Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Filtros adicionais











País/Região como assunto
Intervalo de ano
1.
Clin Genet ; 2018 Nov 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30417332

RESUMO

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.

2.
J Natl Cancer Inst ; 110(9): 985-993, 2018 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29490071

RESUMO

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.

3.
Int J Colorectal Dis ; 32(9): 1345-1348, 2017 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28664346

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary condition that increases one's risk of developing colorectal, endometrial, and other extracolonic cancers. MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper implemented a reflex screening protocol for DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) deficiency. Those with findings suspicious for LS were referred for genetic counseling (GC). Our goal was to assess compliance with GC and factors associated with successful follow-up. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the MMR proteins MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 was performed on all colorectal tumor resections from patients ≤70 years old and all stage II cancers. Tumors with loss of MLH1/PMS2 were subsequently tested for BRAF mutation or MLH1 promoter methylation to identify tumors with likely epigenetic inactivation of MLH1. Patients with loss of MLH1/PMS2 without BRAF mutations or with absence of MLH1 promoter methylation and those with loss of MSH2/MSH6 were referred to GC. Compliance with GC was assessed. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and August 2016, 203 tumors were tested by IHC. Fifteen (7.4%) patients had abnormal MMR protein expression patterns in the absence of BRAF mutation or MLH1 promoter methylation suggestive of possible LS. GC compliance was 35.7% overall and 85.7% in those with family history of LS-associated cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GC compliance was relatively low in our study. Interestingly, patients with a strong family history of LS-associated neoplasms were more likely to pursue GC. In the future, assessing and addressing barriers to seeking GC will provide opportunities to improve patient care through increased identification of patients with cancer predisposition syndromes.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/genética , Aconselhamento Genético , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Cooperação do Paciente , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Idoso , Biomarcadores Tumorais/análise , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/química , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/patologia , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/terapia , Metilação de DNA , Análise Mutacional de DNA , Epigênese Genética , Feminino , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Hereditariedade , Humanos , Imuno-Histoquímica , Masculino , Mutação , Linhagem , Fenótipo , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Texas
4.
Genet Med ; 17(6): 485-92, 2015 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25297947

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.


Assuntos
Aconselhamento Genético , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Modelos Teóricos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/genética , Testes Genéticos/ética , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA