Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

[1]  M. Frey,et al.  Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial. , 2023, Gynecologic oncology.

[2]  S. Walters,et al.  Improving Uptake of Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in a Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation Intervention: Large Effect Size but Room to Grow , 2023, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  R. Kukafka,et al.  Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care , 2022, JAMA network open.

[4]  C. McBride,et al.  Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women , 2022, Journal of Community Genetics.

[5]  E. Swisher,et al.  Using Social Media to Facilitate Communication About Women’s Testing: Tool Validation Study , 2021, JMIR formative research.

[6]  B. Norquist,et al.  Development and assessment of an accessible communication system for population based genetic testing (Preprint) , 2021, JMIR Formative Research.

[7]  M. Raspa,et al.  Barriers and Facilitators to Genetic Service Delivery Models: Scoping Review , 2021, Interactive journal of medical research.

[8]  James M. Hodge,et al.  A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Jaana M. Hartikainen,et al.  Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  D. Bowen,et al.  MAGENTA (Making Genetic testing accessible): a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing online genetic education and telephone genetic counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing , 2019, BMC Cancer.

[11]  S. Gallinger,et al.  Telephone versus in‐person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first‐degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial , 2019, Cancer.

[12]  H. Myers,et al.  Racial and ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing in the US: Systematic review , 2019, Journal of genetic counseling.

[13]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients. , 2019, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  D. Buist,et al.  Trends in BRCA Test Utilization in an Integrated Health System, 2005-2015. , 2019, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  O. Olopade,et al.  Preferences for in‐person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study , 2018, Clinical genetics.

[16]  O. Olopade,et al.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  W. Tsai,et al.  Study protocol: a cluster randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for increasing BRCA1/2 genetic counseling referral in primary care , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[18]  J. Garber,et al.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up , 2017, JNCI cancer spectrum.

[19]  C. V. van El,et al.  Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Implementation of Genetic Services: A Public Health Perspective , 2017, Front. Public Health.

[20]  S. Buys,et al.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  J. Garber,et al.  Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling , 2016, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[22]  H. Valdimarsdottir,et al.  Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer , 2016, Familial Cancer.

[23]  D. Cella,et al.  The impact of events scale: a comparison of frequency versus severity approaches to measuring cancer‐specific distress , 2015, Psycho-oncology.

[24]  S. Buys,et al.  Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: a cluster randomized trial. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  T. Pal,et al.  Factors Which Impact the Delivery of Genetic Risk Assessment Services Focused on Inherited Cancer Genomics: Expanding the Role and Reach of Certified Genetics Professionals , 2014, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[26]  Nancy Breen,et al.  Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: the 2000, 2005, and 2010 National Health Interview Surveys. , 2014, American journal of preventive medicine.

[27]  J. Garber,et al.  Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  A. Lindblom,et al.  The use of telephone in genetic counseling versus in-person counseling: a randomized study on counselees’ outcome , 2012, Familial Cancer.

[29]  Douglas E Levy,et al.  Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: Black and Hispanic women particularly at risk , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[30]  Rosalind Eeles,et al.  Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. , 2010, JAMA.

[31]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[32]  T. Strine,et al.  The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. , 2009, Journal of affective disorders.

[33]  William Rogers,et al.  Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[34]  B. Löwe,et al.  A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[35]  U. P. S. T. Force Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Recommendation Statement , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[36]  M. Putt,et al.  Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. , 2005, JAMA.

[37]  Deb Feldman-Stewart,et al.  Validation of a Decision Regret Scale , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[38]  M. Horowitz,et al.  Impact of Event Scale: A Measure of Subjective Stress , 1979, Psychosomatic medicine.