Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Breast Cancer | Study protocol

Implementation and evaluation of a nurse-led decision-coaching program for healthy breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers: a study protocol for the randomized controlled EDCP-BRCA study

Authors: A. Isselhard, M. Töpper, B. Berger-Höger, A. Steckelberg, H. Fischer, F. Vitinius, K. Beifus, J. Köberlein-Neu, R. Wiedemann, K. Rhiem, R. Schmutzler, S. Stock

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Female BRCA mutation carriers have an increased lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer compared to the general population. Women who carry this mutation have several options to deal with their cancer risk, such as risk-reducing surgeries or intensified breast cancer screening. Previous research has shown that preferences in this scenario are highly dependent on affected women’s personalities and value systems. To support these women in the decision-making process, a structured decision support consisting of decision coaching combined with a decision aid might be helpful.

Methods/design

A randomized controlled trial will be conducted in order to compare usual care with structured decision support alongside usual care. The decision support program entails nurse-led decision coaching as well as an evidence-based patient decision aid. Nurses are qualified by a 4-day training program in informed decision-making and decision coaching. Six centers for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Germany will be included in the study, with a planned sample size of 398 women.
The primary outcome is the congruence between the preferred and the actual played role in the decision-making process as measured by the Control Preferences Scale. It is hypothesized that the structured decision support will enable women to play the preferred role in the decision-making process. Secondary outcomes include the knowledge and attitudes about preventive options, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, coping self-efficacy, impact of event, and self-concept. A process evaluation will accompany the study.

Discussion

The EDCP-BRCA study is the first study to implement and evaluate decision coaching combined with a decision aid for healthy BRCA mutation carriers worldwide.

Trial registration {2a}

DRKS-ID: DRKS00015527. Registered 30 October 2019.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Prakash R, Zhang Y, Feng W, Jasin M. Homologous recombination and human health: the roles of BRCA1, BRCA2, and associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015;7(4):a016600.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Meindl A, Ditsch N, Kast K, Rhiem K, Schmutzler RK. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes, new treatments, new concepts. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:323–30.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Rhiem K, Schmutzler RK. Risikoadaptierte Früherkennung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014;57(3):307–11.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Bick U, Engel C, Krug B, Heindel W, Fallenberg EM, Rhiem K, et al. High-risk breast cancer surveillance with MRI: 10-year experience from the German consortium for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;175(1):217–28.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):108–18.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Schneeweiss A, Denkert C, Fasching PA, Fremd C, Gluz O, Kolberg-Liedtke C, et al. Diagnosis and therapy of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) – recommendations for daily routine practice. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019;79(06):605–17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
De Felice F, Marchetti C, Musella A, Palaia I, Perniola G, Musio D, et al. Bilateral risk-reduction mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;22(9):2876–80.CrossRef
10.
Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, van't Veer L, Garber JE, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055–62.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kemel Y, Kauff ND, Robson ME, Goldfrank DJ, Wadsworth E, Diiorio T, et al. Four-year follow-up of outcomes following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16_suppl):1013.CrossRef
12.
Finch AP, Lubinski J, Møller P, Singer CF, Karlan B, Senter L, et al. Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15):1547–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, Moller P, Lynch HT, Offit K, et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7491–6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fang CY, Miller SM, Malick J, Babb J, Engstrom PF, Daly MB. Psychosocial correlates of intention to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy among women with a family history of ovarian cancer. Prev Med. 2003;37(5):424–31.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M, Schnieden V, Gattas M, Kirk J, et al. Intention to undergo prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(11):2250–7.PubMedCrossRef
16.
van Dijk S, Otten W, Zoeteweij MW, Timmermanns DRM, van Asperen CJ, Breuning MH, et al. Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(11):1675–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, Slezak JM, Arnold PG, Woods JE, et al. Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA. 2000;284(3):319–24.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Spiegel TN, Esplen MJ, Hill KA, Wong J, Causer PA, Warner E. Psychological impact of recall on women with BRCA mutations undergoing MRI surveillance. Breast. 2011;20(5):424–30.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Fallenberg EM, Bick U, Schreer I. Strukturiertes Mammakarzinom-Früherkennungsprogramm. Gynakologe. 2014;47(10):746–52.CrossRef
20.
Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O'Neil J, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997;277(18):1485–92.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, Bernhard J, Ribi K, Juraskova I. Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):857–62.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(12):1865–78.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
25.
German Federal Law Gazette. Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten. Bonn, Germany: Bundesgesetzblatt; 2013.
26.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(1):CD001431.PubMed
27.
Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Köhm J, Bauerfeind I, Kahlert S, Untch M. Shared decision-making in primary breast cancer. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2004;98(2):127–33.PubMed
28.
Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Bennett C, Murray MA, Mullan S, Legare F. Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision aids. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(3):E22–33.CrossRef
29.
Green MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, Harper GR, Friedman LC, Rubinstein WS, et al. Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(4):442–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Lerman C, Kerner J, Gomez-Caminero A, Hughes C, Reed MM, Biesecker B, Benkendorf JL. Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(2):148–57.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Koehm J, Kahlert S, Ditsch N, Untch M. Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(4):590–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Davison BJ, Degner LF. Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 1997;20(3):187–96.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Jabaley T, Underhill-Blazey ML, Berry DL. Development and testing of a decision aid for unaffected women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Cancer Educ. 2019;35(2):339–44.
34.
Metcalfe KA, Dennis CL, Poll A, Armel S, Demsky R, Carlsson L, et al. Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial. Genet Med. 2017;19(3):330–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Berger-Höger B, Liethmann K, Mühlhauser I, Haastert B, Steckelberg A. Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;93:141–52.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Stacey D, Murray MA, Légaré F, Sandy D, Menard P, O'Connor A. Decision coaching to support shared decision making: a framework, evidence, and implications for nursing practice, education, and policy. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):25–35.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Vitinius F, Sonntag B, Barthel Y, Brennfleck B, Kuhnt S, Werner A, et al. KoMPASS–Konzeption, Implementierung und Erfahrungen mit einem strukturierten Kommunikationstraining für onkologisch tätige Ärzte. PPmP. 2013;63(12):482–8.PubMed
39.
Berger-Höger B, Liethmann K, Mühlhauser I, Haastert B, Steckelberg A. Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):452.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.PubMed
41.
Solari A, Giordano A, Kasper J, Drulovic J, van Nunen A, Vahter L, et al. Role preferences of people with multiple sclerosis: image-revised, computerized self-administered version of the control preference scale. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66127.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
43.
Buchholz A, Hölzel L, Kriston L, Simon D, Härter M. Die Decisional Conflict Scale in deutscher Sprache (DCS-D) – Dimensionale Struktur in einer Stichprobe von Hausarztpatienten. Klin Diagnostik u Evaluation. 2011;4:15–30.
44.
45.
Steckelberg A, Hülfenhaus C, Haastert B, Mühlhauser I. Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d3193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
47.
48.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Herrmann C, Buss U, Snaith RP. HADS-D, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – deutsche Version. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber; 1995.
50.
Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11(3):421–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41(3):209–18.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Maercker A, Schützwohl M. Erfassung von psychischen Belastungsfolgen: Die Impact of Event-Skala – revidierte Version (IES-R). Diagnostica. 1998;44(3):130–41.
53.
Esplen MJ, Stuckless N, Hunter J, Liede A, Metcalfe K, Glendon G, et al. The BRCA Self-Concept Scale: a new instrument to measure self-concept in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Psychooncology. 2009;18(11):1216–29.PubMedCrossRef
54.
55.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149–60.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C, Murphy S. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation. 2019;25(1):23–45.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Rädiker S, Kuckartz U. Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA: Text, Audio und Video. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2018.
Metadata
Title
Implementation and evaluation of a nurse-led decision-coaching program for healthy breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers: a study protocol for the randomized controlled EDCP-BRCA study
Authors
A. Isselhard
M. Töpper
B. Berger-Höger
A. Steckelberg
H. Fischer
F. Vitinius
K. Beifus
J. Köberlein-Neu
R. Wiedemann
K. Rhiem
R. Schmutzler
S. Stock
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04431-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Testing non-inferiority of blended versus face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for severe fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis and the effectiveness of blended booster sessions aimed at improving long-term outcome following both therapies: study protocol for two observer-blinded randomized clinical trials

Study protocol

Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) combined with working memory training to improve cognitive function in schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Analysis of responder-based endpoints: improving power through utilising continuous components

Study protocol

Instant analgesic effect of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy on primary dysmenorrhoea according to functional magnetic resonance imaging: study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Commentary

Who knew? The misleading specificity of “double-blind” and what to do about it

Study protocol

Thunder-fire moxibustion for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial