Strategies for Identifying and Recruiting Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer for Research Outside of Clinical Settings: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Research is needed to understand and address barriers to risk management for women at high (≥20% lifetime) risk for breast cancer, but recruiting this population for research studies is challenging. OBJECTIVE: This paper compares a variety of recruitment strategies used for a cross-sectional, observational study of high-risk women. METHODS: Eligible participants were assigned female at birth, aged 25-85 years, English-speaking, living in the United States, and at high risk for breast cancer as defined by the American College of Radiology. Individuals were excluded if they had a personal history of breast cancer, prior bilateral mastectomy, medical contraindications for magnetic resonance imaging, or were not up-to-date on screening mammography per American College of Radiology guidelines. Participants were recruited from August 2020 to January 2021 using the following mechanisms: targeted Facebook advertisements, Twitter posts, ResearchMatch (a web-based research recruitment database), community partner promotions, paper flyers, and community outreach events. Interested individuals were directed to a secure website with eligibility screening questions. Participants self-reported method of recruitment during the eligibility screening. For each recruitment strategy, we calculated the rate of eligible respondents and completed surveys, costs per eligible participant, and participant demographics. RESULTS: We received 1566 unique responses to the eligibility screener. Participants most often reported recruitment via Facebook advertisements (724/1566, 46%) and ResearchMatch (646/1566, 41%). Community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of eligible respondents (24/46, 52%), while ResearchMatch had the lowest proportion of eligible respondents (73/646, 11%). Word of mouth was the most cost-effective recruitment strategy (US $4.66 per completed survey response) and paper flyers were the least cost-effective (US $1448.13 per completed survey response). The demographic characteristics of eligible respondents varied by recruitment strategy: Twitter posts and community outreach events resulted in the highest proportion of Hispanic or Latina women (1/4, 25% and 2/6, 33%, respectively), and community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of non-Hispanic Black women (4/24, 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment strategies varied in their yield of study participants, results overall support the feasibility of identifying and recruiting women at high risk for breast cancer outside of clinical settings. Researchers must balance the associated costs and participant yield of various recruitment strategies in planning future studies focused on high-risk women.

Barriers and facilitators to breast cancer screening among high-risk women: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Women with greater than 20-25% lifetime breast cancer risk are recommended to have breast cancer screening with annual mammogram and supplemental breast MRI. However, few women follow these screening recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of screening among women at high risk for breast cancer, guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM). METHODS: Unaffected high-risk women (N=63) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with breast cancer screening. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Most participants (84%) had received a screening mammogram; fewer (33%) had received a screening breast MRI. Only 14% had received neither screening. In line with the HSUM, qualitative analysis identified predisposing factors, enabling factors, and need factors associated with receipt of breast cancer screening. Enabling factors - including financial burden, logistic barriers, social support, and care coordination - were most frequently discussed. Predisposing factors included knowledge, health beliefs, and self-advocacy. Need factors included healthcare provider recommendation, family history of breast cancer, and personal medical history. Although HSUM themes were consistent for both mammography and breast MRI, participants did highlight several important differences in barriers and facilitators between the two screening modalities. CONCLUSION: Barriers and enabling factors associated with supplemental screening for high-risk women represent possible intervention targets. Future research is needed to develop and test multilevel interventions targeting these factors, with the ultimate goal of increasing access to supplemental screening for high-risk women.

Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Recent treatment advances have resulted in significantly increased survival times following metastatic breast cancer (MBC) diagnosis. Novel treatment approaches-and their related side effects-have changed the landscape of MBC treatment decision-making. We developed a prototype of an online educational tool to prepare patients with MBC for shared decision-making with their oncologists. We describe the five phases of tool development: (1) in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and (2) feedback on storyboards of initial content with patients with MBC and oncology providers. This was followed by three phases of iterative feedback with patients in which they responded to (3) initial, non-navigable website content and (4) a beta version of the full website. In the final phase (5), patients newly diagnosed with MBC (N = 6) used the website prototype for 1 week and completed surveys assessing acceptability, feasibility, treatment knowledge, preparation for decision-making, and self-efficacy for decision-making. Participants in Phase 1 characterized a cyclical process of MBC treatment decision-making and identified key information needs. Website content and structure was iteratively developed in Phases 2-4. Most participants in Phase 5 (n = 4) accessed the website 2-5 times. All participants who accessed the website at least once (n = 5) felt they learned new information from the website prototype and would recommend it to others newly-diagnosed with MBC. After using the website prototype, participants reported high preparation and self-efficacy for decision-making. This multiphase, iterative process resulted in a prototype intervention designed to support decision-making for MBC patients.

Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.

Design and pilot implementation of the Achieving Cancer Equity through Identification, Testing, and Screening (ACE-ITS) program in an urban underresourced population.

INTRODUCTION: The Achieving Cancer Equity through Identification, Testing, and Screening (ACE-ITS) program is a community-engaged framework to improve mammography maintenance and rates of genetic risk assessment, counseling, and testing using a multilevel approach that enhances patient navigation through mobile health and community education. METHODS: The ACE-ITS program is based on the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities research framework focused on the individual (genetic testing, screening navigation) and community (community-based breast health education) levels and targeted to the biological- (genetic risk), behavioral- (mammography screening), sociocultural- (underserved Black and Hispanic women), and the health care system (patient navigation, automated text messages)-related domains. We further integrate the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model to describe our program implementation. RESULTS: In collaboration with genetic counselors and community partners, we created educational modules on mammography maintenance and genetic counseling/testing that have been incorporated into the navigator-led community education sessions. We also implemented a universal genetic risk assessment tool and automated text message reminders for repeat mammograms into our mammography navigation workflow. Through the ACE-ITS program implementation, we have collaboratively conducted 22 educational sessions and navigated 585 women to mammography screening over the 2020-2021 calendar years. From January to December 2021, we have also conducted genetic risk assessment on 292 women, of whom 7 have received genetic counseling/testing. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a multilevel, community-engaged quality improvement program designed to reduce screening-related disparities in Black and Hispanic women in our catchment area.

Self-reported barriers to screening breast MRI among women at high risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual screening breast MRI is recommended for women at high (≥ 20% lifetime) breast cancer risk, but is underutilized. Guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM), we assessed factors associated with screening breast MRI among high-risk women. METHODS: From August 2020-January 2021, we recruited an online convenience sample of high-risk women ages 25-85 (N = 232). High-risk was defined as: pathogenic genetic mutation in self or first-degree relative; history of lobular carcinoma in situ; history of thoracic radiation; or estimated lifetime risk ≥ 20%. Participants self-reported predisposing factors (breast cancer knowledge, health locus of control), enabling factors (health insurance type, social support), need factors (perceived risk, screening-supportive social norms, provider recommendation), and prior receipt of screening breast MRI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection identified HSUM factors associated with receipt of screening breast MRI. RESULTS: About half (51%) of participants had received a provider recommendation for screening breast MRI; only 32% had ever received a breast MRI. Breast cancer knowledge (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.04-1.27) and screening-supportive social norms (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.97) were positively related to breast MRI receipt. No other HSUM variables were associated with breast MRI receipt (all p's > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk women reported low uptake of screening breast MRI, indicating a gap in guideline-concordant care. Breast cancer knowledge and screening-supportive social norms are two key areas to target in future interventions. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and generalizability of results is unclear. Future studies with larger, more heterogeneous samples are needed to replicate these findings.

Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in an urban screening clinic among high- and average-risk women in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed records of 6090 women who received ≥2 screening mammograms over 2 years at the Karmanos Cancer Institute to examine how breast cancer risk and breast density were associated with guideline-concordant screening. Incongruent screening was defined as receiving supplemental imaging between screening mammograms for average-risk women, and as not receiving recommended supplemental imaging for high-risk women. We used t-tests and chi-square tests to examine bivariate associations with guideline-congruent screening, and probit regression to regress guideline-congruence unto breast cancer risk, breast density, and their interaction, controlling for age and race. RESULTS: Incongruent screening was more likely among high- versus average-risk women (97.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). Among average-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with dense versus nondense breasts (2.0% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01). Among high-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with nondense versus dense breasts (99.5% vs. 95.2%, p < 0.01). The significant main effects of density and high-risk on increased incongruent screening were qualified by a density by high-risk interaction, showing a weaker association between risk and incongruent screening among women with dense breasts (simple slope = 3.71, p < 0.01) versus nondense breasts (simple slope = 5.79, p < 0.01). Age and race were not associated with incongruent screening. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines has led to underutilization of supplementary imaging for high-risk women and potential overutilization for women with dense breasts without other risk factors.

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid.

Objective: Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective. Methods: Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication. Results: Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients. Innovation: A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

Scientific uncertainty and perceived mammography benefits in women screened for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Personal aversion to scientific uncertainty may influence how women perceive the benefits of mammography, a breast cancer screening practice with conflicting scientific opinions and guidelines. Such associations may even exist among women who participate in screening. METHODS: We evaluated the distribution of aversion to ambiguous medical information (AA-Med), using a 6-item scale capturing the level of agreement with statements about obtaining a cancer screening test with conflicting medical recommendations in 665 women (aged 40-60 years; 79.5% Hispanic) recruited during screening mammography appointments in New York City. We assessed the association of AA-Med with perceptions of benefits of mammography (breast cancer mortality reduction, worry reduction, early detection, treatment improvement) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Over a quarter of participants expressed negative reactions to medical ambiguity about a cancer screening test (e.g., fear, lower trust in experts), but a majority endorsed intention to undergo screening. AA-Med was higher in women who were U.S.-born, non-Hispanic black, and had marginal to adequate health literacy, but there were no differences by clinical factors or screening experiences (e.g., family history, prior breast biopsy). Women with higher AA-Med were more likely to perceive treatment benefits from mammography (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.99-1.90), but AA-Med was not associated with other perceived mammography benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Aversion to uncertainty regarding cancer screening varies by sociodemographic characteristics but has limited associations with perceived mammography benefits in women who already participate in screening.

Question prompt lists and caregiver question asking in pediatric specialty appointments: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions. METHODS: Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked. RESULTS: Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (MeanPVP = 4.36, SDPVP = 4.66 vs. Meancontrol = 2.83, SDcontrol = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (MeanPVP = 1.05, SDPVP = 1.39 vs. Meancontrol = 0.36, SDcontrol = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166). CONCLUSION: The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.

Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).

Characteristics associated with healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic for women in the United States at high risk for breast cancer.

Delays in healthcare, including breast cancer screening, were documented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, no studies have examined the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare among women at high (≥20 % lifetime) risk for breast cancer. This study fills that gap. Between August 2020 and January 2021, high-risk women (N = 225) living in the United States (US) completed an online survey assessing COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Descriptive statistics characterized the frequency of breast cancer screening (mammogram and breast magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multivariable linear regression analysis with backward selection examined demographic characteristics associated with COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Since March 2020, 40 % of participants had received a mammogram and 12 % had received a screening breast MRI. On average, participants reported low levels of COVID-related healthcare disruptions (M = 1.97 on a 0-4 scale, higher = more disruptions). Participants who were younger (ß = -0.21, p = 0.002) and not working (ß = 0.18, p = 0.009) reported more COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Compared to non-Hispanic White participants, those from any other racial or ethnic group reported fewer COVID-related healthcare disruptions (ß = -0.15, p = 0.020). Although few high-risk women received breast cancer screening after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, they reported overall low levels of COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Results identify subgroups of high-risk women whose healthcare may have been more affected by the pandemic. Efforts to encourage US women at high risk for breast cancer to return to routine preventive care (including breast cancer screening) may need to be targeted towards women who are younger, not working, and non-Hispanic White.

Long-Term Adaptation Among Adolescent and Young Adult Children to Familial Cancer Risk.

BACKGROUND: It is important to examine adolescent and young adult (AYA) children's long-term psychosocial and behavioral adaptation to disclosure of maternal BRCA-positive carrier status (BRCA+) to inform approaches for familial cancer risk communication, education, and counseling. METHODS: Mothers underwent BRCA genetic testing 1 to 5 years earlier. Group differences in AYAs' self-reported outcomes were analyzed by maternal health and carrier status, and child age and sex. RESULTS: A total of N = 272 AYAs were enrolled: 76.1% of their mothers were breast or ovarian cancer survivors and 17.3% were BRCA+. AYAs' cancer risk behavior (tobacco and alcohol use, physical activity) and psychologic distress levels did not vary by maternal status. In bivariate analyses, AYAs of cancer-surviving mothers believed themselves to be at greater risk for, and were more knowledgeable about, cancer than AYAs of mothers without cancer. AYAs of BRCA+ mothers were more concerned about cancer, held stronger beliefs about genetic risk, and placed a higher value on learning about genetics. In adjusted models, maternal cancer history (not BRCA+) remained associated with AYAs' greater perceptions of cancer risk (P = .002), and knowledge about cancer (P = .03) and its causes (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Disclosing maternal BRCA+ status did not influence children's lifestyle behavior or adversely affect quality of life long term. AYAs of BRCA+ mothers were more aware of and interested in genetic risk information. Such families may benefit from support to promote open communication about genetic testing choices.

Affect regulation as a moderator of intentions for breast cancer chemoprevention.

Women at high risk for breast cancer (BC) may consider chemoprevention for risk reduction, but uptake is low. This study examined the role of affect regulation (the attempt to alter or control one's emotions) in decision-making about BC chemoprevention. A cross-sectional, single group design was used. High-risk women (N = 81) were surveyed. Moderation analyses specified cancer-specific distress as the independent variable, affect regulation (cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression) as the moderator, and chemoprevention intentions (yes = 1, unsure = 0, no = -1) as the dependent variable. Cognitive reappraisal significantly moderated the relationship between cancer-specific distress and chemoprevention intentions (p = 0.03), but expressive suppression did not (p = 0.31). For the 44% of participants who were highest on reappraisal, higher cancer-specific distress was associated with greater intentions for chemoprevention. For the remaining 56%, there was no relationship between cancer-specific distress and chemoprevention intentions. Cognitive reappraisal may play an important role in decisions regarding uptake of chemoprevention.

Barriers and facilitators to taking CDK4/6 inhibitors among patients with metastatic breast cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Most studies of adherence to treatment for breast cancer have focused on early-stage patients. Findings from these studies may not generalize to patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of adherence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors among patients with MBC, guided by the social ecologic model (SEM). METHODS: Patients with MBC (N = 25), their caregivers (N = 9), and oncology providers (N = 13) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three raters using a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators of adherence at each SEM level. Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors were most frequently discussed. Intrapersonal factors included knowledge/beliefs about CDK4/6 inhibitors, side effects, and establishing a routine. Interpersonal factors included effective communication with/coordination by the care team, support from family and friends, and information from other patients with MBC. Although less frequently discussed, policy factors (i.e., cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors) were of great concern to patients, caregivers, and providers. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention (e.g., patient education, evidence-based strategies for symptom management, tips for open and assertive communication with providers, information about financial resources/support available, and so on) to support adherence in this population.

Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report.

Consensus and evidence suggest that cascade testing is critical to achieve the promise of cancer genetic testing. However, barriers to cascade testing include effective family communication of genetic risk information and family members' ability to cope with genetic risk. These barriers are further complicated by the developmental needs of unaffected family members during critical windows for family communication and adaptation. Peer support could address these barriers. We provide two illustrative examples of ongoing BRCA1/2-related clinical trials that apply a peer support model to improve family communication and functioning. Peer support can augment currently available genetic services to facilitate adjustment to and effective use of cancer genetic risk information. Importantly, this scalable approach can address the presence of cancer risk within families across multiple developmental stages. This applies a family-centered perspective that accommodates all potentially at-risk relatives. This peer support model can be further applied to emerging topics in clinical genetics to expand reach and impact.

Effect of a Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention on Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density.

Background: Breast density increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammographic detection. We evaluated a personalized web-based intervention designed to improve breast cancer risk communication between women and their providers. Materials and Methods: This was a secondary outcome analysis of an online randomized trial. Women aged 40-69 years were randomized, February 2017-May 2018, to a control (n = 503) versus intervention website (n = 492). The intervention website included information about breast density, personalized breast cancer risk, chemoprevention, and magnetic resonance imaging. Participants self-reported communication about density with providers (yes/no) at 6 weeks and 12 months. We used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to evaluate the association of study arm with density communication. In secondary analyses, we tested if the intervention was associated with indicators of patient activation (breast cancer worry, perceived risk, or health care use). Results: Women (mean age 62 years) in the intervention versus control arm were 2.39 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-4.18) more likely to report density communication at 6 weeks; this effect persisted at 12 months (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.25-2.35). At 6 weeks, this effect was only significant among women who reported (OR = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.24-8.40) versus did not report any previous density discussions (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.83-3.26). A quarter of women in each arm never had a density conversation at any time during the study. Conclusions: Despite providing personalized density and risk information, the intervention did not promote density discussions between women and their providers who had not had them previously. This intervention is unlikely to be used clinically to motivate density conversations in women who have not had them before. Clinical trial registration number NCT03029286.

Evaluating the clinical utility of early exome sequencing in diverse pediatric outpatient populations in the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation of Next-generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) 2 study: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exome sequencing (ES) has probable utility for shortening the diagnostic odyssey of children with suspected genetic disorders. This report describes the design and methods of a study evaluating the potential of ES as a routine clinical tool for pediatric patients who have suspected genetic conditions and who are in the early stages of the diagnostic odyssey. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) 2 study is an interdisciplinary, multi-site Phase III randomized controlled trial of two interventions: educational pre-visit preparation (PVP) and offer of first-line ES. In this full-factorial design, parent-child dyads are randomly assigned to one of four study arms (PVP + usual care, ES + usual care, PVP + ES + usual care, or usual care alone) in equal proportions. Participants are recruited from Pediatric Genetics or Neurology outpatient clinics in three North Carolina healthcare facilities. Eligible pediatric participants are < 16 years old and have a first visit to a participating clinic, a suspected genetic condition, and an eligible parent/guardian to attend the clinic visit and complete study measures. The study oversamples participants from underserved and under-represented populations. Participants assigned to the PVP arms receive an educational booklet and question prompt list before clinical interactions. Randomization to offer of first-line ES is revealed after a child's clinic visit. Parents complete measures at baseline, pre-clinic, post-clinic, and two follow-up timepoints. Study clinicians provide phenotypic data and complete measures after the clinic visit and after returning results. Reportable study-related research ES results are confirmed in a CLIA-certified clinical laboratory. Results are disclosed to the parent by the clinical team. A community consultation team contributed to the development of study materials and study implementation methods and remains engaged in the project. DISCUSSION: NCGENES 2 will contribute valuable knowledge concerning technical, clinical, psychosocial, and health economic issues associated with using early diagnostic ES to shorten the diagnostic odyssey of pediatric patients with likely genetic conditions. Results will inform efforts to engage diverse populations in genomic medicine research and generate evidence that can inform policy, practice, and future research related to the utility of first-line diagnostic ES in health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03548779 . Registered on June 07, 2018.

Effect of Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Tool on Chemoprevention and Breast Imaging: ENGAGED-2 Trial.

Background: Limited evidence exists about how to communicate breast density-informed breast cancer risk to women at elevated risk to motivate cancer prevention. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based intervention incorporating personalized breast cancer risk, information on chemoprevention, and values clarification on chemoprevention uptake vs active control. Eligible women aged 40-69 years with normal mammograms and elevated 5-year breast cancer risk were recruited from Kaiser Permanente Washington from February 2017 to May 2018. Chemoprevention uptake was measured as any prescription for raloxifene or tamoxifen within 12 months from baseline in electronic health record pharmacy data. Secondary outcomes included breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography use, self-reported distress, and communication with providers. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression models and mean differences using analysis of covariance models with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with generalized estimating equations. Results: We randomly assigned 995 women to the intervention arm (n = 492) or control arm (n = 503). The intervention (vs control) had no effect on chemoprevention uptake (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.07 to 16.62). The intervention increased breast MRI use (OR = 5.65, 95% CI = 1.61 to 19.74) while maintaining annual mammography (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.28). Women in the intervention (vs control) arm had 5.67-times higher odds of having discussed chemoprevention or breast MRI with provider by 6 weeks (OR = 5.67, 95% CI = 2.47 to 13.03) and 2.36-times higher odds by 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.37). No measurable differences in distress were detected. Conclusions: A web-based, patient-level intervention activated women at elevated 5-year breast cancer risk to engage in clinical discussions about chemoprevention, but uptake remained low.

Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar.

OBJECTIVE: Women with early-stage, ER + breast cancer are recommend to receive genomic profiling tests, such as the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) test, to guide treatment decisions. We examined test- and treatment-related information discussed and the associations between RS categories and aspects of communication during patient-oncologist clinical encounters. METHODS: As part of a larger trial, clinical encounters (N = 46) were audiorecorded and coded for 1) RS- and treatment-related information, 2) shared decision making, 3) patient active participation, and 4) oncologist patient-centered communication. We examined differences by RS category using mixed models, adjusting for nesting within oncologist. RESULTS: Patients with a high RS were more likely to receive a chemotherapy recommendation (p < .01), hear about the risks/side effects of chemotherapy (p < .01), and offer their preferences (p = .02) than those with intermediate or low RS. Elements of shared decision making increased with RS. Oncologist patient-centered communication (M = 4.09/5, SD = .25) and patient active participation (M = 3.5/4, SD = 1.0) were high across RS. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that disease severity, rather than clinical uncertainty, impact treatment recommendations and shared decision making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Oncologists adjust test- and treatment-related information and shared decision making by disease severity. This information provides a framework to inform decision making in complex cancer and genomics settings.