Anita Y Kinney1, Karin M Butler2, Marc D Schwartz2, Jeanne S Mandelblatt2, Kenneth M Boucher2, Lisa M Pappas2, Amanda Gammon2, Wendy Kohlmann2, Sandra L Edwards2, Antoinette M Stroup2, Saundra S Buys2, Kristina G Flores2, Rebecca A Campo2. 1. University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Cancer Control, Albuquerque, NM (AYK, K.M. Butler, KGF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (AYK); Huntsman Cancer Institute, (AYK, K.M. Boucher, LMP, AG, WK, SLE, AMS, SSB, RAC) and Department of Oncological Sciences (K.M. Boucher), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK, K.M. Boucher, SLE, AMS, SSB); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (MDS, JSM); Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (AMS). AYKinney@salud.unm.edu. 2. University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Cancer Control, Albuquerque, NM (AYK, K.M. Butler, KGF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (AYK); Huntsman Cancer Institute, (AYK, K.M. Boucher, LMP, AG, WK, SLE, AMS, SSB, RAC) and Department of Oncological Sciences (K.M. Boucher), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT (AYK, K.M. Boucher, SLE, AMS, SSB); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (MDS, JSM); Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (AMS).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing demand for cancer genetic services underscores the need to consider approaches that enhance access and efficiency of genetic counseling. Telephone delivery of cancer genetic services may improve access to these services for individuals experiencing geographic (rural areas) and structural (travel time, transportation, childcare) barriers to access. METHODS: This cluster-randomized clinical trial used population-based sampling of women at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to compare telephone and in-person counseling for: 1) equivalency of testing uptake and 2) noninferiority of changes in psychosocial measures. Women 25 to 74 years of age with personal or family histories of breast or ovarian cancer and who were able to travel to one of 14 outreach clinics were invited to participate. Randomization was by family. Assessments were conducted at baseline one week after pretest and post-test counseling and at six months. Of the 988 women randomly assigned, 901 completed a follow-up assessment. Cluster bootstrap methods were used to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between test uptake proportions, using a 10% equivalency margin. Differences in psychosocial outcomes for determining noninferiority were estimated using linear models together with one-sided 97.5% bootstrap CIs. RESULTS:Uptake of BRCA1/2 testing was lower following telephone (21.8%) than in-person counseling (31.8%, difference = 10.2%, 95% CI = 3.9% to 16.3%; after imputation of missing data: difference = 9.2%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 24.6%). Telephone counseling fulfilled the criteria for noninferiority to in-person counseling for all measures. CONCLUSIONS:BRCA1/2 telephone counseling, although leading to lower testing uptake, appears to be safe and as effective as in-person counseling with regard to minimizing adverse psychological reactions, promoting informed decision making, and delivering patient-centered communication for both rural and urban women.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The growing demand for cancer genetic services underscores the need to consider approaches that enhance access and efficiency of genetic counseling. Telephone delivery of cancer genetic services may improve access to these services for individuals experiencing geographic (rural areas) and structural (travel time, transportation, childcare) barriers to access. METHODS: This cluster-randomized clinical trial used population-based sampling of women at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to compare telephone and in-person counseling for: 1) equivalency of testing uptake and 2) noninferiority of changes in psychosocial measures. Women 25 to 74 years of age with personal or family histories of breast or ovarian cancer and who were able to travel to one of 14 outreach clinics were invited to participate. Randomization was by family. Assessments were conducted at baseline one week after pretest and post-test counseling and at six months. Of the 988 women randomly assigned, 901 completed a follow-up assessment. Cluster bootstrap methods were used to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between test uptake proportions, using a 10% equivalency margin. Differences in psychosocial outcomes for determining noninferiority were estimated using linear models together with one-sided 97.5% bootstrap CIs. RESULTS: Uptake of BRCA1/2 testing was lower following telephone (21.8%) than in-person counseling (31.8%, difference = 10.2%, 95% CI = 3.9% to 16.3%; after imputation of missing data: difference = 9.2%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 24.6%). Telephone counseling fulfilled the criteria for noninferiority to in-person counseling for all measures. CONCLUSIONS:BRCA1/2 telephone counseling, although leading to lower testing uptake, appears to be safe and as effective as in-person counseling with regard to minimizing adverse psychological reactions, promoting informed decision making, and delivering patient-centered communication for both rural and urban women.
Authors: J Zabora; K BrintzenhofeSzoc; P Jacobsen; B Curbow; S Piantadosi; C Hooker; A Owens; L Derogatis Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2001 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Anita Yeomans Kinney; Sara Ellis Simonsen; Bonnie Jeanne Baty; Diptasri Mandal; Susan L Neuhausen; Kate Seggar; Rich Holubkov; Ken Smith Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: A M Martin; M A Blackwood; D Antin-Ozerkis; H A Shih; K Calzone; T A Colligon; S Seal; N Collins; M R Stratton; B L Weber; K L Nathanson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amy Finch; Mario Beiner; Jan Lubinski; Henry T Lynch; Pal Moller; Barry Rosen; Joan Murphy; Parviz Ghadirian; Eitan Friedman; William D Foulkes; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Teresa Wagner; Nadine Tung; Fergus Couch; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Peter Ainsworth; Mary Daly; Babara Pasini; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Charis Eng; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Jane McLennan; Beth Karlan; Jeffrey Weitzel; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Katrina F Trivers; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Jacqueline W Miller; Barbara Matthews; C Holly A Andrilla; Denise M Lishner; Barbara A Goff Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Monica L Kasting; Claire C Conley; Aasha I Hoogland; Courtney L Scherr; Jongphil Kim; Ram Thapa; Maija Reblin; Cathy D Meade; M Catherine Lee; Tuya Pal; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Yaojen Chang; Aimee M Near; Karin M Butler; Amanda Hoeffken; Sandra L Edwards; Antoinette M Stroup; Wendy Kohlmann; Amanda Gammon; Saundra S Buys; Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Anita Y Kinney; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Yaojen Chang; Aimee M Near; Karin M Butler; Amanda Hoeffken; Sandra L Edwards; Antoinette M Stroup; Wendy Kohlmann; Amanda Gammon; Saundra S Buys; Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Anita Y Kinney; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Laurie E Steffen; Barbara H Brumbach; Wendy Kohlmann; Ruofei Du; Ji-Hyun Lee; Amanda Gammon; Karin Butler; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544