum
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Susan C Steelman
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Library, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Terry AB, Wylie A, Raspa M, Vogel B, Sanghavi K, Djurdjinovic L, Caggana M, Bodurtha J. Clinical models of telehealth in genetics: A regional telegenetics landscape. J Genet Couns 2019; 28:673-691. [DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2018] [Revised: 12/03/2018] [Accepted: 12/04/2018] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Alissa B. Terry
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- Genetic Counseling Program; Ferre Institute; Binghamton New York
| | - Amanda Wylie
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- RTI International; Research Triangle Park; North Carolina
| | - Melissa Raspa
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- RTI International; Research Triangle Park; North Carolina
| | - Beth Vogel
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- New York State Department of Health; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
| | - Kunal Sanghavi
- The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine; Farmington Connecticut
| | | | - Michele Caggana
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- New York State Department of Health; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
| | - Joann Bodurtha
- NYMAC Regional Genetics Network; Wadsworth Center; Albany New York
- McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine; Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Goldstein KM, Zullig LL, Dedert EA, Alishahi Tabriz A, Brearly TW, Raitz G, Sata SS, Whited JD, Bosworth HB, Gordon AM, Nagi A, Williams JW, Gierisch JM. Telehealth Interventions Designed for Women: an Evidence Map. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33:2191-2200. [PMID: 30284173 PMCID: PMC6258612 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4655-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2018] [Revised: 07/19/2018] [Accepted: 08/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Telehealth employs technology to connect patients to the right healthcare resources at the right time. Women are high utilizers of healthcare with gender-specific health issues that may benefit from the convenience and personalization of telehealth. Thus, we produced an evidence map describing the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of evidence assessing the effectiveness of telehealth services designed for women. METHODS We searched MEDLINE® (via PubMed®) and Embase® from inception through March 20, 2018. We screened systematic reviews (SRs), randomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies using predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified for data abstraction. To assess emerging trends, we also conducted a targeted search of ClinicalTrials.gov . RESULTS Two hundred thirty-four primary studies and three SRs were eligible for abstraction. We grouped studies into focused areas of research: maternal health (n = 96), prevention (n = 46), disease management (n = 63), family planning (n = 9), high-risk breast cancer assessment (n = 10), intimate partner violence (n = 7), and mental health (n = 3). Most interventions focused on phone as the primary telehealth modality and featured healthcare team-to-patient communication and were limited in duration (e.g., < 12 weeks). Few interventions were conducted with older women (≥ 60 years) or in racially/ethnically diverse populations. There are few SRs in this area and limited evidence regarding newer telehealth modalities such as mobile-based applications or short message service/texting. Targeted search of clinical.trials.gov yielded 73 ongoing studies that show a shift in the use of non-telephone modalities. DISCUSSION Our systematic evidence map highlights gaps in the existing literature, such as a lack of studies in key women's health areas (intimate partner violence, mental health), and a dearth of relevant SRs. With few existing SRs in this literature, there is an opportunity for examining effects, efficiency, and acceptability across studies to inform efforts at implementing telehealth for women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen M Goldstein
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA. .,Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - Leah L Zullig
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Eric A Dedert
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,VA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Amir Alishahi Tabriz
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Timothy W Brearly
- Salisbury Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Salisbury, NC, USA.,Neuropsychology Assessment Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Giselle Raitz
- Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - John D Whited
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Hayden B Bosworth
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.,School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Adelaide M Gordon
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Avishek Nagi
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - John W Williams
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jennifer M Gierisch
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.,Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kinney AY, Howell R, Ruckman R, McDougall JA, Boyce TW, Vicuña B, Lee JH, Guest DD, Rycroft R, Valverde PA, Gallegos KM, Meisner A, Wiggins CL, Stroup A, Paddock LE, Walters ST. Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2018; 73:123-135. [PMID: 30236776 PMCID: PMC6214814 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2018] [Revised: 09/06/2018] [Accepted: 09/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although national guidelines for cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have been available for over two decades, less than half of high-risk women have accessed these services, especially underserved minority and rural populations. Identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for cancer survivors and their families to benefit from biomedical advances in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. METHODS This paper describes community-engaged formative research and the protocol of the ongoing randomized 3-arm controlled Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment (GRACE) trial. Ethnically and geographically diverse breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased risk for hereditary cancer predisposition who have not had a CGRA are recruited through the three statewide cancer registries. The specific aims are to: 1) compare the effectiveness of a targeted intervention (TP) vs. a tailored counseling and navigation(TCN) intervention vs. usual care (UC) on CGRA utilization at 6 months post-diagnosis (primary outcome); compare the effectiveness of the interventions on genetic counseling uptake at 12 months after removal of cost barriers (secondary outcome); 2) examine potential underlying theoretical mediating and moderating mechanisms; and 3) conduct a cost evaluation to guide dissemination strategies. DISCUSSION The ongoing GRACE trial addresses an important translational gap by developing and implementing evidence-based strategies to promote guideline-based care and reduce disparities in CGRA utilization among ethnically and geographically diverse women. If effective, these interventions have the potential to reach a large number of high-risk families and reduce disparities through broad dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03326713; clinicaltrials.gov.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anita Y Kinney
- Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey; Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey.
| | - Rachel Howell
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Rachel Ruckman
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Jean A McDougall
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Tawny W Boyce
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Belinda Vicuña
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico; Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Ji-Hyun Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Dolores D Guest
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Randi Rycroft
- Colorado Central Cancer Registry, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, United States
| | - Patricia A Valverde
- Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
| | | | - Angela Meisner
- New Mexico Tumor Registry, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Charles L Wiggins
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico; New Mexico Tumor Registry, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey; Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey
| | - Lisa E Paddock
- Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey; Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey
| | - Scott T Walters
- Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, University of North Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Fort Worth, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Fournier DM, Bazzell AF, Dains JE. Comparing Outcomes of Genetic Counseling Options in Breast and Ovarian Cancer: An Integrative Review
. Oncol Nurs Forum 2018; 45:96-105. [PMID: 29251290 DOI: 10.1188/18.onf.96-105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Genetic counseling is vital in helping people at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) make informed decisions to undergo BRCA testing. Many people, particularly those in rural locations, lack access to these services. This review examines evidence to determine if remotely delivered genetic counseling via telephone or telemedicine is an effective alternative to in-person counseling for people who are at high risk for HBOC.
. LITERATURE SEARCH A literature review was completed by searching PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL® databases.
. DATA EVALUATION 151 articles were identified from the search, and 7 were included in the review.
. SYNTHESIS Patients' BRCA knowledge acquisition, cancer-specific distress, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with mode of counseling delivery were equivalent between in-person and remotely delivered counseling groups. Genetic testing rates were significantly higher in participants receiving in-person counseling. Remotely delivered genetic counseling was more convenient and less expensive. Mixed outcomes existed regarding counselor-patient communication.
. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The demand for genetic counseling will grow as advances in cancer genomics reveal genes that may contribute to cancer predisposition. Innovative delivery models are necessary to ensure that all people have access to care.
Collapse
|
16
|
Steffen LE, Du R, Gammon A, Mandelblatt JS, Kohlmann WK, Lee JH, Buys SS, Stroup AM, Campo RA, Flores KG, Vicuña B, Schwartz MD, Kinney AY. Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26:1772-1780. [PMID: 28971986 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-17-0389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2017] [Revised: 07/12/2017] [Accepted: 09/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates predictors of BRCA1/2 testing among breast and ovarian cancer survivors who received genetic counseling as part of a randomized trial and evaluates moderators of counseling mode on testing uptake.Methods: Predictors of BRCA1/2 testing within one year postcounseling were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression in a population-based sample of breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased hereditary risk randomly assigned to in-person counseling (IPC; n = 379) versus telephone counseling (TC; n = 402). Variables that moderated the association between counseling mode and testing were identified by subgroup analysis.Results: Testing uptake was associated with higher perceived comparative mutation risk [OR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.57] in the adjusted analysis. Those without cost barriers had higher testing uptake (OR = 18.73; 95% CI, 7.09-49.46). Psychologic distress and perceived comparative mutation risk moderated the effect of counseling and testing. Uptake between IPC versus TC did not differ at low levels of distress and risk, but differed at high distress (26.3% TC vs. 44.3% IPC) and high perceived comparative risk (33.9% TC vs. 50.5% IPC).Conclusions: Cost concerns are a strong determinant of testing. Differences in testing uptake by counseling mode may depend on precounseling distress and risk perceptions.Impact: Cost concerns may contribute to low testing in population-based samples of at-risk cancer survivors. Precounseling psychosocial characteristics should be considered when offering in-person versus telephone counseling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1772-80. ©2017 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurie E Steffen
- Department of Social Sciences & Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | - Ruofei Du
- University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico.,Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| | - Amanda Gammon
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Wendy K Kohlmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Ji-Hyun Lee
- University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico.,Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| | - Saundra S Buys
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.,Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Antoinette M Stroup
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.,Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey
| | - Rebecca A Campo
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Kristina G Flores
- University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| | - Belinda Vicuña
- Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Anita Y Kinney
- University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. .,Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Cragun D, Kinney AY, Pal T. Care delivery considerations for widespread and equitable implementation of inherited cancer predisposition testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2017; 17:57-70. [PMID: 27910721 PMCID: PMC5642111 DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2017.1267567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION DNA sequencing advances through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and several practice changing events, have led to shifting paradigms for inherited cancer predisposition testing. These changes necessitated a means by which to maximize health benefits without unnecessarily inflating healthcare costs and exacerbating health disparities. Areas covered: NGS-based tests encompass multi-gene panel tests, whole exome sequencing, and whole genome sequencing, all of which test for multiple genes simultaneously, compared to prior sequencing practices through which testing was performed sequentially for one or two genes. Taking an ecological approach, this article synthesizes the current literature to consider the broad impact of these advances from the individual patient-, interpersonal-, organizational-, community- and policy-levels. Furthermore, the authors describe how multi-level factors that impact genetic testing and follow-up care reveal great potential to widen existing health disparities if these issues are not addressed. Expert commentary: As we consider ways to maximize patient benefit from testing in a cost effective manner, it is important to consider perspectives from multiple levels. This information is needed to guide the development of interventions such that the promise of genomic testing may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deborah Cragun
- University of South Florida, Department of Global Health, College of Public Health
| | - Anita Y Kinney
- University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico
| | - Tuya Pal
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population Sciences, Moffitt Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Smit AK, Espinoza D, Newson AJ, Morton RL, Fenton G, Freeman L, Dunlop K, Butow PN, Law MH, Kimlin MG, Keogh LA, Dobbinson SJ, Kirk J, Kanetsky PA, Mann GJ, Cust AE. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Impact of Giving Information on Personalized Genomic Risk of Melanoma to the Public. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016; 26:212-221. [PMID: 27702805 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2016] [Revised: 09/15/2016] [Accepted: 09/24/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Communication of personalized melanoma genomic risk information may improve melanoma prevention behaviors. METHODS We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of communicating personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public and its preliminary impact on behaviors and psychosocial outcomes. One hundred eighteen people aged 22 to 69 years provided a saliva sample and were randomized to the control (nonpersonalized educational materials) or intervention (personalized booklet presenting melanoma genomic risk as absolute and relative risks and a risk category based on variants in 21 genes, telephone-based genetic counseling, and nonpersonalized educational materials). Intention-to-treat analyses overall and by-risk category were conducted using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values. RESULTS Consent to participate was 41%, 99% were successfully genotyped, and 92% completed 3-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported high satisfaction with the personalized booklet (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.6; on a 0-10 scale) and genetic counseling (mean = 8.1, SD = 2.2). No significant behavioral effects at 3-month follow-up were identified between intervention and control groups overall: objectively measured standard erythemal doses per day [-16%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -43% to 24%] and sun protection index (0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18). There was increased confidence identifying melanoma at 3 months (0.40; 95% CI, 0.10-0.69). Stratified by risk category, effect sizes for intentional tanning and some individual sun protection items appeared stronger for the average-risk group. There were no appreciable group differences in skin cancer-related worry or psychologic distress. CONCLUSIONS Our results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of providing personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public. IMPACT Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212-21. ©2016 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia K Smit
- Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - David Espinoza
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Rachael L Morton
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Georgina Fenton
- Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia.,The Centre for Genetics Education, NSW Health, Sydney, Australia
| | - Lucinda Freeman
- Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia.,The Centre for Genetics Education, NSW Health, Sydney, Australia
| | - Kate Dunlop
- The Centre for Genetics Education, NSW Health, Sydney, Australia
| | - Phyllis N Butow
- Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Matthew H Law
- Statistical Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Michael G Kimlin
- The University of the Sunshine Coast and Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Louise A Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Judy Kirk
- Westmead Clinical School, and Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter A Kanetsky
- Cancer Epidemiology Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Graham J Mann
- Centre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. .,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 159:527-34. [PMID: 27581128 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3964-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2016] [Accepted: 08/26/2016] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate a unique approach to cancer risk assessment for improved access by smaller rural communities. METHODS Local, on-site nurse navigators were trained and utilized as genetic counselor extenders (GCEs) to provide basic risk assessment and offer BRCA1/2 genetic testing to select patients based on a triaging process in collaboration with board-certified genetic counselors (CGCs). RESULTS From August 2012 to July 2014, 12,477 family history questionnaires representing 8937 unique patients presenting for a screening mammogram or new oncology appointment were triaged. Of these, 8.2 % patients were identified at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer, and 4.2 % were identified at increased risk for other hereditary causes of cancer. A total of 75 of 1130 at-risk patients identified (6.6 %) completed a genetic risk assessment appointment; 23 with a GCE and 52 with a CGC. A review of the completed genetic test requisition forms from a 9-year pre-collaboration time period found that 16 % (20/125) did not appear to meet genetic testing criteria. Overall, there was a fourfold increase in patients accessing genetic services in this study period compared to the pre-collaboration time period. Efficiency of this model was assessed by determining time spent by the CGC in all activities related to the collaboration, which amounted to approximately 16 h/month. Adjustments have been made and the program continues to be monitored for opportunities to improve efficiency. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the feasibility of CGCs and GCEs collaborating to improve access to quality services in an efficient manner.
Collapse
|
20
|
Kinney AY, Steffen LE, Brumbach BH, Kohlmann W, Du R, Lee JH, Gammon A, Butler K, Buys SS, Stroup AM, Campo RA, Flores KG, Mandelblatt JS, Schwartz MD. Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2914-24. [PMID: 27325848 PMCID: PMC5012661 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.65.9557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anita Y Kinney
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
| | - Laurie E Steffen
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Barbara H Brumbach
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Ruofei Du
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Ji-Hyun Lee
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Amanda Gammon
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Karin Butler
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Saundra S Buys
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Antoinette M Stroup
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Rebecca A Campo
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Kristina G Flores
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Anita Y. Kinney, Laurie E. Steffen, Barbara H. Brumbach, Ruofei Du, Ji-Hyun Lee, Karin Butler, and Kristina G. Flores, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Amanda Gammon, and Saundra S. Buys, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Antoinette M. Stroup, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Rebecca A. Campo, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Jeanne S. Mandelblatt and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|