1
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
2
|
Wang JHY, Brown RL, Huang E, Schwartz MD. Mediational roles of stress-coping factors in the relationship between patient-perceived communication quality and physical functioning: racial difference between Chinese and Non-Hispanic White American breast cancer survivors. Qual Life Res 2024; 33:253-265. [PMID: 37589772 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03501-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/30/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The assumption that patient-provider communication may mediate patients' sense of control over cancer to affect health outcomes has limited evidence. This study examines whether patient-perceived cancer care communication quality (PPCQ) mediates stress appraisal and coping behavior, affecting physical functioning across different racial groups. METHODS Two hundred and twenty Chinese American and 216 non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (ages 28-80) with stage 0-III breast cancer, 1-5 years post-diagnosis, and without recurrence, enrolled and completed a cross-sectional telephone survey. Physical functioning was measured by the NIH-PROMIS short form. Validated measures of PPCQ, patients' evaluation of their socioeconomic well-being, stress appraisal (perceived severity and control), use of coping strategies, treatment-related symptoms, and comorbidities were also assessed. Path analyses were used to examine the mediation for each racial group. RESULTS Regardless of race, treatment-related symptoms, comorbidities, and socioeconomic well-being were all directly related to physical functioning (p < 0.05). The impact of PPCQ on physical functioning was mediated by perceived control in the Chinese American group (p < 0.05), but not in the NHW group. Perceived severity and coping were not mediators of physical functioning in either group. CONCLUSIONS The mediational pathway from PPCQ to perceived control to physical functioning in Chinese American survivors may be partially explained by their lower socioeconomic well-being and culturally valued conformity to physicians as a medical authority. These sociocultural dynamics reinforce the importance of cancer care communication. For NHW survivors, the impact of treatment-related symptoms and socioeconomic well-being on physical functioning outweighed their PPCQ and perceived control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judy Huei-Yu Wang
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| | - Roger L Brown
- School of Medicine, Nursing and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Ellen Huang
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Grisham C, Holmes NJ, Sorgen LJ, Collins S, Dawson N, McGuire C, Okobi T, Newell K, Kolla KA, Weinstein V. Pilot Trial of Streamlined Genetic Education and Traceback Genetic Testing in Prostate Cancer Survivors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21:1261-1268.e14. [PMID: 38081141 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 08/16/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Germline genetic testing is recommended for men with metastatic or high-risk prostate cancer to inform treatment and risk management for other cancers and inform genetic testing in at-risk relatives. However, relatively few patients with prostate cancer undergo genetic testing. Given the low rate of testing and increasing demands on genetic service providers, strategies are needed that reduce barriers to testing while conserving genetic counseling resources. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether a proactive and streamlined "traceback" approach could yield increased genetic testing participation among prostate cancer survivors. METHODS We randomized 107 survivors of metastatic and high-risk prostate cancer to streamlined testing (ST) versus enhanced usual care (EUC). ST participants were proactively provided with print genetic education materials and the option to proceed to genetic testing without pre-test genetic counseling. EUC participants were sent a letter from their physician advising them of their eligibility for genetic testing and recommending they schedule genetic counseling. The primary outcome was genetic testing participation. Secondary outcomes were distress, knowledge, decision satisfaction, and regret. RESULTS In the ST group, 41.5% of participants completed genetic testing compared with 27.8% in the EUC group. After adjusting for education and marital status, the odds of testing were more than twice as high for the ST group as for the EUC group (odds ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.05-6.29). The groups did not differ on any of the psychosocial outcomes at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Proactive outreach paired with streamlined genetic testing delivery may be a safe, effective, and resource-efficient approach to facilitate traceback genetic testing in prostate cancer survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- 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
| | - 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
| | - 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
| | - Christopher Grisham
- 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
| | - Nora J Holmes
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 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
| | - Sean Collins
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Nancy Dawson
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Colleen McGuire
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | | | - Kelsey Newell
- 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
| | - Kavitha A Kolla
- 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
| | - Veronique Weinstein
- 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
|
4
|
Bhatt M, Peshkin BN, Kazi S, Schwartz MD, Ashai N, Swain SM, Smith DM. Pharmacogenomic testing in oncology: a health system's approach to identify oncology provider perspectives. Pharmacogenomics 2023; 24:859-870. [PMID: 37942634 DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2023-0164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Aim: Identify oncology healthcare providers' attitudes toward barriers to and use cases for pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing and implications for prescribing anticancer and supportive care medications. Materials & methods: A questionnaire was designed and disseminated to 71 practicing oncology providers across the MedStar Health System. Results: 25 of 70 (36%) eligible oncology providers were included. 88% were aware of PGx testing and 72% believed PGx can improve care. Of providers who had ordered a medication with PGx implications in the past month, interest in PGx for anticancer (90-100%) and supportive care medications (>75%) was high. Providers with previous PGx education were more likely to have ordered a test (odds ratio: 7.9; 95% CI: 1.1-56; p = 0.0394). Conclusion: Oncology provider prescribing practices and interest in PGx suggest opportunities for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Sadaf Kazi
- MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA
- National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC 20008, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Nadia Ashai
- MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Sandra M Swain
- MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA
- Department of Medicine, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - D Max Smith
- MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA
- Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bowen A, Gómez-Trillos S, Curran G, Graves KD, Sheppard VB, Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Campos C, Garcés N, Dash C, Aburto L, Valencia-Rojas N, Hernández G, Villa A, Cupertino P, Carrera P, Hurtado-de-Mendoza A. Advancing health equity: A qualitative study assessing barriers and facilitators of implementing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening tools in community-based organizations. J Genet Couns 2023; 32:965-981. [PMID: 37062905 PMCID: PMC10577152 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2022] [Revised: 02/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/18/2023]
Abstract
Genetic counseling and testing (GCT) inform cancer management for persons at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Community-based organizations (CBOs) may play a role in identifying at-risk Latinx individuals to connect them to GCT but data are lacking. Two academic centers and their four CBO partners planned to implement a validated questionnaire for HBOC risk screening ("HBOC risk screening tool"). This study aimed to assess CBO's preferences for HBOC risk screening tools, as well as the barriers and facilitators anticipated for future implementation. Pre-implementation focus groups were conducted with CBO's staff. Discussions centered on current practices to identify and refer at-risk patients. During the discussion, staff were asked to select one out of five validated HBOC risk screening tools to implement and to discuss anticipated barriers/facilitators for implementation. The four focus groups were coded and qualitative analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Health Equity domains. All CBOs chose the Family History Screen 7 (FHS-7). Participants (N = 35) highlighted how the FHS-7 was easy to adapt to better fit the target population and changing guidelines. They had positive attitudes toward implementing the screening tool, stressed how the culture of the organization positioned them to reach the target population, and noted barriers in different CFIR domains (e.g., low knowledge about HBOC and GCT referrals; scarce available resources). Participants pointed to barriers related to health equity domains including limited access to GCT and follow-up care for uninsured and underinsured populations, challenges obtaining accurate family history, and immigration-related barriers. CBOs highlighted the importance of partnering with other stakeholders to overcome barriers. Findings emphasize the need to develop multi-level implementation strategies to overcome barriers and leverage facilitators. This study can inform the development of implementation toolkits for CBOs to implement HBOC screening tools to advance health equity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sara Gómez-Trillos
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Geoffrey Curran
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Kristi D. Graves
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | - Nathaly Garcés
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Chiranjeev Dash
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | | | | | - Antonio Villa
- Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
- La Casa de la Salud, Richmond, Virginia, USA
| | - Paula Cupertino
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | | | - Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gómez-Trillos S, Graves KD, Fiallos K, Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Hamilton H, Sheppard VB, Vadaparampil ST, Campos C, Cupertino AP, Alzamora MC, Lynce F, Hurtado-de-Mendoza A. Cultural adaptations to a telephone genetic counseling protocol and booklet for Latina breast cancer survivors at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Transl Behav Med 2023; 13:297-308. [PMID: 36694918 PMCID: PMC10182423 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibac106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Telephone genetic counseling (TGC) is accepted as standard clinical care for people seeking hereditary cancer risk assessment. TGC has been shown to be non-inferior to in-person genetic counseling, but trials have been conducted with a predominantly highly educated, non-Hispanic White population. This article describes the process of culturally adapting a TGC protocol and visual aid booklet for Spanish-preferring Latina breast cancer survivors at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The adaptation process included two phases. Phase 1 involved a review of the literature and recommendations from an expert team including community partners. Phase 2 included interviews and a pilot with the target population (n = 14) to collect feedback about the adapted protocol and booklet following steps from the Learner Verification and Revision Framework. We describe the adaptation process and report the main adaptations following the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME). Adaptations in Phase 1 were responsive to the target population needs and characteristics (e.g., delivered in Spanish at an appropriate health literacy level, addressing knowledge gaps, targeting cultural values). Phase 2 interviews were crucial to refine details (e.g., selecting words) and to add components to address GCT barriers (e.g., saliva sample video). Cultural adaptations to evidence-based TGC protocols can increase the fit and quality of care for historically underserved populations. As TGC visits become routine in clinical care, it is crucial to consider the needs of diverse communities to adequately promote equity and justice in cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Gómez-Trillos
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
| | - Katie Fiallos
- Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
| | - Heidi Hamilton
- Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Vanessa B Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, VA, USA
| | - Susan T Vadaparampil
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Ana Paula Cupertino
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Maria C Alzamora
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sheppard VB, Sutton AL, Hurtado-De-Mendoza A, Tariq F, Perera RA, Quillin J, Jeudy M, Gomez-Trillos S, Schwartz MD. Addressing disparities in the uptake of genetic counseling and testing in African American women; rationale, design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials 2023:107210. [PMID: 37142159 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2022] [Revised: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genetic counseling and testing (GCT) informs risk reduction and management strategies in women at risk for carrying a pathogenic variation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes. African American (hereinafter referred to as Black) women are less likely to receive GCT services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). The objective of this work was to examine existing literature regarding successful culturally tailored GCT interventions for Black women and to describe the rationale and protocol for a randomized feasibility trial to test the efficacy of a culturally tailored GCT intervention. METHODS/DESIGN The For Our Health (FOH) study is a two-arm randomized control trial designed to test the efficacy of a video intervention to promote the uptake of GCT among Black women with a high risk of HBOC. The culturally tailored video intervention targets key beliefs, knowledge gaps, misconceptions, and key anticipated emotions relevant for GCT. After completing the baseline survey, 50 women at risk of HBOC will be randomized (1:1) to one of two trial arms: a YouTube video intervention or a publicly available fact sheet. Final assessments will immediately follow receipt of either video or fact sheet. CONCLUSION Few studies have tested interventions to improve GCT uptake among Black women. The FOH trial will fill an important scientific gap in knowledge regarding strategies to reduce disparities in GCT among Black women at risk of HBOC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa B Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America.
| | - Arnethea L Sutton
- Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | | | - Fariha Tariq
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | - Robert A Perera
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | - John Quillin
- Department of Pediatrics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | - Myrlene Jeudy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | - Sara Gomez-Trillos
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wu B, Luo H, Tan C, Qi X, Sloan FA, Kamer AR, Schwartz MD, Martinez M, Plassman BL. Diabetes, Edentulism, and Cognitive Decline: A 12-Year Prospective Analysis. J Dent Res 2023:220345231155825. [PMID: 36908186 PMCID: PMC10399080 DOI: 10.1177/00220345231155825] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a recognized risk factor for dementia, and increasing evidence shows that tooth loss is associated with cognitive impairment and dementia. However, the effect of the co-occurrence of DM and edentulism on cognitive decline is understudied. This 12-y cohort study aimed to assess the effect of the co-occurrence of DM and edentulism on cognitive decline and examine whether the effect differs by age group. Data were drawn from the 2006 to 2018 Health and Retirement Study. The study sample included 5,440 older adults aged 65 to 74 y, 3,300 aged 75 to 84 y, and 1,208 aged 85 y or older. Linear mixed-effect regression was employed to model the rates of cognitive decline stratified by age cohorts. Compared with their counterparts with neither DM nor edentulism at baseline, older adults aged 65 to 74 y (β = -1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.56 to -0.65; P < 0.001) and those aged 75 to 84 y with both conditions (β = -1.35; 95% CI, -2.09 to -0.61; P < 0.001) had a worse cognitive function. For the rate of cognitive decline, compared to those with neither condition from the same age cohort, older adults aged 65 to 74 y with both conditions declined at a higher rate (β = -0.15; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.10; P < 0.001). Having DM alone led to an accelerated cognitive decline in older adults aged 65 to 74 y (β = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.05; P < 0.001); having edentulism alone led to an accelerated decline in older adults aged 65 to 74 y (β = -0.13; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.08; P < 0.001) and older adults aged 75 to 84 (β = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.03; P < 0.01). Our study finds the co-occurrence of DM and edentulism led to a worse cognitive function and a faster cognitive decline in older adults aged 65 to 74 y.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Wu
- Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - H Luo
- Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - C Tan
- Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - X Qi
- Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - F A Sloan
- Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - A R Kamer
- College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - M D Schwartz
- Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - M Martinez
- Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - B L Plassman
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jayasekera J, Zhao A, Schechter C, Lowry K, Yeh JM, Schwartz MD, O'Neill S, Wernli KJ, Stout N, Mandelblatt J, Kurian AW, Isaacs C. Reassessing the Benefits and Harms of Risk-Reducing Medication Considering the Persistent Risk of Breast Cancer Mortality in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:859-870. [PMID: 36455167 PMCID: PMC9901948 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.01342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2022] [Revised: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Recent studies, including a meta-analysis of 88 trials, have shown higher than expected rates of recurrence and death in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. These new findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the use of risk-reducing medication to avoid invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death in high-risk women. METHODS We adapted an established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model to evaluate the lifetime benefits and harms of risk-reducing medication in women with a ≥ 3% 5-year risk of developing breast cancer according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk calculator. Model input parameters were derived from meta-analyses, clinical trials, and large observational data. We evaluated the effects of 5 years of risk-reducing medication (tamoxifen/aromatase inhibitors) with annual screening mammography ± magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with no screening, MRI, or risk-reducing medication. The modeled outcomes included invasive breast cancer, breast cancer death, side effects, false positives, and overdiagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses for individual risk factors such as age, family history, and prior biopsy. RESULTS Risk-reducing tamoxifen with annual screening (± MRI) decreased the risk of invasive breast cancer by 40% and breast cancer death by 57%, compared with no tamoxifen or screening. This is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 95 invasive breast cancers, and 42 breast cancer deaths per 1,000 high-risk women. However, these drugs are associated with side effects. For example, tamoxifen could increase the number of endometrial cancers up to 11 per 1,000 high-risk women. Benefits and harms varied by individual characteristics. CONCLUSION The addition of risk-reducing medication to screening could further decrease the risk of breast cancer death. Clinical guidelines for high-risk women should consider integrating shared decision making for risk-reducing medication and screening on the basis of individual risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinani Jayasekera
- Population and Community Health Sciences Branch, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Amy Zhao
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Clyde Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
| | - Kathryn Lowry
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - Jennifer M. Yeh
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Suzanne O'Neill
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Karen J. Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | - Natasha Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Jeanne Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Allison W. Kurian
- Departments of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Conley CC, Wernli KJ, Knerr S, Li T, Leppig K, Ehrlich K, Farrell D, Gao H, Bowles EJA, Graham AL, Luta G, Jayasekera J, Mandelblatt JS, Schwartz MD, O'Neill SC. Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Cancer Educ 2023; 38:292-300. [PMID: 34813048 PMCID: PMC9124715 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-021-02114-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire C Conley
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Karen J Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Sarah Knerr
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tengfei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Kelly Ehrlich
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Hongyuan Gao
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Erin J A Bowles
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Amanda L Graham
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Truth Initiative, Washington, DC, USA
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Jayasekera J, Lowry KP, Yeh JM, Schwartz MD, Wernli KJ, Isaacs C, Kurian AW, Stout NK. Simulation modeling as a tool to support clinical guidelines and care for breast cancer prevention and early detection in high-risk women. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.10525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
10525 Background: To evaluate the incremental short- and long-term benefits and harms of primary prevention with risk reducing medication in high-risk women receiving screening mammography. Methods: We adapted an established, validated Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer discrete event microsimulation model developed to synthesize data the impact of using risk-reducing medication and annual mammography among women with a 3% or higher five-year risk of developing breast cancer. We also examined the effects of supplemental MRI. The model follows a simulated cohort of millions of US women from birth to death. We used large observational and clinical trial data to derive input parameters for cohort-specific birth rates, breast cancer risk, incidence and stage, screening performance, survival by age, stage, and subtype, treatment efficacy, and other cause mortality. Breast cancer risk was modeled based on family history, breast density, age and history of past breast biopsy. We compared two strategies, annual 3D mammography alone vs. annual 3D mammography and a 5-year course of risk reducing medication at various starting ages, and adding MRI to each approach. Outcomes included the benefits of risk-reducing drugs (avoiding breast cancer) and screening (stage, breast cancer death). Harms included drug side effects and screening false positives and overdiagnosis. Sensitivity analysis tested the impact of uncertainty in model inputs and assumptions on results. Results: Compared to mammography alone, adding risk reducing medication could decrease invasive breast cancer incidence by 30%, and breast cancer deaths by 30% (Table). However, due to reduction in breast cancer incidence, risk reducing medication could result in a 3% increase in false positive results; adding MRI increases benefits but also increases false-positive results. Benefits and harms of risk reducing medication and breast cancer screening strategies for women at high-risk of developing breast cancer. Conclusions: Risk-reducing mediation reduces the risk of hormone-receptor positive breast cancer, and combining this with mammography (and/or MRI) improves earlier detection. Additional work is ongoing to incorporate adverse effects of therapy. Simulation modeling can be used to provide individualized data to facilitate discussions about breast cancer prevention and early detection among high-risk women seen in clinical practice.[Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinani Jayasekera
- Lombardi Cancer Center MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
| | - Kathryn P. Lowry
- University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - Jennifer M Yeh
- Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | | | | | | | - Natasha K. Stout
- Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kritzik R, Usoro E, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Valdimarsdottir HB, Willey S, O’Neill S, DeMarco T, Nusbaum R, Jandorf L, Kelleher S, Schwartz MD. Psychosocial impact of proactive rapid genetic counseling following breast cancer diagnosis. Psychooncology 2022; 31:788-797. [PMID: 34921700 PMCID: PMC9920729 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5863] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Revised: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 12/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE As germline genetic referral becomes increasingly routine as part of the care of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, it is important to understand the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis. We examined the psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) impact of providing proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in the immediate aftermath of a breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS We randomized 330 patients in a 2:1 ratio to proactive rapid genetic counseling (RGCT; N = 222) versus usual care (UC; N = 108). Participants completed a baseline telephone survey before randomization and definitive surgery and a follow-up survey at 1-month post-randomization. We evaluated the impact of RGCT versus UC on breast cancer genetic knowledge, distress, QOL, and decisional conflict. Given that 43% of UC participants and 86% of RGCT participants completed genetic counseling prior to the 1-month assessment, we also evaluated the impact of genetic counseling participation over and above group assignment. RESULTS The RGCT intervention led to increased breast cancer genetic knowledge relative to UC but did not differentially impact other study outcomes. Across groups patients who participated in genetic counseling had significantly increased knowledge and improved QOL compared to those who did not participate in genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS While prior research has documented the impact of genetic counseling and testing on surgical decisions, these results confirm that participation in genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis can yield improvements in knowledge and QOL in the short-term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Kritzik
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Edidiong Usoro
- Department of Biology, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Heiddis B. Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Shawna Willey
- Breast Cancer Program, Schar Cancer Institute, INOVA Health System, Fairfax, VA, USA
| | - Suzanne O’Neill
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Tiffani DeMarco
- Cancer Genetics Program, INOVA Health System, Fairfax, VA, USA
| | - Rachel Nusbaum
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lina Jandorf
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sarah Kelleher
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hardy MW, Peshkin BN, Rose E, Ladd MK, Binion S, Tynan M, McBride CM, Grinzaid KA, Schwartz MD. Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women. J Community Genet 2022; 13:281-292. [PMID: 35486291 PMCID: PMC9051789 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00590-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes are associated with elevated cancer risks in men and women. Due to a founder effect, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals are at higher risk for carrying three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. There have been recent calls for population screening in this population because many carriers do not have family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer. One approach could be to integrate optional BRCA1/2 testing into routinely offered reproductive carrier screening for recessive and X-linked disorders. However, the differing goals of these types of testing (i.e., personal health risks versus family planning) raise questions about the implications for patient education and informed consent. To this end, we aimed to determine interest, attitudes, and preferences regarding integrating such testing by electronically surveying 331 Ashkenazi Jewish participants in JScreen - a national, not-for-profit, at-home carrier screening program focused on genetic risks in Jewish communities. We found that while 41% of participants had plans to pursue BRCA1/2 testing, 93% would have opted for such testing if offered as an add-on to reproductive carrier screening. This was particularly true of those with higher perceived cancer risk and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing. With respect to preferences about delivery of this service, more than 85% of participants preferred remote (telephone, print, or web-based) genetic education rather than traditional genetic counseling. These results suggest that offering optional BRCA1/2 testing within the context of reproductive carrier screening might provide opportunities for cancer prevention without overburdening scarce genetic counseling resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melanie W Hardy
- Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Esther Rose
- Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mary Kathleen Ladd
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Savannah Binion
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Mara Tynan
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Colleen M McBride
- Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Karen A Grinzaid
- Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Eiriksdottir VK, Jonsdottir T, Valdimarsdottir HB, Taylor KL, Schwartz MD, Hilmarsson R, Gudmundsson EO, Fridriksson JO, Baldursdottir B. An Adaptation, Extension and Pre-Testing of an Interactive Decision Aid for Men Diagnosed with Localized Prostate Cancer in Iceland: A Mixed-Method Study. Behav Med 2021; 49:137-150. [PMID: 34791986 DOI: 10.1080/08964289.2021.2000926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
In this study an interactive decision aid (DA) for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer was adapted, extended and pre-tested. The DA's prototype was based on a literature review and other empirically tested DAs. Semi-structured interviews with 12 men (age 65-80) diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were conducted to get feedback on content, usability, and the DA's layout. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and themes were identified using deductive and inductive coding. Participants found the accessibility of the information and the explicit values clarification tool helpful. Four themes were identified: (1) usability and design, (2) content and knowledge, (3) deciding factors of decision-making, and (4) social support. Participants valued receiving extensive and realistic information on surgery/radiation therapy side effects and getting unbiased presentations of treatment options. Following the thematic analysis, the DA was revised and tested in a survey among 11 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (age 60-74). The participants valued the DA and found it helpful when making a treatment decision, and all reported that they would recommend it to others making a prostate cancer treatment decision. The DA is currently being tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). This is the first DA developed for prostate cancer patients in Iceland and if the results of the RCT show that it is more effective than standard care in assisting newly diagnosed patients with their treatment decision, the DA can be easily translated and adapted to cultures similar to Iceland such as the Nordic countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland.,Cancer Prevention and Control, Ruttenberg Cancer Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bowles EJA, O'Neill SC, Li T, Knerr S, Mandelblatt JS, Schwartz MD, Jayasekera J, Leppig K, Ehrlich K, Farrell D, Gao H, Graham AL, Luta G, Wernli KJ. Effect of a Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention on Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2021; 30:1529-1537. [PMID: 34582721 PMCID: PMC8823670 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Breast density increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammographic detection. We evaluated a personalized web-based intervention designed to improve breast cancer risk communication between women and their providers. Materials and Methods: This was a secondary outcome analysis of an online randomized trial. Women aged 40-69 years were randomized, February 2017-May 2018, to a control (n = 503) versus intervention website (n = 492). The intervention website included information about breast density, personalized breast cancer risk, chemoprevention, and magnetic resonance imaging. Participants self-reported communication about density with providers (yes/no) at 6 weeks and 12 months. We used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to evaluate the association of study arm with density communication. In secondary analyses, we tested if the intervention was associated with indicators of patient activation (breast cancer worry, perceived risk, or health care use). Results: Women (mean age 62 years) in the intervention versus control arm were 2.39 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-4.18) more likely to report density communication at 6 weeks; this effect persisted at 12 months (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.25-2.35). At 6 weeks, this effect was only significant among women who reported (OR = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.24-8.40) versus did not report any previous density discussions (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.83-3.26). A quarter of women in each arm never had a density conversation at any time during the study. Conclusions: Despite providing personalized density and risk information, the intervention did not promote density discussions between women and their providers who had not had them previously. This intervention is unlikely to be used clinically to motivate density conversations in women who have not had them before. Clinical trial registration number NCT03029286.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin J. Aiello Bowles
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.,Address correspondence to: Erin J. Aiello Bowles, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA
| | - Suzanne C. O'Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Tengfei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Sarah Knerr
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Kathleen Leppig
- Clinical Genetics, Washington Permanente Medical Group, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Kelly Ehrlich
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Hongyuan Gao
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Amanda L. Graham
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.,Truth Initiative, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Karen J. Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Vadaparampil ST, Moreno Botero L, Fuzzell L, Garcia J, Jandorf L, Hurtado-de-Mendoza A, Campos-Galvan C, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Lopez K, Ricker C, Fiallos K, Quinn GP, Graves KD. Development and pilot testing of a training for bilingual community education professionals about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer among Latinas: ÁRBOLES Familiares. Transl Behav Med 2021; 12:6320107. [PMID: 34255089 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer health disparities remain a significant problem in the USA, compounded by lack of access to care, language barriers and systemic biases in health care. These disparities are particularly evident in areas such as genetics/genomics. For example, Latinas at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have extremely low rates of genetic counseling/testing. Long-standing barriers and inequities in access to services such as genetic counseling and testing require innovative solutions. One solution can involve training community outreach and education professionals (CORE-Ps) to bridge the gap between underserved communities and genetic specialists. We sought to develop and pilot test a training program for English-Spanish bilingual CORE-Ps to reduce disparities in access to and uptake of genetic services among Latino populations. Guided by Adult Learning Theory and with input from multiple stakeholders, we developed ÁRBOLES Familiares (Family Trees), an in-person and online training program for bilingual CORE-Ps to facilitate identification, referral, and navigation of Latinas to genetic counseling/testing. We conducted a pilot test of 24 CORE-Ps recruited from across the United States and assessed knowledge, genetic literacy, and self-efficacy at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, participants in the pilot with complete baseline and follow-up data (N = 15) demonstrated significant improvements in HBOC knowledge, genetic literacy, self-efficacy and reports of fewer barriers to identify/navigate Latinas (ps < .05). Qualitative assessment identified ways to improve the training curriculum. Pilot results suggest ÁRBOLES is a promising approach for training CORE-Ps to identify and refer high-risk Latinas to genetic services. Next steps involve further refinement of ÁRBOLES, development of an online toolkit, and adaptation for virtual delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan T Vadaparampil
- Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Office of Community Outreach, Engagement, and Equity, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Lina Jandorf
- Icahn School of Medicine, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Beth N Peshkin
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Katherine Lopez
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Charité Ricker
- University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Katie Fiallos
- Johns Hopkins University Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Kristi D Graves
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Armstrong J, Lynch K, Virgo KS, Schwartz MD, Friedman S, Dean M, Andrews JE, Bourquardez Clark E, Clasen J, Conaty J, Parrillo O, Sutphen R. Utilization, Timing, and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing Among Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer From a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOARD Study. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17:e226-e235. [PMID: 33567243 PMCID: PMC8202055 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate timing and outcomes of BRCA testing and definitive surgical treatment among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS Patient-reported (n = 1,381) and deidentified health-plan (n = 2,369) data were analyzed from a consecutive national series of 3,750 women whose healthcare providers ordered BRCA testing between March 2014 and June 2015, within 1 year following breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS Among 1,209 respondents, 54.4% received the genetic test results presurgery, 23.2% tested presurgery but received the results postsurgery, and 22.3% tested postsurgery. Patients aware of mutation-positive results presurgery were more likely to choose bilateral mastectomy (BLM) (n = 32/37) compared with patients who learned of positive results postsurgery (n = 14/32), (odds ratio [OR] = 8.23, 95% CI = 2.55 to 26.59, P < .001). When compared with women tested postsurgery, only women unaware of negative results presurgery had higher BLM rates (adjusted OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.69, P = .02). Among women > 50 tested presurgery, those unaware of negative results presurgery were more likely to choose BLM (n = 28/81) compared with those aware of negative results (n = 32/168) (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.08, negative results awareness × age interaction, and P = .007). CONCLUSION Nearly half of participants did not receive BRCA results presurgery, which limited their ability to make fully informed surgical treatment decisions. This may represent suboptimal care for unaware mutation-positive patients compared with those who were aware presurgery. Women > 50 who test negative are significantly less likely to choose BLM, a costly surgery that does not confer survival advantage, if they are aware of negative results presurgery. These results have important implications for quality of care and costs in the US health system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kristian Lynch
- Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | | | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Sue Friedman
- Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Inc (FORCE), Tampa, FL
| | - Marleah Dean
- Communication Department, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - James E Andrews
- School of Information, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | | | - Joanna Clasen
- Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Jessica Conaty
- Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Olivia Parrillo
- Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Rebecca Sutphen
- Health Informatics Institute, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Peshkin BN, Ladd MK, Isaacs C, Segal H, Jacobs A, Taylor KL, Graves KD, O'Neill SC, Schwartz MD. The Genetic Education for Men (GEM) Trial: Development of Web-Based Education for Untested Men in BRCA1/2-Positive Families. J Cancer Educ 2021; 36:72-84. [PMID: 31402434 PMCID: PMC7010546 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-019-01599-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Cascade testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer is an important public health priority. Increasing attention has been paid to the relevance of testing for men within BRCA1/2-positive families given that such testing may provide important information about their cancer risks, particularly for prostate cancer, and risks to their offspring. However, men are much less likely to seek genetic counseling and testing than their at-risk female relatives. To facilitate access to pre-test information and testing, we developed a web-based intervention (WI) for men that we are evaluating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT). This paper describes three phases of research in the development of the WI: (1) formative (qualitative) research among men from BRCA1/2 families to assess needs and preferences for education; (2) a detailed description of the organization, format, and content of the WI; and (3) usability testing. We discuss the aims and hypotheses of the pilot RCT in which the WI is being compared with an enhanced usual care condition among at-risk men. We expect that the WI described here will foster informed decisions and lead to increased use of BRCA1/2 counseling and testing, potentially yielding improved cancer control outcomes for this understudied group, and for their at-risk relatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| | - Mary Kate Ladd
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Hannah Segal
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Aryana Jacobs
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Kathryn L Taylor
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Wernli KJ, Knerr S, Li T, Leppig K, Ehrlich K, Farrell D, Gao H, Bowles EJA, Graham AL, Luta G, Jayasekera J, Mandelblatt JS, Schwartz MD, O’Neill SC. Effect of Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Tool on Chemoprevention and Breast Imaging: ENGAGED-2 Trial. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkaa114. [PMID: 33554037 PMCID: PMC7853161 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Revised: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Limited evidence exists about how to communicate breast density-informed breast cancer risk to women at elevated risk to motivate cancer prevention. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based intervention incorporating personalized breast cancer risk, information on chemoprevention, and values clarification on chemoprevention uptake vs active control. Eligible women aged 40-69 years with normal mammograms and elevated 5-year breast cancer risk were recruited from Kaiser Permanente Washington from February 2017 to May 2018. Chemoprevention uptake was measured as any prescription for raloxifene or tamoxifen within 12 months from baseline in electronic health record pharmacy data. Secondary outcomes included breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography use, self-reported distress, and communication with providers. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression models and mean differences using analysis of covariance models with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with generalized estimating equations. Results We randomly assigned 995 women to the intervention arm (n = 492) or control arm (n = 503). The intervention (vs control) had no effect on chemoprevention uptake (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.07 to 16.62). The intervention increased breast MRI use (OR = 5.65, 95% CI = 1.61 to 19.74) while maintaining annual mammography (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.28). Women in the intervention (vs control) arm had 5.67-times higher odds of having discussed chemoprevention or breast MRI with provider by 6 weeks (OR = 5.67, 95% CI = 2.47 to 13.03) and 2.36-times higher odds by 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.37). No measurable differences in distress were detected. Conclusions A web-based, patient-level intervention activated women at elevated 5-year breast cancer risk to engage in clinical discussions about chemoprevention, but uptake remained low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen J Wernli
- Correspondence to: Karen J. Wernli, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA (e-mail: )
| | - Sarah Knerr
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tengfei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Kelly Ehrlich
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Hongyuan Gao
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Erin J A Bowles
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Amanda L Graham
- Truth Initiative, Washington, DC, USA,Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Suzanne C O’Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Wernli KJ, Bowles EA, Knerr S, Leppig KA, Ehrlich K, Gao H, Schwartz MD, O’Neill SC. Characteristics Associated with Participation in ENGAGED 2 - A Web-based Breast Cancer Risk Communication and Decision Support Trial. Perm J 2020; 24:1-4. [PMID: 33482952 PMCID: PMC7849258 DOI: 10.7812/tpp/19.205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Revised: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 03/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics associated with participation in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of an online tool to support breast cancer risk communication and decision support for risk mitigation to determine the generalizability of trial results. METHODS Eligible women were members of Kaiser Permanente Washington aged 40-69 years with a recent normal screening mammogram, heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and a calculated risk of > 1.67% based on the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year breast cancer risk model. Trial outcomes were chemoprevention and breast magnetic resonance imaging by 12-months post-baseline. Women were recruited via mail with phone follow-up using plain language materials notifying them of their density status and higher than average breast cancer risk. Multivariable logistic regression calculated independent odds ratios (ORs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with trial participation. RESULTS Of 2,569 eligible women contacted, 995 (38.7%) participated. Women with some college (OR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.96) or college degree (OR = 3.35, 95% CI 2.29-4.90) were more likely to participate than high school-educated women. Race/ethnicity also was associated with participation (African-American OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87; Asian OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41). Multivariate adjusted ORs for family history of breast/ovarian cancer were not associated with trial participation. DISCUSSION Use of plain language and potential access to a website providing personal breast cancer risk information and education were insufficient in achieving representative participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Additional methods of targeting and tailoring, potentially facilitated by clinical and community outreach, are needed to facilitate equitable engagement for all women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen J Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | - Erin A Bowles
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | - Kelly Ehrlich
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | - Hongyuan Gao
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Suzanne C O’Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hurtado-de-Mendoza A, Gómez-Trillos S, Graves KD, Carrera P, Campos C, Anderson L, Gronda A, Orellana H, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Cupertino P, Ostrove N, Luta G, Gonzalez N, Sheppard VB. Process evaluation of a culturally targeted video for Latinas at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 2020; 30:730-741. [PMID: 33222313 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
This paper presents a process evaluation of a culturally targeted narrative video about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) for Latina women at risk for HBOC. Spanish-speaking Latina women at risk for HBOC participated in a single arm study (n = 40). Participants watched the video developed by the authors and responded to surveys. We used mixed methods to assess theoretical constructs that are hypothesized mediators of narrative interventions (i.e., transportation or engagement, identification with characters, emotions) and implementation outcomes (e.g., acceptability). Descriptive statistics summarized theoretical constructs and implementation outcomes. We conducted Mann-Whitney U tests to assess the differences in theoretical and implementation outcomes between participants who were affected versus. unaffected and participants with different levels of education and health literacy. We used the consensual qualitative research framework to analyze qualitative data. Participants' mean age was 47.1 years (SD = 9.48). Most participants were high school graduates or less (62.5%). Acceptability of the video was extremely high (Md = 10.0, IQR = 0.2, scale 1-10). Most (82.5%) suggested video dissemination be through social media. Participants were highly engaged (Md = 5.7, IQR = 1.5, scale 1-7), strongly identified with the main character (Md = 8.7, IQR = 2.6, scale 1-10), and reported experiencing mostly positive emotions (Md = 9.5, IQR = 2.8, scale 1-10). Participants with low health literacy and affected participants reported a significantly higher identification with the main character (p<.05). Qualitative data reinforced the quantitative findings. Women reported gaining knowledge, correcting misconceptions, and feeling empowered. Our culturally targeted video is highly acceptable and targets mechanisms of behavior change for narrative interventions. The video is easily disseminable and can be used as an education tool for patients including affected and unaffected women and patients with different education and health literacy levels. Future studies should test the impact of the video in enhancing genetic counseling and testing uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Sara Gómez-Trillos
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Pilar Carrera
- Department of Social Psychology and Methodology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Lyndsay Anderson
- School of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services, California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Andrés Gronda
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Halyn Orellana
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Paula Cupertino
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA
| | | | - George Luta
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Vanessa B Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ladd MK, Peshkin BN, Senter L, Baldinger S, Isaacs C, Segal H, Philip S, Phillips C, Shane K, Martin A, Weinstein V, Pilarski R, Jeter J, Sweet K, Hatten B, Wurtmann EJ, Phippen S, Bro D, Schwartz MD. Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Transl Behav Med 2020; 10:337-346. [PMID: 30418620 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/iby101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21-75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20-11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38-2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65-0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09-0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11-1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65-0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Kathleen 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
| | - 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
| | - Leigha Senter
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Shari Baldinger
- Virgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN
| | - 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
| | - Hannah Segal
- 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
| | - Samantha Philip
- 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
| | - Chloe Phillips
- 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
| | - Kate Shane
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Aimee Martin
- 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
| | - Veronique Weinstein
- 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
| | - Robert Pilarski
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Joanne Jeter
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Kevin Sweet
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | - Bonnie Hatten
- Virgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN
| | | | - Shanda Phippen
- Virgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Della Bro
- Virgina Piper Cancer Institute, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN
| | - 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
|
23
|
Ladd MK, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Hooker G, Willey S, Valdimarsdottir H, DeMarco T, O'Neill S, Binion S, Schwartz MD. Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol 2020; 122:134-143. [PMID: 32346886 DOI: 10.1002/jso.25956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Accepted: 04/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Many newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not receive genetic counseling and testing at the time of diagnosis. We examined predictors of genetic testing (GT) in this population. METHODS Within a randomized controlled trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing vs usual care, patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of breast cancer diagnosis but before a definitive survey. We conducted a multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of GT timing/uptake. RESULTS Having discussed GT with a surgeon was a dominant predictor (χ2 (2, N = 320) = 70.13; P < .0001). Among those who discussed GT with a surgeon, patients who had made a final surgery decision were less likely to receive GT before surgery compared with postsurgically (OR [odds ratio] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.49) or no testing (OR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.14-0.56). Older patients (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.91-0.99) and participants enrolled in New York/New Jersey (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.72) were less likely to be tested compared with receiving results before surgery. Those with higher perceived risk (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03) were more likely to receive results before surgery than to not be tested. CONCLUSIONS This study highlights the role of patient-physician communication about GT as well as patient-level factors that predict presurgical GT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary K Ladd
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Gillian Hooker
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Shawna Willey
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Tiffani DeMarco
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Suzanne O'Neill
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Savannah Binion
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mahorter SS, Knerr S, Bowles EJA, Wernli KJ, Gao H, Schwartz MD, O'Neill SC. Prior breast density awareness, knowledge, and communication in a health system-embedded behavioral intervention trial. Cancer 2020; 126:1614-1621. [PMID: 31977078 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2019] [Revised: 11/22/2019] [Accepted: 12/16/2019] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast density is an important breast cancer risk factor and a focus of recent national and state health policy efforts. This article describes breast density awareness, knowledge, and communication among participants in a health system-embedded trial with clinically elevated breast cancer risk 1 year before state-mandated density disclosure. METHODS Trial participants' demographics and prior health history were ascertained from electronic health records. The proportions of women reporting prior breast density awareness, knowledge of density's masking effect, and communication with a provider about their own breast density were calculated using baseline interview data collected from 2017 to 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate associations between women's characteristics and density awareness, knowledge, and communication. RESULTS Although the overwhelming majority of participants had heard of breast density (91%) and were aware of breast density's masking effect (87%), only 60% had ever discussed their breast density with a provider. Annual mammography screening was associated with prior breast density awareness (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.81), knowledge (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.20-6.66), and communication (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.34-6.16) compared with an infrequent or unknown screening interval. Receipt of breast biopsy was also associated with prior knowledge (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.04-2.45) and communication (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.85). CONCLUSIONS Breast density awareness and knowledge are high among insured women participating in clinical research, even in the absence of mandated density disclosure. Patient-provider communication about personal density status is less common, particularly among women with fewer interactions with breast health specialists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siobhan S Mahorter
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sarah Knerr
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | | | - Karen J Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Hongyuan Gao
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Hurtado-de-Mendoza A, Graves KD, Gómez-Trillos S, Carrera P, Campos C, Anderson L, Luta G, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Cupertino AP, Gonzalez N, Sheppard VB. Culturally Targeted Video Improves Psychosocial Outcomes in Latina Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16:E4793. [PMID: 31795362 PMCID: PMC6926842 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16234793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2019] [Revised: 11/21/2019] [Accepted: 11/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Latina women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have lower awareness, knowledge, and use of genetic counseling and testing services (GCT) than non-Latina Whites. Few interventions have been developed to reduce these disparities among at-risk Latinas. This pilot study assessed the impact of a culturally targeted narrative video developed by our team. The study included 40 Latina immigrants living in the United States who were at risk of HBOC, including affected and unaffected women. We assessed pre-post differences in psychosocial outcomes. Participants were 47.35 years old on average (SD = 9.48). Most (70%) were unaffected with cancer, had an annual income of $40,000 or less (65%), an education of High School or less (62.5%), and were uninsured (77.5%). The video significantly enhanced knowledge (p < 0.001), positive attitudes (p < 0.05), anticipatory positive emotions (p < 0.05), and intentions to participate in counseling (p < 0.001). Importantly, the video also significantly reduced negative attitudes (p < 0.05), and attitudinal ambivalence (p < 0.001). The culturally targeted video shows preliminary evidence in improving psychosocial outcomes related to GCT uptake in Latinas at risk for HBOC. This intervention is a promising easily-disseminable strategy to address disparities in GCT utilization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Kristi D. Graves
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Sara Gómez-Trillos
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Pilar Carrera
- Department of Social Psychology and Methodology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Claudia Campos
- Nueva Vida, DC Office—801 N Pitt St., Suite 113, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA;
| | - Lyndsay Anderson
- College of Health and Human Services, School of Nursing, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA;
| | - George Luta
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, 4000 Reservoir Rd., NW, Washington, DC 20057, USA
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA; (K.D.G.); (S.G.-T.); (G.L.); (B.N.P.); (M.D.S.)
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Ana-Paula Cupertino
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, 40 Prospect Avenue, Office number 316, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA;
| | - Nathaly Gonzalez
- Capital Breast Care Center, 1000 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20003, USA;
| | - Vanessa B. Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA;
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Schwartz MD. Re: Cascade Genetic Testing of Relatives for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of an Online Initiative. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111:872-873. [DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2019] [Accepted: 02/20/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Beth N Peshkin
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors’ affiliations
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors’ affiliations
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors’ affiliations
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Hurtado-de-Mendoza A, Graves KD, Gómez-Trillos S, Song M, Anderson L, Campos C, Carrera P, Ostrove N, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Ficca N, Cupertino AP, Gonzalez N, Otero A, Huerta E, Sheppard VB. Developing a culturally targeted video to enhance the use of genetic counseling in Latina women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Community Genet 2019; 11:85-99. [PMID: 31104207 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-019-00423-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2018] [Accepted: 04/25/2019] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Disparities for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) persist between Latina and non-Hispanic Whites. There are few tested culturally targeted interventions. We developed a culturally targeted video to enhance GCRA uptake in at-risk Latinas. Interviews with healthcare providers (n = 20) and at-risk Latinas (n = 20) were conducted as formative research to inform the development of the video. Findings from the formative research, health behavior conceptual models, and evidence-based risk communication strategies informed the messages for the script. Then, we conducted a focus group with at-risk Latinas (n = 7) to obtain feedback for final refinement of the script. The final video was piloted for acceptability and potential dissemination in a sample of Latino community health workers (CHWs) (n = 31). Providers and at-risk Latinas suggested using simple language and visual aids to facilitate comprehension. Participants in the focus group identified areas for further clarification (e.g., cost). The result was an 18-min video that illustrates "Rosa's" story. Rosa learns about HBOC risk factors and overcomes barriers to attend genetic counseling. CHWs reported high overall satisfaction with the video (M = 9.61, SD = .88, range 1-10). A culturally targeted video has the potential to reach underserved populations with low literacy and English proficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. .,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA.
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Sara Gómez-Trillos
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Minna Song
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Lyndsay Anderson
- Department of Nursing, California State University, Sacramento, USA
| | - Claudia Campos
- Nueva Vida, DC Office-Alexandria, 206 N. Washington St. Suite 300, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA
| | - Pilar Carrera
- Department of Psychology, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.,Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Cancer Genomics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Nan Ficca
- National Conservatory of Dramatic Arts, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ana-Paula Cupertino
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA
| | - Nathaly Gonzalez
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.,Capital Breast Cancer Center, 1000 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Andrea Otero
- Instituto de Medicina Oncológica y Molecular de Asturias (IMOMA), Av. Richard Grandío, 33193, Oviedo (Asturias), Spain
| | - Elmer Huerta
- Cancer Preventorium, Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St, NW, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Vanessa B Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Wang JHY, Gomez SL, Brown RL, Davis K, Allen L, Huang E, Chentsova Dutton Y, Schwartz MD. Factors associated with Chinese American and White cancer survivors' physical and psychological functioning. Health Psychol 2019; 38:455-465. [PMID: 31045429 PMCID: PMC6501801 DOI: 10.1037/hea0000666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine whether health-related stressors and resources are associated with physical function, depression, and anxiety in Chinese American and White breast cancer survivors. METHOD During 2011-2013, this cross-sectional study enrolled Chinese American and White women from California cancer registries diagnosed with Stage 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2012. Survivors completed a telephone survey assessing health-related factors including comorbidity, treatment-related symptoms, medical communication, perceived threat, use of coping, and social support resources. Outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) short forms. Chinese were classified as low- or high-acculturated based on English proficiency, years in the United States, and interview language. Analyses were conducted using Tobit regression models. RESULTS Low-acculturated Chinese (n = 136) had worse physical functioning than Whites (n = 216), controlling for demographics, cancer stage, and time since diagnosis (β = -3.33, p = .01). This disparity was attenuated after adjusting for comorbidity and symptoms (β = -1.63, p = .18). Perceived threat, disengagement coping, and lack of social support were associated with poorer psychological outcomes, regardless of ethnicity. Although low-acculturated Chinese had lower scores on all health-related factors than Whites, the former reported significantly lower level of depression (β = -3.23) and anxiety (β = -5.8) after adjusting for covariates (both p < .05). High-acculturated Chinese (n = 84) did not differ from Whites except that the former had significantly lower anxiety. CONCLUSION Low-acculturated Chinese may benefit from interventions aimed to improve their physical problems. However, despite experiencing greater psychosocial stress, they reported better emotional functioning. Whether Chinese culture shapes this resiliency, or if it is a reporting bias will need further investigation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judy Huei-Yu Wang
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University
| | | | - Roger L Brown
- Department of Family Medicine, School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Kimberly Davis
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University
| | | | - Ellen Huang
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University
| | | | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Willey S, Valdimarsdottir HB, Nusbaum R, Hooker G, O'Neill S, Jandorf L, Kelly SP, Heinzmann J, Zidell A, Khoury K. Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 170:517-524. [PMID: 29611029 PMCID: PMC6026034 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4773-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2018] [Accepted: 03/28/2018] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Breast cancer patients who carry BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutations may consider bilateral mastectomy. Having bilateral mastectomy at the time of diagnosis not only reduces risk of a contralateral breast cancer, but can eliminate the need for radiation therapy and yield improved reconstruction options. However, most patients do not receive genetic counseling or testing at the time of their diagnosis. In this trial, we tested proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in order to facilitate pre-surgical genetic counseling and testing. METHODS We recruited newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at increased risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Of 379 eligible patients who completed a baseline survey, 330 agreed to randomization in a 2:1 ratio to RGCT (n = 220) versus UC (n = 108). Primary outcomes were genetic counseling and testing uptake and breast cancer surgical decisions. RESULTS RGCT led to higher overall (83.8% vs. 54.6%; p < 0.0001) and pre-surgical (57.8% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.001) genetic counseling uptake compared to UC. Despite higher rates of genetic counseling, RGCT did not differ from UC in overall (54.1% vs. 49.1%, p > 0.10) or pre-surgical (30.6% vs. 27.4%, p > 0.10) receipt of genetic test results nor did they differ in uptake of bilateral mastectomy (26.6% vs. 21.8%, p > 0.10). CONCLUSIONS Although RGCT yielded increased genetic counseling participation, this did not result in increased rates of pre-surgical genetic testing or impact surgical decisions. These data suggest that those patients most likely to opt for genetic testing at the time of diagnosis are being effectively identified by their surgeons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc D Schwartz
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Shawna Willey
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Rachel Nusbaum
- School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Suzanne O'Neill
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Lina Jandorf
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Jessica Heinzmann
- Atlantic Health Services, Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Summit, NJ, USA
| | - Aliza Zidell
- Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA
| | - Katia Khoury
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, The Harris Building, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
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: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
31
|
Interrante MK, Segal H, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB, Nusbaum R, Similuk M, DeMarco T, Hooker G, Graves K, Isaacs C, Wood M, McKinnon W, Garber J, McCormick S, Heinzmann J, Kinney AY, Schwartz MD. Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2017; 1:pkx002. [PMID: 31304457 PMCID: PMC6611491 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkx002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2017] [Revised: 06/08/2017] [Accepted: 07/06/2017] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs in-person counseling (usual care [UC]). METHODS We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies. RESULTS TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; χ2 = 4.43, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-term adverse outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary K. Interrante
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Hannah Segal
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Heiddis B. Valdimarsdottir
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Rachel Nusbaum
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Morgan Similuk
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Tiffani DeMarco
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Gillian Hooker
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Kristi Graves
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Marie Wood
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Wendy McKinnon
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Judy Garber
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Shelley McCormick
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Jessica Heinzmann
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Anita Y. Kinney
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Affiliations of authors: Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (MKI, HS, BNP, RN, MS, TD, GH, KG, CI, MDS) and Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research (MKI, HS, BNP, KG, CI, MDS), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (HBV, JH); Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland (HBV); School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (RN); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (MS); Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA (TD); NextGxDx, Inc, Franklin, TN (GH); Familial Cancer Program of the Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT (MW, WM); Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (JG, SM); Center for Cancer Risk Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA (SM); Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Services, Summit, NJ (JH); University of Utah School of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK); Cancer Control and Population Sciences, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM (AYK)
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Tsai HT, Isaacs C, Lynce FC, O'Neill SC, Liu C, Schwartz MD, Selvam N, Zhou Y, Potosky AL. Initiation of Trastuzumab by Women Younger Than 64 Years for Adjuvant Treatment of Stage I-III Breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15:601-607. [PMID: 28476740 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2016] [Accepted: 01/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: Studies have reported disparities by age and race in the initiation of adjuvant trastuzumab for the initial treatment of older women with early-stage breast cancer, but less is known about its initiation in younger patients. Therefore, we assessed temporal trends and clinical and demographic factors associated with trastuzumab initiation in a large, population-based cohort of patients aged <64 years in 5 states. Methods: Using a cancer registry and claims-linked data set of 13,398 women with incident invasive breast cancer from 2006 to 2011, we identified 934 patients aged <64 years with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer. We assessed trastuzumab initiation within the first 9 months after diagnosis and conducted logistic regression analyses to assess sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with trastuzumab initiation. Results: From 2006 to 2011, trastuzumab initiation steadily increased in patients with node-positive (from 65% to 91%) and node-negative (from 39% to 75%) breast cancers. Several tumor-related factors were associated with trastuzumab initiation, including high histologic grades (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.43; 95% CI, 3.27-12.65; and aOR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.66-6.36, for grades 3 and 2, respectively), node-positive status (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.28-2.78; P=.001), tumor size >2 cm (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16; P=.03), and hormone receptor-negative status (aOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.26; P=.04). We found a null effect of race. Conclusions: Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early-stage breast cancer has been widely disseminated among women aged <64 years. The initiation of this targeted therapy was associated with higher-risk features, consistent with practice guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huei-Ting Tsai
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Filipa C Lynce
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | | | | | - Marc D Schwartz
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | | | - Yingjun Zhou
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Schwartz MD. Identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through a Traceback Framework: Consent, Privacy, and Autonomy. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:2226-2228. [PMID: 28463631 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.72.8774] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
|
34
|
Schwartz MD, Black SW, Morairty SR, Hoener MC, Kilduff TS. 0014 TRACE AMINE-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR 1 REGULATES WAKEFULNESS, BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION AND EEG SPECTRAL COMPOSITION. Sleep 2017. [DOI: 10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
35
|
Thomas AM, Schwartz MD, Saxe MD, Kilduff T. 0016 QEEG AND SLEEP/WAKE PHYSIOLOGY DISRUPTED IN NEUROLIGIN-3 KNOCKOUT RAT MODEL OF ASD. Sleep 2017. [DOI: 10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
36
|
Affiliation(s)
- Anita Y Kinney
- Anita Y. Kinney, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Barbara H. Brumbach, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Anita Y. Kinney, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Barbara H. Brumbach, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Barbara H Brumbach
- Anita Y. Kinney, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Barbara H. Brumbach, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Anita Y. Kinney, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Wendy Kohlmann, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Barbara H. Brumbach, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Marc D. Schwartz, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
O’Neill SC, Isaacs C, Lynce F, Graham DMA, Chao C, Sheppard VB, Zhou Y, Liu C, Selvam N, Schwartz MD, Potosky AL. Endocrine therapy initiation, discontinuation and adherence and breast imaging among 21-gene recurrence score assay-eligible women under age 65. Breast Cancer Res 2017; 19:45. [PMID: 28359319 PMCID: PMC5374604 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-017-0837-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2016] [Accepted: 03/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Aside from chemotherapy utilization, limited data are available on the relationship between gene expression profiling (GEP) testing and breast cancer care. We assessed the relationship between GEP testing and additional variables and the outcomes of endocrine therapy initiation, discontinuation and adherence, and breast imaging exams in women under age 65 years. METHODS Data from five state cancer registries were linked with claims data and GEP results. We assessed variables associated with survivorship care outcomes in an incident cohort of 5014 commercially insured women under age 65 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) non-positive breast cancer from 2006 to 2010. RESULTS Among tested women, those with high Oncotype DX® Breast Recurrence Score® (RS) were significantly less likely to initiate endocrine therapy than women with low RS tumors (OR 0.40 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.81); P = 0.01). Among all test-eligible women, receipt of Oncotype DX testing was associated with a greater likelihood of endocrine therapy initiation (OR 2.48 (95% CI 2.03 to 3.04); P <0.0001). The odds of initiation were also significantly higher for tested vs. untested women among women who did not initiate chemotherapy within six months of diagnosis (OR 3.25 (95% CI 2.53 to 4.16)), with no effect in women who received chemotherapy. Discontinuation and adherence and breast imaging exams were unrelated to tested status or RS. CONCLUSIONS Lower endocrine therapy initiation rates among women with high RS tumors and among untested women not receiving chemotherapy are concerning, given its established efficacy. Additional research is needed to suggest mechanisms to close this gap.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne C. O’Neill
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| | - Filipa Lynce
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| | | | | | | | - Yingjun Zhou
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| | | | | | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| | - Arnold L. Potosky
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007 USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Knerr S, Wernli KJ, Leppig K, Ehrlich K, Graham AL, Farrell D, Evans C, Luta G, Schwartz MD, O'Neill SC. A web-based personalized risk communication and decision-making tool for women with dense breasts: Design and methods of a randomized controlled trial within an integrated health care system. Contemp Clin Trials 2017; 56:25-33. [PMID: 28257920 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2017.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2016] [Revised: 02/23/2017] [Accepted: 02/27/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mammographic breast density is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer after age and family history. Mandatory breast density disclosure policies are increasing nationally without clear guidance on how to communicate density status to women. Coupling density disclosure with personalized risk counseling and decision support through a web-based tool may be an effective way to allow women to make informed, values-consistent risk management decisions without increasing distress. METHODS/DESIGN This paper describes the design and methods of Engaged, a prospective, randomized controlled trial examining the effect of online personalized risk counseling and decision support on risk management decisions in women with dense breasts and increased breast cancer risk. The trial is embedded in a large integrated health care system in the Pacific Northwest. A total of 1250 female health plan members aged 40-69 with a recent negative screening mammogram who are at increased risk for interval cancer based on their 5-year breast cancer risk and BI-RADS® breast density will be randomly assigned to access either a personalized web-based counseling and decision support tool or standard educational content. Primary outcomes will be assessed using electronic health record data (i.e., chemoprevention and breast MRI utilization) and telephone surveys (i.e., distress) at baseline, six weeks, and twelve months. DISCUSSION Engaged will provide evidence about whether a web-based personalized risk counseling and decision support tool is an effective method for communicating with women about breast density and risk management. An effective intervention could be disseminated with minimal clinical burden to align with density disclosure mandates. Clinical Trials Registration Number:NCT03029286.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Knerr
- Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA(1).
| | - Karen J Wernli
- Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA(1)
| | - Kathleen Leppig
- Clinical Genetics, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA 98112, USA(1)
| | - Kelly Ehrlich
- Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA(1)
| | - Amanda L Graham
- Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Truth Initiative, Washington, DC 20001, USA
| | | | - Chalanda Evans
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - George Luta
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Manne SL, Topham N, D’Agostino TA, Virtue SM, Kirstein L, Brill K, Manning C, Grana G, Schwartz MD, Ohman-Strickland P. Acceptability and pilot efficacy trial of a web-based breast reconstruction decision support aid for women considering mastectomy. Psychooncology 2016; 25:1424-1433. [PMID: 26383833 PMCID: PMC9890719 DOI: 10.1002/pon.3984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2015] [Revised: 07/10/2015] [Accepted: 08/21/2015] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The study aim was to test the acceptability and preliminary efficacy of a novel interactive web-based breast reconstruction decision support aid (BRAID) for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients considering mastectomy. METHODS Fifty-five women considering mastectomy were randomly assigned to receive the BRAID versus the Cancer Support Community's Frankly Speaking About Cancer: Breast Reconstruction pamphlet. Participants completed measures of breast reconstruction (BR) knowledge, preparation to make a decision, decisional conflict, anxiety, and BR intentions before randomization and 2 weeks later. RESULTS In terms of acceptability, enrollment into the study was satisfactory, but the rate of return for follow-up surveys was lower among BRAID participants than pamphlet participants. Both interventions were evaluated favorably in terms of their value in facilitating the BR decision, and the majority of participants completing the follow-up reported viewing the materials. In terms of preliminary efficacy, both interventions resulted in significant increases in BR knowledge and completeness and satisfaction with preparation to make a BR decision, and both interventions resulted in a significant reduction in decision conflict. However, there were no differences between interventions. CONCLUSION A widely available free pamphlet and a web-based customized decision aid were highly utilized. The pamphlet was as effective in educating women about BR and prepared women equally as well to make the BR decision as compared with a more costly, customized web-based decision support aid. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon L. Manne
- Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Section of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA,Correspondence to: Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick NJ 08903, USA.
| | - Neal Topham
- Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Thomas A. D’Agostino
- Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Section of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Shannon Myers Virtue
- Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Section of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Laurie Kirstein
- Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Section of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Kristin Brill
- MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper Health Systems, Camden, NJ, USA
| | | | - Generosa Grana
- MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper Health Systems, Camden, NJ, USA
| | | | - Pamela Ohman-Strickland
- Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Section of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
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: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
41
|
O'Neill SC, Isaacs C, Chao C, Tsai HT, Liu C, Ekezue BF, Selvam N, Kessler LG, Schwartz MD, Lobo T, Potosky AL. Adoption of Gene Expression Profiling for Breast Cancer in US Oncology Practice for Women Younger Than 65 Years. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016; 13:1216-24. [PMID: 26483061 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A number of practice guidelines incorporate the use of gene expression profiling (GEP) tests for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast tumors. Few studies describe factors associated with GEP testing in US oncology practice. We assessed the relationship between clinical, demographic, and group-level socioeconomic variables and test use in women younger than 65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 5 state cancer registries were linked with insurance claims data and GEP test results. We assessed rates of testing and variables associated with test use in an incident cohort of 9,444 commercially insured women younger than 65 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2006 through 2012. RESULTS Rates of testing for women with N0 disease increased from 20.4% in 2006 to 35.2% in 2011. Variables associated with higher rates of testing, beyond clinical factors such as nodal status (P<.001), included being diagnosed from 2008 through 2012 versus 2006 through 2007 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.47-1.90), having preexisting comorbidities (adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.59), and higher out-of-pocket pharmacy costs (adjusted OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97). Women younger than 50 years were more likely to be tested if they had stage I versus stage II disease (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS In an insured population of women younger than 65 years, GEP testing increased after its inclusion in clinical practice guidelines and mounting evidence. Additional research is needed to better understand oncologists' decision not to order GEP testing for their patients who are otherwise eligible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne C O'Neill
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Calvin Chao
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Huei-Ting Tsai
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Chunfu Liu
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Bola F Ekezue
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Nandini Selvam
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Larry G Kessler
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Tania Lobo
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Arnold L Potosky
- From Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California; HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; and University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
A rich theoretical and ethnographic literature exists suggesting that fraternity men are particularly prone to be sexual victimizers of women on college campuses. Yet, there is thin empirical evidence for this contention. Here, in a sample from a large midwestern university, there was strong evidence uncovered that male peer support for victimization of women exists, and that it is related to extensive alcohol use. However, there is no evidence that fraternity men are different on these factors from other men. A conclusion is that anti-rape efforts must be broader than only targeting fraternities, and that alcohol education must be a high priority.
Collapse
|
43
|
Starosta AJ, Luta G, Tomko CA, Schwartz MD, Taylor KL. Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates. Ann Behav Med 2016; 49:762-8. [PMID: 25724634 DOI: 10.1007/s12160-015-9692-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of decision aids on prostate cancer screening outcomes has been inconsistent. PURPOSE We assessed whether pre-existing attitudes moderated the impact of decision aids on screening. METHODS Men aged 45-70 (56.2% Caucasian, 39.9% African-American) were randomly assigned to a print decision aid (N = 630), a web decision aid (N = 631), or usual care (N = 632). Telephone interviews assessed pro/con screening attitudes and screening behaviors at baseline, 1-month and 13-months post-randomization. RESULTS Logistic regression analyses revealed significant arm by attitude interactions: Higher baseline cons scores predicted lower screening in the print (OR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.92)) and web (OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.91)) arms but not in usual care (OR = 1.34 (95% CI: 0.90, 2.00)). CONCLUSIONS The decision aids amplified the impact of men's baseline attitudes about limitations of screening: Compared to the usual care arm, men in both decision aid arms were less likely to be screened when they perceived more limitations of screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy J Starosta
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Peshkin BN, Kelly S, Nusbaum RH, Similuk M, DeMarco TA, Hooker GW, Valdimarsdottir HB, Forman AD, Joines JR, Davis C, McCormick SR, McKinnon W, Graves KD, Isaacs C, Garber J, Wood M, Jandorf L, Schwartz MD. Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling. J Genet Couns 2016; 25:472-82. [PMID: 26455498 PMCID: PMC4829475 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9897-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2015] [Accepted: 09/23/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk has been associated with positive outcomes in high risk women. However, little is known about how patients perceive TC. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus usual care (UC; in-person genetic counseling), we compared high risk women's perceptions of: (1) overall satisfaction with genetic counseling; (2) convenience; (3) attentiveness during the session; (4) counselor effectiveness in providing support; and (5) counselor ability to recognize emotional responses during the session. Among the 554 participants (TC, N = 272; UC, N = 282), delivery mode was not associated with self-reported satisfaction. However, TC participants found counseling significantly more convenient than UC participants (OR = 4.78, 95 % CI = 3.32, 6.89) while also perceiving lower levels of support (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.40-0.80) and emotional recognition (OR = 0.53, 95 % CI = 0.37-0.76). In exploratory analyses, we found that non-Hispanic white participants reported higher counselor support in UC than in TC (69.4 % vs. 52.8 %; OR = 3.06, 95 % CI = 1.39-6.74), while minority women perceived less support in UC vs. TC (58.3 % vs. 38.7 %; OR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.39-1.65). We discuss potential research and practice implications of these findings which may further improve the effectiveness and utilization of TC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beth N Peshkin
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| | - Scott Kelly
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Morgan Similuk
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Tiffani A DeMarco
- Cancer Genetic Counseling Program, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA, USA
| | | | - Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
- Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Psychology, Reyjavik University, Reyjavik, Iceland
| | - Andrea D Forman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Risk Assessment Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jessica Rispoli Joines
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Claire Davis
- Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Sarah Lawrence College, Yonkers, NY, USA
| | - Shelley R McCormick
- Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Wendy McKinnon
- Familial Cancer Program, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Judy Garber
- Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Marie Wood
- Familial Cancer Program, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Lina Jandorf
- Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
- Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Armstrong J, Toscano M, Kotchko N, Friedman S, Schwartz MD, Virgo KS, Lynch K, Andrews JE, Aguado Loi CX, Bauer JE, Casares C, Bourquardez Clark E, Kondoff MR, Molina AD, Abdollahian M, Walker G, Sutphen R. Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study. JAMA Oncol 2016; 1:1251-60. [PMID: 26426480 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 90] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE BRCA genetic testing has substantial public health impact, yet little is known of the real-world experiences of the more than 100 000 Americans undergoing testing annually. OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with use of BRCA testing, assess whether delivery of genetic counseling and testing services adheres to professional guidelines, and measure the impact on patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The American BRCA Outcomes and Utilization of Testing (ABOUT) Study analyzed data from a consecutive national series of 11 159 women whose clinicians ordered BRCA testing between December 2011 and December 2012. Aetna mailed recruitment information across the United States to commercial health plan members whose clinicians had ordered BRCA testing. A total of 3874 women (34.7%) completed questionnaires. Deidentified clinician-reported data from all respondents and a random sample of 2613 nonrespondents were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The proportion of eligible participants who met testing criteria and respondents' report of receiving genetic counseling by a genetics clinician and its association with BRCA knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS Among 3628 women respondents whose clinicians ordered comprehensive BRCA testing, most were white non-Hispanic (2502 [69.0%]), college educated (2953 [81.4%]), married (2751 [75.8%]), and had higher incomes (2011 [55.4%]). Approximately 16.4% (596) did not meet testing criteria. Mutations were identified in 161 (5.3%) of these women who received comprehensive testing. Only 1334 (36.8%) reported receiving genetic counseling from a genetics clinician prior to testing; the lowest rates (130 [12.3%]) were among patients of obstetrician/gynecologists. The most commonly reported reason for not receiving this clinical service was lack of clinician recommendation. Those who received it demonstrated greater knowledge about BRCA (mean score difference adjusted for demographics and clinician specialty, β = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.14]; P < .001) and expressed greater understanding (β = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.41-0.54]; P < .001) and satisfaction (β = 2.21 [95% CI, 1.60-2.81]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite improved patient knowledge, understanding, and satisfaction among patients who receive genetic counseling provided by a genetics clinician, as well as multiple guidelines emphasizing the importance of genetic counseling, most US women undergoing BRCA genetic testing do not receive this clinical service. Lack of physician recommendation is the most commonly reported reason. These findings demonstrate important gaps in clinical genetics services. Recently mandated coverage of genetic counseling services as a preventive service without patient cost sharing should contribute to improving clinical genetics services and associated outcomes in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Sue Friedman
- Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Inc (FORCE), Tampa, Florida
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | | | - Kristian Lynch
- Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ashley D Molina
- Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
| | - Mehrnaz Abdollahian
- Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa
| | | | - Rebecca Sutphen
- Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Evans CN, Brewer NT, Vadaparampil ST, Boisvert M, Ottaviano Y, Lee MC, Isaacs C, Schwartz MD, O'Neill SC. Impact of genomic testing and patient-reported outcomes on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 156:549-555. [PMID: 27059031 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3780-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2016] [Accepted: 04/02/2016] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Practice guidelines incorporate genomic tumor profiling, using results such as the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS), to refine recurrence risk estimates for the large proportion of breast cancer patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive disease. We sought to understand the impact of receiving genomic recurrence risk estimates on breast cancer patients' well-being and the impact of these patient-reported outcomes on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants were 193 women (mean age 57) newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Women were interviewed before and 2-3 weeks after receiving the RS result between 2011 and 2015. We assessed subsequent receipt of chemotherapy from chart review. After receiving their RS, perceived pros (t = 4.27, P < .001) and cons (t = 8.54, P < .001) of chemotherapy increased from pre-test to post-test, while perceived risk of breast cancer recurrence decreased (t = 2.90, P = .004). Women with high RS tumors were more likely to receive chemotherapy than women with low RS tumors (88 vs. 5 %, OR 0.01, 0.00-0.02, P < .001). Higher distress (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.05-4.57, P < .05) and lower perceived cons of chemotherapy (OR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.26-0.97, P < .05) also predicted receipt of chemotherapy. Distressed patients who saw few downsides of chemotherapy received this treatment. Clinicians should consider these factors when discussing chemotherapy with breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chalanda N Evans
- Department of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Noel T Brewer
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | | - Marc Boisvert
- MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Claudine Isaacs
- Department of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Department of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Department of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Chang Y, Near AM, Butler KM, Hoeffken A, Edwards SL, Stroup AM, Kohlmann W, Gammon A, Buys SS, Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Kinney AY, Mandelblatt JS, Chang Y, Near AM, Butler KM, Hoeffken A, Edwards SL, Stroup AM, Kohlmann W, Gammon A, Buys SS, Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Kinney AY, Mandelblatt JS. Economic Evaluation Alongside a Clinical Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations in Geographically Underserved Areas. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12:59, e1-13. [PMID: 26759468 PMCID: PMC4960460 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2015.004838] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE BRCA1/2 counseling and mutation testing is recommended for high-risk women, but geographic barriers exist, and no data on the costs and yields of diverse delivery approaches are available. METHODS We performed an economic evaluation with a randomized clinical trial comparing telephone versus in-person counseling at 14 locations (nine geographically remote). Costs included fixed overhead, variable staff, and patient time costs; research costs were excluded. Outcomes included average per-person costs for pretest counseling; mutations detected; and overall counseling, testing, and disclosure. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS In-person counseling was more costly per person counseled than was telephone counseling ($270 [range, $180 to $400] v $120 [range, $80 to $200], respectively). Counselors averaged 285 miles round-trip to deliver in-person counseling to the participants (three participants per session). There were no differences by arm in mutation detection rates (approximately 10%); therefore, telephone counseling was less costly per positive mutation detected than was in-person counseling ($37,160 [range, $36,080 to$38,920] v $40,330 [range, $38,010 to $43,870]). In-person counseling would only be less costly than telephone counseling if the most favorable assumptions were applied to in personc ounseling and the least favorable assumptions were applied to telephone counseling. CONCLUSION In geographically underserved areas, telephone counseling is less costly than in-person counseling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaojen Chang
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Aimee M. Near
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Karin M. Butler
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Amanda Hoeffken
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Sandra L. Edwards
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Antoinette M. Stroup
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Amanda Gammon
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Saundra S. Buys
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Marc D. Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Beth N. Peshkin
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Anita Y. Kinney
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT,Corresponding author: Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven St NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20007; e-mail:
| | - Yaojen Chang
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Aimee M Near
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Karin M Butler
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Amanda Hoeffken
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Sandra L Edwards
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Antoinette M Stroup
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Amanda Gammon
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Saundra S Buys
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Beth N Peshkin
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Anita Y Kinney
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM; and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Birmingham WC, Hung M, Boonyasiriwat W, Walters ST, Stroup AM, Schwartz MD, Franklin JD, Kinney AY. Abstract B12: To screen or not to screen: Examining components of the Extended Parallel Process Model in a tailored-risk communication intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2015. [DOI: 10.1158/1940-6215.prev-14-b12] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) has been effectively used to promote healthy behaviors, but less is known about the effectiveness of the EPPM in promoting screening adherence in individuals at familial risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). The original EPPM model posits that an additive relationship exists between the constructs perceived severity and susceptibility (“threat”) and between perceived self- and response efficacy (“efficacy”). However, this model may not be as effective in predicting message acceptance in the context of CRC screening as these constructs may independently contribute to the model. For example, with CRC threat, there may be little variance in the perceived severity score as perceptions of cancer severity have been shown to be universally high. Likewise, one may have high levels of response efficacy (“Colonoscopy can save my life”) but low self-efficacy (“Without insurance I can't pay for a colonoscopy”) thus influencing efficacy scores. To determine the effectiveness of the EPPM in promoting CRC screening, we used data from the Family Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Risk Education Project (Family CARE), that tested a remote tailored-risk communication intervention aimed at individuals with familial risk for CRC. Intention-to-screen and medical record-verified colonoscopy (CS) were collected on 218 participants who received the personalized intervention. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we examined associations of CRC threat and efficacy with greater message acceptance in a full additive model, and in an apriori alternative model in which perceived severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy and response efficacy acted as independent predictors. We considered indicators of good fit to be Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <.08, Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) <.08, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >.90. We compared the two models based on model fit indices, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), with the preferred model having lower AIC and BIC. SEM results indicated poor fit for the full additive EPPM model (RMSEA=0.109; SRMR=0.137; CFI 0.800) while the alternative model showed good fit (RMSEA=0.068; SRMR=0.063; CFI=0.933). Additionally, comparison of the two models indicated that the alternative model was a better fit than the full additive model (RMSEA=0.071; SRMR=0.108; CFI 0.918; AIC=11021; BIC=11332). Further, we found perceptions of susceptibility (B =0.321, p <.001) and self-efficacy (B=0.365, p<0.001) to be significantly associated with intention to screen, while severity (B=0.059, p=0.454) and response efficacy (B=-0.189, p=0.101) showed no significant association. Importantly, intention to screen was significantly associated with medically verified CS behavior (B=0.728, p<0.001).
Relatives of CRC patients are at increased risk for the disease, yet screening rates remain low among these individuals despite the effectiveness of CS in both early detection and cancer prevention. Theory-based communication such as the EPPM that addresses multiple determinates of behavior may help promote CRC screening yet few studies have tested conceptual models with regard to an intervention's effect on psychosocial pathways and actual cancer screening behavior. Our results indicate that focusing on individuals' perceptions of CRC susceptibility and screening self-efficacy may more effectively contribute to CRC screening behavior. Noteworthy, we measured both intentions to screen and actual screening behavior. These findings uniquely contribute to the literature by providing evidence of the underlying theoretical psychosocial pathways of how a personalized health promotion intervention works in motivating CRC screening among individuals at increased familial risk.
Citation Format: Wendy C. Birmingham, Man Hung, Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Scott T. Walters, Antoinette M. Stroup, Marc D. Schwartz, Jeremy D. Franklin, Anita Y. Kinney. To screen or not to screen: Examining components of the Extended Parallel Process Model in a tailored-risk communication intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2014 Sep 27-Oct 1; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2015;8(10 Suppl): Abstract nr B12.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Man Hung
- 2University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Potosky AL, O'Neill SC, Isaacs C, Tsai HT, Chao C, Liu C, Ekezue BF, Selvam N, Kessler LG, Zhou Y, Schwartz MD. Population-based study of the effect of gene expression profiling on adjuvant chemotherapy use in breast cancer patients under the age of 65 years. Cancer 2015; 121:4062-70. [PMID: 26291519 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2015] [Revised: 06/23/2015] [Accepted: 07/10/2015] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gene expression profiling (GEP) testing can help to predict the risk of cancer recurrence and guide decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer (BC). However, no prior US studies have evaluated the relation between GEP testing and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy by women treated in a general oncology practice. METHODS Eligible patients were women under the age 65 of years who were newly diagnosed with their first stage I or II, hormone receptor-positive BC between 2006 and 2011 (n = 9405). This retrospective study was conducted with a data set consisting of registry data, health claims data, and GEP testing results. The distribution of GEP test results was reported in terms of the risk of recurrence predicted, and logistic regression was used to assess the association of test results with chemotherapy use, with adjustments made for multiple patient characteristics. RESULTS The proportions of tested women with low, intermediate, and high recurrence score results were 51%, 39%, and 10%, respectively. Among these women, 11%, 47%, and 88%, respectively, received adjuvant chemotherapy. There was a significant, positive linear relation of assay scores with chemotherapy use within the low and intermediate subgroups after adjustments for all other factors (adjusted odds ratios, 1.17 and 1.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant chemotherapy use after GEP testing is generally consistent with the recommended test interpretation for women with a high or low predicted risk of recurrence. Chemotherapy use in the intermediate-risk group increased with Recurrence Score values, and evidence from ongoing randomized trials may help to clarify whether this finding reflects optimal interpretation of GEP test results. These results demonstrate the principle that genomic testing, on the basis of research establishing its utility, can be applied appropriately in general practice in accordance with guideline recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arnold L Potosky
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Suzanne C O'Neill
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Huei-Ting Tsai
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Calvin Chao
- Genomic Health, Inc, Redwood City, California
| | | | | | | | - Larry G Kessler
- University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
| | - Yingjun Zhou
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Birmingham WC, Hung M, Boonyasiriwat W, Kohlmann W, Walters ST, Burt RW, Stroup AM, Edwards SL, Schwartz MD, Lowery JT, Hill DA, Wiggins CL, Higginbotham JC, Tang P, Hon SD, Franklin JD, Vernon S, Kinney AY. Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening. Psychooncology 2015; 24:1265-1278. [PMID: 26194469 DOI: 10.1002/pon.3899] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2014] [Revised: 04/27/2015] [Accepted: 06/10/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk for the disease, yet screening rates still remain low. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, we examined the impact of a personalized, remote risk communication intervention on behavioral intention and colonoscopy uptake in relatives of CRC patients, assessing the original additive model and an alternative model in which each theoretical construct contributes uniquely. METHODS We collected intention-to-screen and medical record-verified colonoscopy information on 218 individuals who received the personalized intervention. RESULTS Structural equation modeling showed poor main model fit (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.109; standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.134; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.797; Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 11,601; Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 11,884). However, the alternative model (RMSEA = 0.070; SRMR = 0.105; CFI = 0.918; AIC = 11,186; BIC = 11,498) showed good fit. Cancer susceptibility (B = 0.319, p < 0.001) and colonoscopy self-efficacy (B = 0.364, p < 0.001) perceptions predicted intention to screen, which was significantly associated with colonoscopy uptake (B = 0.539, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our findings provide support of the utility of Extended Parallel Process Model for designing effective interventions to motivate CRC screening in persons at increased risk when individual elements of the model are considered. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Man Hung
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | | | | | - Scott T Walters
- Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of North Texas, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Antoinette M Stroup
- New Jersey State Cancer Registry, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | - Marc D Schwartz
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jan T Lowery
- University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Deirdre A Hill
- University of New Mexico Cancer Research and Treatment Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| | - Charles L Wiggins
- University of New Mexico Cancer Research and Treatment Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| | | | - Philip Tang
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Shirley D Hon
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Jeremy D Franklin
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sally Vernon
- Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anita Y Kinney
- University of New Mexico Cancer Center and School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| |
Collapse
|