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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Challenges in returning results in a genomic medicine implementation study: the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) study.

To inform the process of returning results in genome sequencing studies, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative assessment of challenges encountered during the Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study conducted at Mayo Clinic. Participants (n = 2535, mean age 63 ± 7, 57% female) were sequenced for 68 clinically actionable genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of 122 actionable results detected, 118 were returnable; results were returned by a genetic counselor-86 in-person and 12 by phone. Challenges in returning actionable results were encountered in a significant proportion (38%) of the cohort and were related to sequencing and participant contact. Sequencing related challenges (n = 14), affecting 13 participants, included reports revised based on clinical presentation (n = 3); reports requiring corrections (n = 2); mosaicism requiring alternative DNA samples for confirmation (n = 3); and variant re-interpretation due to updated informatics pipelines (n = 6). Participant contact related challenges (n = 44), affecting 38 participants, included nonresponders (n = 20), decedents (n = 1), and previously known results (n = 23). These results should be helpful to investigators preparing for return of results in large-scale genomic sequencing projects.

Assessing the stability of biobank donor preferences regarding sample use: evidence supporting the value of dynamic consent.

Dynamic consent has been proposed as a strategy for addressing the limitations of traditional, broad consent for biobank participation. Although the argument for dynamic consent has been made on theoretical grounds, empirical studies evaluating the potential utility of dynamic consent are needed to enhance deliberations about the merits of dynamic consent. Few studies have assessed such considerations as whether donor preferences may change over time or if participants would use a dynamic consent mechanism to modify preferences when they change. We administered a 66-item survey to participants in a large DNA biobank. The survey sought to gauge the stability of donor preferences specified at the time of biobank enrollment, specifically the stability of donors' preference regarding posthumous availability of biospecimens to next-of-kin. We received 1164 completed surveys for a response rate of 72%. Forty percent of respondents indicated a preference regarding sample availability on the survey (T2) that was inconsistent with the preference they had expressed when they enrolled in the biobank (T1). Most (94%) individuals with inconsistent preferences regarding sample availability had initially restricted sample availability at T1 but were comfortable with broader availability when asked at the time of the survey (T2). Our findings demonstrate that preferences regarding sample use expressed at the time of enrollment in a DNA biobank may not be reliable indicators of donor preferences over time. These findings lend empirical support to the case for a dynamic consent model in which biobank participants are approached over time to clarify their views regarding sample use.

US Physicians' Reactions To ACA Implementation, 2012-17.

Physicians play a key role in implementing health policy, and US physicians were split in their opinions about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) soon after its implementation began. We readministered elements of a prior survey of US physicians to a similar sample to understand how US physicians' opinions of the ACA may have changed over a crucial five-year implementation period (2012-17), and we compared responses across both surveys. Of the 1,200 physicians to whom we sent a survey in the summer of 2017, 489 responded (a response rate of 41 percent). A majority of respondents (60 percent) believed that the ACA had improved access to care and insurance, yet many (43 percent) felt that it had reduced the affordability of coverage. More physicians agreed in 2017 than in 2012 that the ACA "would turn United States health care in the right direction" (53 percent versus 42 percent), despite reporting perceived worsening in several practice conditions over the same time period. After we adjusted for specialty, political party affiliation, practice setting type, perceived social responsibility, age, and sex, we found that only political party affiliation was a significant predictor of support for the ACA in the 2017 results.

Examining Physician Interactions with Disease Advocacy Organizations.

Disease advocacy organizations (DAOs) have traditionally focused on raising awareness of rare diseases, providing educational resources to patients, and supporting patients and families. Previous research has described how scientists collaborate with DAOs, but few empirical data are available regarding the extent to which physicians interact with DAOs and how those interactions impact patient care. We conducted a national survey of 230 board-certified pediatric neurologists to assess their engagement with DAOs and their beliefs about the impact of DAOs on patient care. In that context, we evaluated a set of 24 items describing interactions between physicians and DAOs. Exploratory factor analysis produced a 19-item model capturing four types of physician-DAO engagement: (1) accessing or distributing DAO-produced materials (6 items, alpha = 0.80); (2) consulting on DAO activities (5 items, alpha = 0.81); (3) collaborating with DAOs on research activities (6 items, alpha = 0.80); and (4) co-producing scholarly materials with DAOs (2 items, alpha = 0.80). Our data indicate that physicians engage with DAOs in more frequent and diverse ways than has been previously reported. Almost all physicians in our sample had interacted directly with a DAO in some way, from low-effort activities such as visiting a DAO's website to deeper forms of engagement including coauthoring journal articles. These findings may provide a framework for bioethicists to characterize the nature and extent of physician interactions with advocacy organizations, which is critical for evaluating the ethical implications of physician-DAO relationships.

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.

Managing the Unimaginable: Biobank Participant Views on Reconsent for Whole Genome Sequencing of Stored Biospecimens.

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.