Bowen, Deborah J.

Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068

1506 Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is preventable when genetic risk is identified. We aimed to test whether pre and/or post-test genetic counseling is needed to optimally deliver online accessible genetic testing. Methods: MAGENTA (Making GENetic Testing Accessible) is a four-arm non-inferiority trial evaluating electronic genetic education and results delivery alone or combined with pre-test only, or post-test only telephone genetic counseling compared to mandatory pre- and post-test counseling (control arm) in women at risk of HBOC (NCT02993068). Regardless of assigned arm, all subjects with a pathogenic mutation received post-test telephone counseling. All subjects were enrolled electronically as part of either a family history cohort (FHC) or a cascade cohort (CC, known familial mutation). The primary outcome was cancer risk distress at 3 months and the trial was powered for the FHC. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing (i.e., received results), anxiety, depression, quality of life, and decisional regret, all measured by standardized scales. Results: Enrollment is complete and a total of 3,822 participants were randomized, 3,111 in FHC and 711 in CC. Participants were enrolled from all 50 states, but most were white/non-Hispanic (88%). Among participants that completed genetic testing, 173 (7.2%) had a mutation in a breast or ovarian cancer gene, with 114 (5.7%) of FHC and 59 (14.2%) of CC. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis of FHC, each of the three experimental arms was non-inferior to the control arm for distress at 3 months (p < 0.025/3 = 0.0083). In the CC, no and pre-test only counseling were also non-inferior (p < 0.025/3 = 0.0083). Distress was lowest in the arm with neither pre nor post-test counseling. Overall, 318 (18%) participants had very high distress at three month follow-up, and this rate was not significantly different across arms. Anxiety, depression and decisional regret did not have statistically significant differences across arms at follow-up. Test completion was highest in the no counseling arm (86.4%) and lowest in the control arm (60.6%). Conclusions: Electronic genetic education and results release without genetic counseling was non-inferior with regard to patient distress and was associated with higher test completion and lower distress. These results support use of a genetic testing paradigm providing individualized genetic counseling only for patients with positive test results. Clinical trial information: NCT02993068.

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

Members of the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium conducted an expert‐driven literature review to identify a list of domains and to evaluate potential measures of these domains for inclusion in a list of preferred measures. Measures were included if they were easily available, free of charge, and had acceptable psychometrics based on published peer‐reviewed analyses. A total of 22 domains and 52 measures were identified during the selection process. Taken together, these measures form a reliable and validated list of measurement tools that are easily available and used in multiple cancer trials to assess patient‐reported outcomes in relevant patients.