Longitudinal follow-up after telephone disclosure in the randomized COGENT study.

PURPOSE: To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. METHODS: Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Sun protection education for diverse audiences: need for skin cancer pictures.

Sun protection education is needed for kidney transplant recipients, whose increased risk of skin cancer could be ameliorated with sun protection. Cognitive interviews with 24 participants equally stratified among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic/Latino kidney transplant recipients were performed to evaluate a sun protection education workbook. Study participants were recruited over the phone using a registry of 700 kidney transplant recipients. Participants included 12 women and 12 men with a median age of 52. In 16 of the cognitive interviews with non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos, pictures of skin cancer were requested by the participants in order to see the appearance of skin cancer. Kidney transplant recipients with skin of color did not consider themselves at risk to develop skin cancer and wanted to see examples of skin cancer occurring on people with skin of color. Based on these results, the workbook was modified to include pictures of squamous cell carcinoma on varying skin tones. Then, 8 participants evaluated the revised workbook in cognitive interviews and found the photographs acceptable and necessary to demonstrate the severity of skin cancer and personalize their risk of developing skin cancer. The participants progressed from having knowledge of skin cancer to believing that they could develop skin cancer because they observed skin cancers on people with their skin tone. Using pictures of skin cancers occurring on people with similar skin tone may heighten a kidney transplant recipients' sense of vulnerability and possibly improve the use of sun protection.

Enhanced fidelity of an educational intervention on skin self-examination through surveillance and standardization.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma can metastasize but is often successfully treated when discovered in an early stage. Melanoma patients and their skin check partners can learn skin self-examination (SSE) skills and these skills can be improved by practice. The purpose of this study is to determine the degree of fidelity with which educational in-person SSE intervention can be delivered by trained research coordinators to patients at risk of developing another melanoma and their skin check partners. METHODS: The in-person intervention was performed in two iterations. In phase 1 (2006-2008), the research coordinators were trained to perform the intervention using a written script. In phase 2 (2011-2013), the research coordinators were trained to perform the intervention with a PowerPoint aid. Each research coordinator was individually counseled by one of the authors (KM) to insure standardization and enhance fidelity of intervention delivery. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were compared on 16 fidelity components. Further, Phase 2 fidelity was assessed by comparing mean scores of fidelity across the five research coordinators who delivered the intervention. RESULTS: Phase 2, which utilized a PowerPoint aid, was delivered with a higher degree of fidelity compared to phase 1with four fidelity components with significantly higher fidelity than Phase 1: 1) Explained details of melanoma, χ2 (1, n = 199)= 96.31, p < .001, 2) Discussed when to call doctor, χ2 (1, n = 199) = 53.68, p < .001 3) Explained assessment at month 1, χ2 (1, n = 199)= 12.39, p < .01, and 4) Explained assessment at month 2, χ2 (1, n = 199) = 117.75, p < .001. Further, no significant differences on mean fidelity were found across research coordinators in Phase 2. DISCUSSION: When using the PowerPoint aide, the research coordinators delivered the intervention with high fidelity (all scores >14) and there were no mean differences in fidelity across research coordinators, indicating consistency in fidelity. This can be attributed to the standardization and cueing that the PowerPoint program offered. Supervision was also a key component in establishing and maintaining fidelity of the patient educational process. This method of intervention delivery enables trained healthcare professionals to deliver an educational intervention in an effective, consistent manner.

Skin self-examination education for early detection of melanoma: a randomized controlled trial of Internet, workbook, and in-person interventions.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of melanoma improves survival. Since many melanoma patients and their spouses seek the care of a physician after discovering their melanoma, an ongoing study will determine the efficacy of teaching at-risk melanoma patients and their skin check partner how to conduct skin self-examinations (SSEs). Internet-based health behavior interventions have proven efficacious in creating behavior change in patients to better prevent, detect, or cope with their health issues. The efficacy of electronic interactive SSE educational intervention provided on a tablet device has not previously been determined. OBJECTIVE: The electronic interactive educational intervention was created to develop a scalable, effective intervention to enhance performance and accuracy of SSE among those at-risk to develop melanoma. The intervention in the office was conducted using one of the following three methods: (1) in-person through a facilitator, (2) with a paper workbook, or (3) with a tablet device used in the clinical office. Differences related to method of delivery were elucidated by having the melanoma patient and their skin check partner provide a self-report of their confidence in performing SSE and take a knowledge-based test immediately after receiving the intervention. METHODS: The three interventions used 9 of the 26 behavioral change techniques defined by Abraham and Michie to promote planning of monthly SSE, encourage performing SSE, and reinforce self-efficacy by praising correct responses to knowledge-based decision making and offering helpful suggestions to improve performance. In creating the electronic interactive SSE educational intervention, the educational content was taken directly from both the scripted in-person presentation delivered with Microsoft PowerPoint by a trained facilitator and the paper workbook training arms of the study. Enrollment totaled 500 pairs (melanoma patient and their SSE partner) with randomization of 165 pairs to the in-person, 165 pairs to the workbook, and 70 pairs to electronic interactive SSE educational intervention. RESULTS: The demographic survey data showed no significant mean differences between groups in age, education, or income. The tablet usability survey given to the first 30 tablet pairs found that, overall, participants found the electronic interactive intervention easy to use and that the video of the doctor-patient-partner dialogue accompanying the dermatologist's examination was particularly helpful in understanding what they were asked to do for the study. The interactive group proved to be just as good as the workbook group in self-confidence of scoring moles, and just as good as both the workbook and the in-person intervention groups in self-confidence of monitoring their moles. While the in-person intervention performed significantly better on a skill-based quiz, the electronic interactive group performed significantly better than the workbook group. The electronic interactive and in-person interventions were more efficient (30 minutes), while the workbook took longer (45 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an electronic interactive intervention can deliver skills training comparable to other training methods, and the experience can be accommodated during the customary outpatient office visit with the physician. Further testing of the electronic interactive intervention's role in the anxiety of the pair and pair-discovered melanomas upon self-screening will elucidate the impact of these tools on outcomes in at-risk patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01013844; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01013844 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LvGGSTKK).

Accuracy of self-report in assessing Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I through VI.

IMPORTANCE: Determining Fitzpatrick skin phototypes (FST) allows physicians to assess a person's risk of developing sunburn and, by extension, the need for sun protection to prevent the development of skin cancer. Reflectance spectrophotometry objectively measures the melanin index and can assist in determining the accuracy of self-report of FST compared with dermatologist-determined FST. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether self-reported or dermatologist-determined FST is more accurate in identifying a participant's FST for FST I through VI and to assess the relevance of the burning and tanning measures for a range of skin types among ethnically diverse participants. DESIGN AND SETTING: A convenience sample of participants in an observational study from June 2, 2010, through December 15, 2010, at an ambulatory academic dermatologic practice and employee health center in an urban city. PARTICIPANTS: Participants, staff, and students of Northwestern University, who self-identified as being non-Hispanic white, Hispanic or Latino, Asian or Pacific Islander, or black. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Melanin index as measured with reflectance spectrophotometry compared with dermatologist- and participant-determined FST. RESULTS: Forty-two percent (114 of 270) of the participants' responses to the burning and tanning questions could not be classified using standard FST definitions. The spectrophotometry measurements for dermatologist-determined FST were significantly different for FST III and IV (P < .001) and FST IV and V (P < .001). The spectrophotometry measurements for participant-determined FST were significantly different for FST III and IV (P < .001) but not for FST IV and V (P = .90). Participant responses to burning and the dermatologist-determined FST were significantly correlated (Spearman ρ, 0.764; P < .001). Participant responses to tanning and the dermatologist-determined FST were not significantly correlated (Spearman ρ, 0.089; P = .15). Spectrophotometry measurements assessing FST were statistically significantly different for FST III through VI (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Dermatologist-determined FST is more accurate than self-report for FST III through VI. Rephrasing the questions using specific descriptors that have meaning to people with skin of color, such as skin irritation, tenderness, itching, or skin becoming darker, may allow physicians to more accurately assign a skin phototype and, by inference, assess the risk of these participants developing skin cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01124513.

Communication by mothers with breast cancer or melanoma with their children.

Communication of familial risk of breast cancer and melanoma has the potential to educate relatives about their risk, and may also motivate them to engage in prevention and early detection practices. With the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy laws, the patient often becomes the sole communicator of such risks to family members. This study surveys mothers diagnosed with either breast cancer or melanoma and their adult children about their family communication style, knowledge of increased risk, and early detection practices. In both cancer groups, most mothers alerted their children of the risk and need for early detection practices. Breast cancer mothers communicated risk and secondary prevention with early detection by breast self-examination and mammograms whereas the melanoma mothers communicated risk and primary prevention strategies like applying sunscreen and avoiding deliberate tanning. Open communication about health matters significantly increased the likelihood that children engaged in early detection and/or primary prevention behaviors. Examining the information conveyed to at-risk family members, and whether such information motivated them to engage in early detection/prevention behaviors, is key to guiding better cancer prevention communication between doctors and patients.

Sun protection preferences and behaviors among young adult males during maximum ultraviolet radiation exposure activities.

This study explores sun protection attitudes, preferences, and behaviors among young adult males participating in an open-field activity with extreme ultraviolet radiation exposure. Male drum corps members (n = 137) responded to survey questions regarding their behavior and willingness to engage in sun protection and barriers to sunscreen usage. A subset of members (n = 31) participated in cognitive interviews exploring various sunscreen products and intervention techniques. Participants were knowledgeable about health risks and protection benefits regarding sun exposure. Generally, males had positive attitudes and normative beliefs about using sunscreen. A barrier to sunscreen re-application was lack of adequate time to reapply sunscreen during the open field activity. Males preferred a towelette application method, but were unfamiliar with its efficacy and proper use. Thus, they were more likely to use the more familiar sunscreen spray. To increase sun protection behaviors and lower skin cancer risk for males participating in open-field activities, breaks must be allotted every 2 h and have sufficient time to allow sunscreen application. Future development and research into delivery systems that rapidly and evenly apply sunscreen may help lower exposure in this population.