Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

INTRODUCTION: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. METHODS: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. RESULTS: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. CONCLUSION: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.

PURPOSE: Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of health-care needs. METHODS: As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments. RESULTS: Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings.

Measuring Attitudes About Genomic Medicine: Validation of the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale).

OBJECTIVES: Assessing public attitudes about genomic medicine is critical for anticipating patient receptivity to clinical applications of genomics. Although scholars have highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholder opinions and views regarding advances in clinical genomics, to date there has not been a robust tool for measuring these attitudes. We designed a study to evaluate the validity of an instrument we developed for measuring attitudes about genomic medicine. METHODS: We used psychometric methods to validate the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale). Our goal was to create an easy-to-use tool for evaluating positive and negative attitudes about genomic medicine. RESULTS: We describe the validation testing of the GO Scale in a nationally representative sample of 1536 individuals residing in the United States. We report results from convergent and divergent validity testing and Rasch modeling analysis. The study produced a 26-item scale with 2 dimensions-optimism and pessimism. CONCLUSIONS: The GO Scale may be used to characterize attitudinal perspectives among patients, clinicians, and the public. The GO Scale may also be useful in evaluating shifts in attitude over time, for example, following educational interventions, which has not been feasible to date.

Factors that Influence Intent to Share Genetic Information Related to Cancer Risk with Family Members.

We describe factors influencing patient decisions to share positive cancer genetic test results with family members. We focused on patients who were diagnosed with several different cancer types but did not have a family history that was suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants were recruited from Mayo Clinic and had been recently diagnosed with cancer. An 80+ gene panel was performed. Before receiving genetic test results, patients completed a 49-item survey on their intent to share their results with relatives. 1,721 (57.7%) of 2,984 individuals who elected to pursue genetic testing completed the survey. Most patients planned to share cancer-related genetic results with a spouse or partner (97.0%), at least one adult child (92.2%), at least one sibling (86.2%), and with at least one parent (70.3%). Familial support scores and familial communication scores were predictive of intent to share cancer-related genetic test results. Our data highlight differences in family communication capacity and support that are important for clinicians to consider when supporting patients who wish to share cancer-related genetic test results with family members. Our data point to several potential interventional strategies that might increase the likelihood of cancer-related genetic test results being shared with family members at risk.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

PURPOSE: We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing. METHODS: We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision. RESULTS: We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male. CONCLUSION: As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

Assessing optimism and pessimism about genomic medicine: Development of a genomic orientation scale.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21-item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two-factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient's healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. DISCUSSION: Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients' knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017.

Tracking Discharge Delays: Critical First Step Toward Mitigating Process Breakdowns and Inefficiencies.

This article reports on the development and evaluation of a mechanism designed for real-time tracking of discharge delays by bedside clinicians and the reporting of delays in a manner amenable to action. During the implementation phase, delay time totaled 23.6 days for 114 patients affected by a delay. More than one-half of delays (61.4%) occurred for patients whose discharge disposition was home to self-care.

The feasibility of using technology to enhance the transition of palliative care for rural patients.

Palliative care services for patients with life-limiting conditions enhance their quality of life. Most palliative care services, however, are located in hospitals with limited transitional care for patients who live in distant locations. The long-term goal of this program of research is to use existing technology for virtual visits to provide transitional care for patients initially hospitalized in an urban setting by a nurse practitioner located closer to patients' homes in distant, rural settings. The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the resources needed to use the system (efficiency) and the quality of the audio and visual components (effectiveness) to conduct virtual visits between a clinician at an academic center and community-dwelling adults living in rural locations. Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model, a mixed-methods field design was used. Because of the burden of testing technology with patients with life-limiting conditions, the sample included eight healthy adults. Participant satisfaction and perceptions of the ease of using the technology were also measured. Virtual visits were conducted using a 3G-enabled Apple iPad, cellular phone data service, and a Web-based video conference service. Participants and clinicians perceived the technology as easy to use. Observations revealed the importance of the visual cues provided by the technology to enhance communication, engagement, and satisfaction. Findings from this study will inform a subsequent study of technology-enhanced transitional care with palliative care patients.

Assessing Decisional Regret Among Biobank Sample Donors.

Background: Large biobanks that link biological specimens with specimen donors' health histories are a critical tool for precision medicine, and many health care institutions have invested significant resources in setting up and building up large collections for this purpose. As biobanks require consented participation from thousands of individual donors, much research has focused on the values and preferences of new and prospective donors who are actively contemplating an invitation to participate in the collection. Few studies, however, have focused on participants' opinions about their biobank participation in the months and years following enrollment. Methods: We conducted a survey in a large, established biobank and evaluated participants' levels of decisional regret regarding their decision to enroll in the biobank. Results: We found very low levels of decisional regret among established biobank participants. Multivariable regression analysis found that age, length of time in the biobank, lower educational attainment, inadequate health literacy, and previous invitations to research participation were all significant predictors of elevated regret. Discussion: Among those with elevated regret, several demographic factors may point to elevated likelihood of decisional regret. More research is needed to identify factors associated with long-term satisfaction with biobank participation and with elevated risk of regret and/or withdrawal from the collection.

Factors Impacting Intent to Share Multigenic Cancer Testing Results in a Community Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Multi-gene, multi-cancer, hereditary cancer risk screenings may be useful in cancer prevention and treatment, not only for cancer patients but also for patients' family members. If genetic cancer screening is to have the widest possible benefit, it must be extended into diverse cancer care settings that serve diverse patient communities, providing cancer patients and their relatives with individualized cancer risk evaluations. Little research, to date, has examined the impact of extending multigenic cancer screening into diverse settings. Without empirical data characterizing the support needs of cancer patients and their family members, we may not adequately satisfy the needs of all patients and risk exacerbating existing disparities in cancer care and outcomes. METHODS: We examined patient perspectives on the sharing of genetic results with at-risk family members by surveying a racially diverse sample of cancer patients receiving a multi-gene, multi-cancer risk screen in a community hospital setting. RESULTS: In a survey of 230 cancer patients, we found that intent to share results with family members was high but varied across family member types. More respondents planned to disclose results to at least one sister (82.5%) compared to at least one brother (73.1%). Over one-fourth of participants (27.4%) were either uncertain about sharing or intended to withhold their genomic screening results from at least one at-risk family member eligible for cascade testing. Participants were more likely to withhold their results from a sibling than from a child. Furthermore, intent to share across all family member types was lower if probands failed to identify at least one benefit to sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding factors associated with decisions to share results with at-risk relatives in diverse patient populations can help clinicians support cascade genetic cancer screenings in diverse communities and settings.

Examining the Impact of Polygenic Risk Information in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk testing examines variation across multiple genes to estimate a risk score for a particular disease, including risk scores for many common, chronic health conditions. Although polygenic risk information (PRI) may be a promising tool for enhancing preventive counseling and facilitating early identification of disease, its potential impact on primary-care encounters and disease prevention efforts has not been well characterized. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients to assess their understandings of PRI and their beliefs about its relevance to disease prevention. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 19 participants. Participants described enthusiasm for the generation of PRI and recognized its utility for disease prevention. Participants also described the value of PRI as limited if not corroborated by non-genetic risk factors. Finally, participants noted that PRI, by itself, would be insufficient as a trigger for initiating many preventive interventions. CONCLUSION: PRI has the potential to become an important tool in primary care. However, patient views about PRI as well as the complexities of disease prevention in the primary care context may limit the impact of PRI on disease prevention.

The Impact of Within-Consultation and Preconsultation Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient Knowledge: Results of a Patient-Level Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of timing (either before or during initial consultation) on the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) to support shared-decision-making in a minority-enriched sample of patients with localized prostate cancer using a patient-level randomized controlled trial design. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-randomized trial in urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, testing the effect of preconsultation and within-consultation DAs on patient knowledge elements deemed essential to make treatment decisions about localized prostate cancer, all measured immediately following the initial urology consultation using a 12-item Prostate Cancer Treatment Questionnaire (score range 0 [no questions correct] to 1 [all questions correct]), compared to usual care (no DAs). RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2018, 103 patients-including 16 Black/African American and 17 American Indian or Alaska Native men-were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 33) or usual care and a DA before (n = 37) or during (n = 33) the consultation. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there were no statistically significant proportional score differences in patient knowledge between the preconsultation DA arm (0.06 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12, P = .1) or the within-consultation DA arm (0.04 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11, P = .3) and usual care. CONCLUSION: In this trial oversampling minority men with localized prostate cancer, DAs presented at different times relative to the specialist consultation showed no improvement in patient knowledge above usual care.

Integrating Genomic Screening into Primary Care: Provider Experiences Caring for Latino Patients at a Community-Based Health Center.

INTRODUCTION: Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care. METHODS: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.