MAGENTA (Making Genetic testing accessible): a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing online genetic education and telephone genetic counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing

Nadine Rayes, Deborah J Bowen, Tara Coffin, Denise Nebgen, Christine Peterson, Mark F Munsell, Kathleen Gavin, Rebecca Lechner, Jamie Crase, Deborah Polinsky, Iris Romero, Stephanie V Blank, Douglas A Levine, Barbara M Norquist, Elizabeth M Swisher, Karen H Lu, Nadine Rayes, Deborah J Bowen, Tara Coffin, Denise Nebgen, Christine Peterson, Mark F Munsell, Kathleen Gavin, Rebecca Lechner, Jamie Crase, Deborah Polinsky, Iris Romero, Stephanie V Blank, Douglas A Levine, Barbara M Norquist, Elizabeth M Swisher, Karen H Lu

Abstract

Background: Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling.

Methods: 3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3 months post-result disclosure.

Discussion: This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

Keywords: Genetic counseling; Genetic testing; Hereditary cancer; Ovarian cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

DAL has received reimbursements and fees from Merck and Tesaro. DAL is holding, or currently applying for, patents for methods of early detection of ovarian cancer. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
MAGENTA study schema

References

    1. Levy DE, Garber JE, Shields AE. Guidelines for genetic risk assessment of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: early disagreements and low utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):822–828. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1009-6.
    1. Childers CP, Childers KK, Maggard-Gibbons M, Macinko J. National Estimates of genetic testing in women with a history of breast or ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(34):3800–3806. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.6314.
    1. Forrest LE, Burke J, Bacic S, et al. Increased genetic counseling support improves communication of genetic information in families. Genet Med. 2008;10(3):167–172. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318164540b.
    1. 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(12):dju328. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju328.
    1. 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(7):618–626. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.3226.
    1. Smit AK, Keogh LA, Hersch J, Newson AJ, Butow P, Williams G, Cust AE. Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study. Health Expect. 2016;19(6):1203–1214. doi: 10.1111/hex.12406.
    1. Caswell-Jin JL, Zimmer AD, Stedden W, Kingham KE, Zhou AY, Kurian AW. Cascade genetic testing of relatives for hereditary Cancer risk: results of an online initiative. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;111(1):95–98. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy147.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–218. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197905000-00004.
    1. Holmes-Rovne M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, Rovner D. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16(1):58–64. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600114.
    1. Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, Chang CH, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Lerman C. A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of Cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychol. 2002;21(6):564–572. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.21.6.564.
    1. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.
    1. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affective Disord. 2009;114:163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026.
    1. Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23:281–292. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.
    1. Selim AJ, Rogers EW, Fleishman JA, Qian SX, Fincke BG, Rothendler JA, Kazis LE. Updated U.S. population standard for the veterans RAND 12-item. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:43–52. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9418-2.
    1. CDC . Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Questionnaire. 2014.
    1. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, et al. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;116A:11–19. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10868.
    1. Peshkin BN, Demarco TA, Graves KD, Brown K, Nusbaum RH, Moglia D, Forman A, Valdimarsdottir H, Schwartz MD. Telephone genetic counseling for high-risk women undergoing BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: rationale and development of a randomized controlled trial. Genet Test. 2008;12:37–52. doi: 10.1089/gte.2006.0525.
    1. Salsman JM, Schalet BD, Andrykowski MA, Cella D. The impact of events scale: a comparison of frequency versus severity approaches to measuring cancer-specific distress. Psychooncology. 2015;24(12):1738–1745. doi: 10.1002/pon.3784.
    1. Trepanier A, Ahrens M, Mckinnon W, Peters J, Stopfer J, Grumet SC, Manley S, Culver JO, Acton R, Larsen-Haidle J, Correia LA, Bennett R, Pettersen B, Ferlita TD, Costalas JW, Hunt K, Donlon S, Skrzynia C, Farrell C, Callif-Daley F, Vockley CW, National Society of Genetic Counselors Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns. 2004;13:83–114. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000018821.48330.77.
    1. Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Hughes C, Main D, Isaacs C, Lerman C. Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic based sample. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):514–520. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.2.514.
    1. Foulkes WD, Knopper BM, Turnbull C. Population genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: founder mutations to genomes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;13:41–54. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.173.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere