Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 5/2021

01-05-2021 | Colorectal Cancer | Original Paper

The FamilyTalk randomized controlled trial: patient-reported outcomes in clinical genetic sequencing for colorectal cancer

Authors: Sukh Makhnoon, Deborah J. Bowen, Brian H. Shirts, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Eric B. Larson, James D. Ralston, Kathleen A. Leppig, David R. Crosslin, David Veenstra, Gail P. Jarvik

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 5/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

As genetics gains favor in clinical oncology, it is important to address patient concerns around confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic information that might otherwise limit its utilization. We designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the social impact of an online educational tool (FamilyTalk) to increase family communication about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening. Of 208 randomized participants, 149 (71.6%) returned six-month surveys. Overall, there was no difference in CRC screening between the study arms. Privacy and confidentiality concerns about medical and genetic information, reactions to genetic test results, and lifestyle changes did not differ between arms. Participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results were more likely than those with negative results to report that the results accurately predicted their disease risks (OR 5.37, p = 0.02 and OR 3.13, p = 0.02, respectively). This trial demonstrated no evidence that FamilyTalk impacted patient-reported outcomes. Low power, due to the limited number of participants with P/LP results in the overall sample, as well as the short follow-up period, could have contributed to the null findings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hampel H (2009) Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 18(4):687–703CrossRef Hampel H (2009) Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 18(4):687–703CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Peterson EB et al (2018) Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: a landscape analysis of reviews. Transl Behav Med 8(1):59–70CrossRef Peterson EB et al (2018) Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: a landscape analysis of reviews. Transl Behav Med 8(1):59–70CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Clayton EW et al (2018) A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0204417CrossRef Clayton EW et al (2018) A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0204417CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Musa J et al (2017) Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0183924CrossRef Musa J et al (2017) Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0183924CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bennett S et al (2016) Educational interventions for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008144PubMed Bennett S et al (2016) Educational interventions for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008144PubMed
6.
go back to reference Faury S et al (2017) Patient education interventions for colorectal cancer patients with stoma: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 100(10):1807–1819CrossRef Faury S et al (2017) Patient education interventions for colorectal cancer patients with stoma: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 100(10):1807–1819CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Usher-Smith JA et al (2018) Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 8(1):e017717CrossRef Usher-Smith JA et al (2018) Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 8(1):e017717CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Edwards AG et al (2013) Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001865 Edwards AG et al (2013) Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001865
9.
go back to reference Lowery JT et al (2014) A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(4):601–610CrossRef Lowery JT et al (2014) A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(4):601–610CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Esplen MJ et al (2019) Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 125(13):2272–2282CrossRef Esplen MJ et al (2019) Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 125(13):2272–2282CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Leventhal H, Cameron L (1987) Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance. Patient Educ Couns 10(2):117–138CrossRef Leventhal H, Cameron L (1987) Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance. Patient Educ Couns 10(2):117–138CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bowen DJ et al (2020) Development of FamilyTalk: an intervention to support communication and educate families about colorectal cancer risk. J Cancer Educ 35(3):470–478CrossRef Bowen DJ et al (2020) Development of FamilyTalk: an intervention to support communication and educate families about colorectal cancer risk. J Cancer Educ 35(3):470–478CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Harris PA et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381CrossRef Harris PA et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Provenzale D et al (2018) NCCN guidelines insights: colorectal cancer screening, version 1. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16(8):939–949CrossRef Provenzale D et al (2018) NCCN guidelines insights: colorectal cancer screening, version 1. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16(8):939–949CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Pocock SJ, Stone GW (2016) The primary outcome fails - what next? N Engl J Med 375(9):861–870CrossRef Pocock SJ, Stone GW (2016) The primary outcome fails - what next? N Engl J Med 375(9):861–870CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cameron KA et al (2011) Patient outreach to promote colorectal cancer screening among patients with an expired order for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 171(7):642–646CrossRef Cameron KA et al (2011) Patient outreach to promote colorectal cancer screening among patients with an expired order for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 171(7):642–646CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Naylor K, Ward J, Polite BN (2012) Interventions to improve care related to colorectal cancer among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 27(8):1033–1046CrossRef Naylor K, Ward J, Polite BN (2012) Interventions to improve care related to colorectal cancer among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 27(8):1033–1046CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Makhnoon S, Shirts BH, Bowen DJ (2019) Patients’ perspectives of variants of uncertain significance and strategies for uncertainty management. J Genet Couns 28(2):313–325CrossRef Makhnoon S, Shirts BH, Bowen DJ (2019) Patients’ perspectives of variants of uncertain significance and strategies for uncertainty management. J Genet Couns 28(2):313–325CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Niu X et al (2019) Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: a pilot comparative effectiveness study. Contemp Clin Trials 84:105820CrossRef Niu X et al (2019) Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: a pilot comparative effectiveness study. Contemp Clin Trials 84:105820CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkey MB (2016) Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 35(11):1264–1275CrossRef Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkey MB (2016) Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 35(11):1264–1275CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Rogith D et al (2014) Attitudes regarding privacy of genomic information in personalized cancer therapy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21(e2):e320–e325CrossRef Rogith D et al (2014) Attitudes regarding privacy of genomic information in personalized cancer therapy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21(e2):e320–e325CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The FamilyTalk randomized controlled trial: patient-reported outcomes in clinical genetic sequencing for colorectal cancer
Authors
Sukh Makhnoon
Deborah J. Bowen
Brian H. Shirts
Stephanie M. Fullerton
Eric B. Larson
James D. Ralston
Kathleen A. Leppig
David R. Crosslin
David Veenstra
Gail P. Jarvik
Publication date
01-05-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-021-01398-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

Cancer Causes & Control 5/2021 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine