Monica L Kasting1, Claire C Conley2, Aasha I Hoogland2, Courtney L Scherr3, Jongphil Kim4, Ram Thapa4, Maija Reblin2, Cathy D Meade2, M Catherine Lee5, Tuya Pal6, Gwendolyn P Quinn7,8, Susan T Vadaparampil2. 1. Department of Health and Kinesiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 2. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 3. Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 5. Comprehensive Breast Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 6. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University, New York, New York. 8. Perlumutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer (BC) survivors with a genetic mutation are at higher risk for subsequent cancer; knowing genetic risk status could help survivors make decisions about follow-up screening. Uptake of genetic counseling and testing (GC/GT) to determine BRCA status is low among high risk BC survivors. This study assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a newly developed psychoeducational intervention (PEI) for GC/GT. METHODS:High risk BC survivors (N = 119) completed a baseline questionnaire and were randomized to the intervention (PEI video/booklet) or control (factsheet) group. Follow-up questionnaires were completed 2 weeks after baseline (T2), and 4 months after T2 (T3). We analyzed recruitment, retention (feasibility), whether the participant viewed study materials (acceptability), intent to get GC/GT (efficacy), and psychosocial outcomes (eg, perceived risk, Impact of Events Scale [IES]). t tests or chi-square tests identified differences between intervention groups at baseline. Mixed models examined main effects of group, time, and group-by-time interactions. RESULTS: Groups were similar on demographic characteristics (P ≥ .05). Of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 91% followed through to study completion and 92% viewed study materials. A higher percentage of participants in the intervention group moved toward GC/GT (28% vs 8%; P = .027). Mixed models demonstrated significant group-by-time interactions for perceived risk (P = .029), IES (P = .027), and IES avoidance subscale (P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: The PEI was feasible, acceptable, and efficacious. Women in the intervention group reported greater intentions to pursue GC, greater perceived risk, and decreased avoidance. Future studies should seek to first identify system-level barriers and facilitators before aiming to address individual-level barriers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer (BC) survivors with a genetic mutation are at higher risk for subsequent cancer; knowing genetic risk status could help survivors make decisions about follow-up screening. Uptake of genetic counseling and testing (GC/GT) to determine BRCA status is low among high risk BC survivors. This study assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a newly developed psychoeducational intervention (PEI) for GC/GT. METHODS: High risk BC survivors (N = 119) completed a baseline questionnaire and were randomized to the intervention (PEI video/booklet) or control (factsheet) group. Follow-up questionnaires were completed 2 weeks after baseline (T2), and 4 months after T2 (T3). We analyzed recruitment, retention (feasibility), whether the participant viewed study materials (acceptability), intent to get GC/GT (efficacy), and psychosocial outcomes (eg, perceived risk, Impact of Events Scale [IES]). t tests or chi-square tests identified differences between intervention groups at baseline. Mixed models examined main effects of group, time, and group-by-time interactions. RESULTS: Groups were similar on demographic characteristics (P ≥ .05). Of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 91% followed through to study completion and 92% viewed study materials. A higher percentage of participants in the intervention group moved toward GC/GT (28% vs 8%; P = .027). Mixed models demonstrated significant group-by-time interactions for perceived risk (P = .029), IES (P = .027), and IES avoidance subscale (P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: The PEI was feasible, acceptable, and efficacious. Women in the intervention group reported greater intentions to pursue GC, greater perceived risk, and decreased avoidance. Future studies should seek to first identify system-level barriers and facilitators before aiming to address individual-level barriers.
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Noah D Kauff; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Gwen Reiser; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Shaveta Vinayak; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Susan Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wendy Y Chen; Judy E Garber; Suzanne Higham; Katherine A Schneider; Katie B Davis; Amie M Deffenbaugh; Thomas S Frank; Rebecca S Gelman; Frederick P Li Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I M Lipkus; M Kuchibhatla; C M McBride; H B Bosworth; K I Pollak; I C Siegler; B K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: T R Rebbeck; A M Levin; A Eisen; C Snyder; P Watson; L Cannon-Albright; C Isaacs; O Olopade; J E Garber; A K Godwin; M B Daly; S A Narod; S L Neuhausen; H T Lynch; B L Weber Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; Tara Friebel; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Laura van 't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth R Evans; Steven A Narod; Claudine Isaacs; Ellen Matloff; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Beth Anderson; Jennifer McLosky; Elizabeth Wasilevich; Sarah Lyon-Callo; Debra Duquette; Glenn Copeland Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-22
Authors: Sukh Makhnoon; Robert Yu; Sonia A Cunningham; Susan K Peterson; Sanjay Shete Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; Kristi D Graves; Sara Gómez-Trillos; Pilar Carrera; Claudia Campos; Lyndsay Anderson; George Luta; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Ana-Paula Cupertino; Nathaly Gonzalez; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Enmanuel A Chavarria; Shannon M Christy; Vani N Simmons; Susan T Vadaparampil; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade Journal: Health Lit Res Pract Date: 2021-02-01