Anita Y Kinney1, Laurie E Steffen2, Barbara H Brumbach2, Wendy Kohlmann2, Ruofei Du2, Ji-Hyun Lee2, Amanda Gammon2, Karin Butler2, Saundra S Buys2, Antoinette M Stroup2, Rebecca A Campo2, Kristina G Flores2, Jeanne S Mandelblatt2, Marc D Schwartz2. 1. 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. aykinney@salud.unm.edu. 2. 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.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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: Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-04-30 Impact factor: 2.802
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: 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: Douglas F Easton; Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou; Marc Tischkowitz; Sean V Tavtigian; Katherine L Nathanson; Peter Devilee; Alfons Meindl; Fergus J Couch; Melissa Southey; David E Goldgar; D Gareth R Evans; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Nazneen Rahman; Mark Robson; Susan M Domchek; William D Foulkes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deborah Cragun; Lucia Camperlengo; Emily Robinson; Meghan Caldwell; Jongphil Kim; Catherine Phelan; Alvaro N Monteiro; Susan T Vadaparampil; Thomas A Sellers; Tuya Pal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2018-12-22 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Nina Beri; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao; Angela R Bradbury Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Deborah O Himes; Deborah K Gibbons; Wendy C Birmingham; Renea L Beckstrand; Amanda Gammon; Anita Y Kinney; Margaret F Clayton Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica M Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Shawna Willey; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian Hooker; Suzanne O'Neill; Lina Jandorf; Scott P Kelly; Jessica Heinzmann; Aliza Zidell; Katia Khoury Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laurie E Steffen; Ruofei Du; Amanda Gammon; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Wendy K Kohlmann; Ji-Hyun Lee; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Belinda Vicuña; Marc D Schwartz; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Claire C Conley; Monica L Kasting; Bianca M Augusto; Jennifer D Garcia; Deborah Cragun; Brian D Gonzalez; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.344