Longitudinal follow-up after telephone disclosure in the randomized COGENT study.
cancer genetic testing
communication of genetic test results
medical management after genetic testing
multigene panel testing
telephone communication
Journal
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
ISSN: 1530-0366
Titre abrégé: Genet Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9815831
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
27
09
2019
accepted:
02
04
2020
revised:
01
04
2020
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
8
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01). Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32376981
doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0808-3
pii: S1098-3600(21)00690-0
pmc: PMC7396300
mid: NIHMS1595415
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1401-1406Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA006927
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA160847
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHGRI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HG009496
Pays : United States
Références
Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller LJ, Egleston BL, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone vs in-person disclosure of germline cancer genetic test results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:985–993.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy015
Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller L, Fetzer D, et al. Genetic counselor opinions of, and experiences with telephone communication of BRCA1/2 test results. Clin Genet. 2011;79:125–131.
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01540.x
Schwartz MD, Valdimarsdottir HB, Peshkin BN, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:618–626.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.3226
Kinney AY, Butler KM, Schwartz MD, et al. Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: a cluster randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju328.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju328
Kinney AY, Steffen LE, Brumbach BH, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling compared with in-person counseling: 1-year follow-Up. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2914–2924.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.9557
Christensen KD, Uhlmann WR, Roberts JS, et al. A randomized controlled trial of disclosing genetic risk information for Alzheimer disease via telephone. Genet Med. 2018;20:132–141.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.103
Jenkins J, Calzone KA, Dimond E, et al. Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med. 2007;9:487–495.
doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31812e6220
Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;299:1320–1334.
doi: 10.1001/jama.299.11.1320
Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller L, Domchek S. Multiplex genetic testing: reconsidering utility and informed consent in the era of next-generation sequencing. Genet Med. 2015;17:97–98.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.85
Robson ME, Bradbury AR, Arun B, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3660–3667.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0996
Domchek SM, Bradbury A, Garber JE, Offit K, Robson ME. Multiplex genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: out on the high wire without a net? J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1267–1270.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.9403
Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller LJ, Egleston BL, et al. Patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex breast cancer susceptibility testing. Genet Med. 2016;18:25–33.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.19
Kurian AW, Ford JM. Multigene panel testing in oncology practice: how should we respond? JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:277–278.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.28
Robson M. Multigene panel testing: planning the next generation of research studies in clinical cancer genetics. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1987–1989.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.0474
Hall MJ, Forman AD, Pilarski R, Wiesner G, Giri VN. Gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12:1339–1346.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0128
Lumish HS, Steinfeld H, Koval C, et al. Impact of panel gene testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer on patients. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:1116–1129.
doi: 10.1007/s10897-017-0090-y
Hall MJ, Patrick-Miller LJ, Egleston BL, et al. Use and patient-reported outcomes of clinical multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:10.
pmcid: 6901130
Patrick-Miller LJ, Egleston BL, Fetzer D, et al. Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3:e49.
doi: 10.2196/resprot.3337
Shiloh S. Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:325–337.
doi: 10.1007/s10897-006-9044-5