Literature DB >> 33131182

A systematic review and meta-analysis of telephone vs in-person genetic counseling in BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing.

Xavier Bracke1,2, Jonathan Roberts1, Terri P McVeigh2.   

Abstract

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Individuals with identified pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene can benefit from cancer risk-reducing strategies. In the recent years, there has been an increase in the demand of genetic services. In light of the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, alternatives to face-to-face consultations have had to be considered and adopted, including telemedicine. Informed consent is necessary for genetic testing. Studies have suggested that increased levels of cancer-specific distress may impair the patient's ability to retain information, therefore, providing informed consent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer if telephone genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing is non-inferior to in-person genetic counseling for the outcomes of cancer-specific distress and genetic knowledge. Databases of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SciELO, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, Clinicaltrials.gov, EU clinical trials register were accessed to identify any published or unpublished relevant literature. Random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis. Four studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of the results. Three studies were included in the quantitative synthesis of the results. Telephone genetic counseling was non-inferior compared to in-person genetic counseling for the outcomes of cancer-specific distress and genetic knowledge. Sensitivity analysis corroborated the main results. Telephone genetic counseling for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing may be an alternative model of delivering genetic services in front of the increased demand/or when required by social context. However, the paucity of the evidence prevents from drawing strong conclusions regarding the generalizability of these results. Further research is needed to strengthen the conclusions.
© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genetic counseling; genetic testing; genetics services; meta-analysis; systematic review; telemedicine

Year:  2020        PMID: 33131182     DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  4 in total

1.  Video consultations during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are associated with high satisfaction for both doctors and patients.

Authors:  Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu; Manjri Raval; Ryma Terbah; Gurpreet Singh; Anton Rajadurai; Rhys Vaughan; Marios Efthymiou; Sujievvan Chandran
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2021-05-03

Review 2.  An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  Sonya Reid; Lucy B Spalluto; Katie Lang; Anne Weidner; Tuya Pal
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 4.624

3.  Remote vs in-person BRCA1/2 non-carriers test disclosure: patients' choice during Covid-19 pandemic restriction.

Authors:  Silvia Costanzo; Simona De Summa; Leonarda Maurmo; Maria Digennaro; Margherita Patruno; Angelo Paradiso
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 2.446

4.  Randomized study of remote telehealth genetic services versus usual care in oncology practices without genetic counselors.

Authors:  Cara N Cacioppo; Brian L Egleston; Dominique Fetzer; Colleen Burke Sands; Syeda A Raza; Neeraja Reddy Malleda; Elisabeth McCarty Wood; India Rittenburg; Julianne Childs; David Cho; Martha Hosford; Tina Khair; Jamil Khatri; Lydia Komarnicky; Trina Poretta; Fahd Rahman; Satish Shah; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Susan M Domchek; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.452

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.