Early Detection of GEnetic Risk (EDGE)

June 6, 2023 updated by: Elizabeth Swisher, University of Washington

Implementing the Moon: Getting Genomic Testing to the Public

The study intervention involves having patients complete a familial cancer risk assessment survey. Those who are found to be at high risk will be offered genetic testing for a panel of hereditary cancers. A "previvor" plan will be created to assist patients and their providers in completing the appropriate follow-up for those with a mutation identified.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Current practice guidelines from ACMG (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics) provide referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Identifying patients with high genetic risk for breast, ovary, colon, or other cancers has important clinical ramifications for an individual's healthcare, but genetic risk if often not identified because of testing barriers at several levels. Barriers at the provider level include inadequacies in risk recognition, patient referrals and availability of genetic professionals to provide counseling in a traditional testing paradigm. Barriers at the level of the patient include poor understanding of the availability and benefits of testing and inadequate access to testing services. How to best implement appropriate genomic testing and follow-up care into an operating healthcare system is not known. Issues of communication, clinical flow, reportable actions, and transmission of information and support are of critical importance, and must change and grow to accommodate the new information contained within genomic testing. Studies to date of the implementation process have been conducted in high resourced facilities, under optimal conditions, often not at the system level. Aims include:

  1. Compare the efficacy and implementation of two strategies for identifying members of a primary care clinic's population who have a family or personal history of cancer and offering high-risk individuals to obtain genetic testing for cancer susceptibility mutations in a randomized trial. The two methods are: 1) Point of Care (POC) approach: A tablet-based screening for family/personal history of cancer will be offered to all patients aged 25 and up coming in for a routine appointment at the clinic. 2) Direct Patient Engagement (DPE): Letters will be sent to all individuals aged 25 and older in a clinic's population, inviting them to visit a web site for screening for family /personal history of cancer. In both strategies, those determined to be high-risk will receive online education about genetic testing and an invitation to obtain such testing through a web-based platform. Outcomes will be the fraction of the active clinic patient population that completes screening and the fraction of the active clinic patient population that undergoes testing.

    Hypothesis 1: DPE screening will result in a higher proportion of active patients who screen for familial cancer risk compared with POC screening.

    Hypothesis 2: Of screened patients, POC patients will produce a higher proportion of tested patients compared with DPE.

  2. Identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow and interactions during and after the implementation of genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics.
  3. Evaluate the effects of two methods of implementation of genomic screening for cancer risk on patient, provider, and health system leader reports of benefits and harms, satisfaction, perceived quality of care, including across gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and genetic literacy divides.
  4. Evaluate the value (cost-effectiveness) and affordability (budget impact) of each screening strategy.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

20184

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Montana
      • Billings, Montana, United States, 59101
        • Billings Clinic
    • Washington
      • Tacoma, Washington, United States, 98405
        • MultiCare Health System

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

25 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria for Patients:

  • Age 25 or older
  • An active patient at a participating clinic (had at least one visit in the past 12 months)
  • Comfortable reading and writing in English

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Those who do not meet inclusion criteria.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Point of Care
In the point of care (POC) arm, patients will be approached at the time they come in to the clinic for a routine visit with their primary care provider. We will screen patients for familial cancer risk using electronic tablets in the waiting room or, in the case of a telehealth visit, through telephone contact before the visit. Patients identified as high risk will be offered genetic testing for a panel of hereditary cancers.
The study intervention involves having patients complete a familial cancer risk assessment survey. Those who are found to be at high risk will be offered genetic testing for a panel of hereditary cancers. A "previvor" plan will be created to assist patients and their providers in completing the appropriate follow-up for those with a mutation identified.
Experimental: Direct Patient Engagement
In the direct patient engagement (DPE) arm, patients will be identified by reviewing clinic records to create an "active" patient list (i.e., those who have had a visit in the past year). We will contact patients by postal mail and email to provide a link to the online risk screening tool. The patient outreach is not tied to a specific visit and the online screening can be completed at any time. Patients identified as high risk will be offered genetic testing for a panel of hereditary cancers.
The study intervention involves having patients complete a familial cancer risk assessment survey. Those who are found to be at high risk will be offered genetic testing for a panel of hereditary cancers. A "previvor" plan will be created to assist patients and their providers in completing the appropriate follow-up for those with a mutation identified.
No Intervention: Stakeholder Interviews and Surveys
Samples of patients, providers, and clinic leaders will be assessed at several points throughout the study - baseline and multiple follow-ups. We will use a mixed methods approach, with both quantitative assessments (surveys) and qualitative assessments (interviews). Baseline assessments will provide initial data on the patient population and current clinic functioning and help in implementation planning. The midpoint and final assessments will provide estimates of change in patients, providers, and clinic leaders as a result of the implementation.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Rates of screening
Time Frame: 1.5 years
Fraction of the active clinic patient population that completes screening
1.5 years
Rate of testing
Time Frame: 1.5 years
Fraction of the active clinic patient population that undergoes testing.
1.5 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Implementation barriers on the clinic-level
Time Frame: 1.5 years
To identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow and interactions during and after the implementation of genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics.
1.5 years
Genetic Literacy and Comprehension (GLAC)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
GLAC scale for genetic literacy.
up to 2 years
Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
ILS scale.
up to 2 years
Implementation Climate Scale (ICS)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
ICS scale.
up to 2 years
Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
ORCA scale.
up to 2 years
Intervention characteristics (ex: evidence strength and quality)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
Self-developed measure.
up to 2 years
Trust in Physician Scale (TIPS)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
TIPS scale for Physician trust.
up to 2 years
Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form (PSQ-18)
Time Frame: up to 2 years
PSQ-18
up to 2 years
Communication with family members
Time Frame: up to 2 years
Self-developed measure.
up to 2 years
Reasons for completing (or not completing) genetic testing
Time Frame: up to 2 years
Self-developed measure.
up to 2 years
Reasons for completing (or not completing) screening.
Time Frame: up to 1.5 years
Self-developed measure.
up to 1.5 years
Quality of life scale
Time Frame: up to 1.5 years
Self-developed measure to measure patient quality of life.
up to 1.5 years
Health literacy
Time Frame: up to 1.5 years
Self-developed measure patient's health literacy.
up to 1.5 years
Cost-benefit analysis - cost-effectiveness
Time Frame: up to 5 years
Sel-developed measure to evaluate the value (cost-effectiveness) at each site
up to 5 years
Cost-benefit analysis - budget impact
Time Frame: up to 5 years
Self-developed measure to measure the affordability of each screening strategy at each site
up to 5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Elizabeth M Swisher, MD, University of Washington

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 25, 2020

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 31, 2023

Study Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 29, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 4, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

February 10, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 7, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 6, 2023

Last Verified

June 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • STUDY00009476
  • 1U01CA232795-01A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
  • RG1123410 (Registry Identifier: Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Genetic Predisposition

Clinical Trials on Population-level screening

3
Subscribe