Aubrey R Turner1, Brian R Lane2,3, Dan Rogers4, Isaac Lipkus5, Kathryn Weaver6, Suzanne C Danhauer6, Zheng Zhang1, Fang-Chi Hsu7, Sabrina L Noyes2, Tamara Adams1, Helga Toriello2, Thomas Monroe2, Trudy McKanna2, Tracey Young1, Ryan Rodarmer2, Richard J Kahnoski2, Mouafak Tourojman2, A Karim Kader8, S Lilly Zheng1, William Baer9, Jianfeng Xu1. 1. Center for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Spectrum Health Hospital System, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3. College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 4. Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 5. School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 7. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 8. Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. 9. Grand Valley Medical Specialists, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce death due to prostate cancer but leads to the overdiagnosis of many cases of indolent cancer. Targeted use of PSA screening may reduce overdiagnosis. Multimarker genomic testing shows promise for risk assessment and could be used to target PSA screening. METHODS: To test whether counseling based on the family history (FH) and counseling based on a genetic risk score (GRS) plus FH would differentially affect subsequent PSA screening at 3 months (primary outcome), a randomized trial of FH versus GRS plus FH was conducted with 700 whites aged 40 to 49 years without prior PSA screening. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, recall, physician discussion at 3 months, and PSA screening at 3 years. Pictographs versus numeric presentations of genetic risk were also evaluated. RESULTS: At 3 months, no significant differences were observed in the rates of PSA screening between the FH arm (2.1%) and the GRS-FH arm (4.5% with GRS-FH vs. 2.1% with FH: χ2 = 3.13, P = .077); however, PSA screening rates at 3 months significantly increased with given risk in the GRS-FH arm (P = .013). Similar results were observed for discussions with physicians at 3 months and PSA screening at 3 years. Average anxiety levels decreased after the individual cancer risk was provided (P = .0007), with no differences between groups. Visual presentation by pictographs did not significantly alter comprehension or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This is likely the first randomized trial of multimarker genomic testing to report genomic targeting of cancer screening. This study found little evidence of concern about excess anxiety or overuse/underuse of PSA screening when multimarker genetic risks were provided to patients. Cancer 2016;122:3564-3575.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce death due to prostate cancer but leads to the overdiagnosis of many cases of indolent cancer. Targeted use of PSA screening may reduce overdiagnosis. Multimarker genomic testing shows promise for risk assessment and could be used to target PSA screening. METHODS: To test whether counseling based on the family history (FH) and counseling based on a genetic risk score (GRS) plus FH would differentially affect subsequent PSA screening at 3 months (primary outcome), a randomized trial of FH versus GRS plus FH was conducted with 700 whites aged 40 to 49 years without prior PSA screening. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, recall, physician discussion at 3 months, and PSA screening at 3 years. Pictographs versus numeric presentations of genetic risk were also evaluated. RESULTS: At 3 months, no significant differences were observed in the rates of PSA screening between the FH arm (2.1%) and the GRS-FH arm (4.5% with GRS-FH vs. 2.1% with FH: χ2 = 3.13, P = .077); however, PSA screening rates at 3 months significantly increased with given risk in the GRS-FH arm (P = .013). Similar results were observed for discussions with physicians at 3 months and PSA screening at 3 years. Average anxiety levels decreased after the individual cancer risk was provided (P = .0007), with no differences between groups. Visual presentation by pictographs did not significantly alter comprehension or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This is likely the first randomized trial of multimarker genomic testing to report genomic targeting of cancer screening. This study found little evidence of concern about excess anxiety or overuse/underuse of PSA screening when multimarker genetic risks were provided to patients. Cancer 2016;122:3564-3575.
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Andrew J Vickers; Monique Roobol; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hans Lilja; Jonas Hugosson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sholom Wacholder; Patricia Hartge; Ross Prentice; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Heather Spencer Feigelson; W Ryan Diver; Michael J Thun; David G Cox; Susan E Hankinson; Peter Kraft; Bernard Rosner; Christine D Berg; Louise A Brinton; Jolanta Lissowska; Mark E Sherman; Rowan Chlebowski; Charles Kooperberg; Rebecca D Jackson; Dennis W Buckman; Peter Hui; Ruth Pfeiffer; Kevin B Jacobs; Gilles D Thomas; Robert N Hoover; Mitchell H Gail; Stephen J Chanock; David J Hunter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jianfeng Xu; Jielin Sun; A Karim Kader; Sara Lindström; Fredrik Wiklund; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jan-Erik Johansson; S Lilly Zheng; Gilles Thomas; Richard B Hayes; Peter Kraft; David J Hunter; Stephen J Chanock; William B Isaacs; Henrik Grönberg Journal: Prostate Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Lidewij Henneman; Jan C Oosterwijk; Christi J van Asperen; Fred H Menko; Caroline F Ockhuysen-Vermey; Piet J Kostense; Liesbeth Claassen; Daniëlle Rm Timmermans Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897