Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Increasing numbers of unaffected individuals could benefit from genetic evaluation for inherited cancer susceptibility. Automated conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are being developed for cancer genetics contexts; however, randomized comparisons with standard of care (SOC) are needed. Objective: To examine whether chatbot and SOC approaches are equivalent in completion of pretest cancer genetic services and genetic testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This equivalence trial (Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services [BRIDGE] randomized clinical trial) was conducted between August 15, 2020, and August 31, 2023, at 2 US health care systems (University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health). Participants were aged 25 to 60 years, had had a primary care visit in the previous 3 years, were eligible for cancer genetic evaluation, were English or Spanish speaking, had no prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, had no prior cancer genetic counseling or testing, and had an electronic patient portal account. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 at the patient level to the study groups at each site. In the chatbot intervention group, patients were invited in a patient portal outreach message to complete a pretest genetics education chat. In the enhanced SOC control group, patients were invited to complete an SOC pretest appointment with a certified genetic counselor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were completion of pretest cancer genetic services (ie, pretest genetics education chat or pretest genetic counseling appointment) and completion of genetic testing. Equivalence hypothesis testing was used to compare the study groups. Results: This study included 3073 patients (1554 in the chatbot group and 1519 in the enhanced SOC control group). Their mean (SD) age at outreach was 43.8 (9.9) years, and most (2233 of 3063 [72.9%]) were women. A total of 204 patients (7.3%) were Black, 317 (11.4%) were Latinx, and 2094 (75.0%) were White. The estimated percentage point difference for completion of pretest cancer genetic services between groups was 2.0 (95% CI, -1.1 to 5.0). The estimated percentage point difference for completion of genetic testing was -1.3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 1.1). Analyses suggested equivalence in the primary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of the BRIDGE equivalence trial support the use of chatbot approaches to offer cancer genetic services. Chatbot tools can be a key component of sustainable and scalable population health management strategies to enhance access to cancer genetic services. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985852.

Enhanced family history-based algorithms increase the identification of individuals meeting criteria for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes but would not reduce disparities on their own.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to 1) investigate algorithm enhancements for identifying patients eligible for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes using family history data from electronic health records (EHRs); and 2) assess their impact on relative differences across sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used EHR data from a tertiary academic medical center. A baseline rule-base algorithm, relying on structured family history data (structured data; SD), was enhanced using a natural language processing (NLP) component and a relaxed criteria algorithm (partial match [PM]). The identification rates and differences were analyzed considering sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. RESULTS: Among 120,007 patients aged 25-60, detection rate differences were found across all groups using the SD (all P < 0.001). Both enhancements increased identification rates; NLP led to a 1.9 % increase and the relaxed criteria algorithm (PM) led to an 18.5 % increase (both P < 0.001). Combining SD with NLP and PM yielded a 20.4 % increase (P < 0.001). Similar increases were observed within subgroups. Relative differences persisted across most categories for the enhanced algorithms, with disproportionately higher identification of patients who are White, Female, non-Hispanic, and whose preferred language is English. CONCLUSION: Algorithm enhancements increased identification rates for patients eligible for genetic testing of hereditary cancer syndromes, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, and language preference. However, differences in identification rates persisted, emphasizing the need for additional strategies to reduce disparities such as addressing underlying biases in EHR family health information and selectively applying algorithm enhancements for disadvantaged populations. Systematic assessment of differences in algorithm performance across population subgroups should be incorporated into algorithm development processes.

Experiences of patients and family members with follow-up care, information needs and provider support after identification of Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome is among the most common hereditary cancer syndromes and requires ongoing cancer surveillance, repeated screenings and potential risk-reducing surgeries. Despite the importance of continued surveillance, there is limited understanding of patient experiences after initial testing and counseling, the barriers or facilitators they experience adhering to recommendations, and how they want to receive information over time. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted among 127 probands and family members who had received genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome. We conducted semi-structured interviews to determine proband and family member experiences after receiving genetic testing results including their surveillance and screening practices, information needs, and interactions with health care providers. Both closed-ended and open-ended data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Both probands (96.9%) and family members (76.8%) received recommendations for follow-up screening and all probands (100%) and most family members (98.2%) who tested positive had completed at least one screening. Facilitators to screening included receiving screening procedure reminders and the ease of making screening and surveillance appointments. Insurance coverage to pay for screenings was a frequent concern especially for those under 50 years of age. Participants commented that their primary care providers were often not knowledgeable about Lynch Syndrome and surveillance recommendations; this presented a hardship in navigating ongoing surveillance and updated information. Participants preferred information from a knowledgeable health care provider or a trusted internet source over social media or support groups. CONCLUSIONS: Probands and family members receiving genetic testing for Lynch Syndrome generally adhered to initial screening and surveillance recommendations. However, factors such as insurance coverage and difficulty finding a knowledgeable healthcare provider presented barriers to receiving recommended follow-up care. There is an opportunity to improve care through better transitions in care, procedures to keep primary care providers informed of surveillance guidelines, and practices so that patients receive reminders and facilitated appointment setting for ongoing screening and surveillance at the time they are due.