Nebgen, Denise R.

Importance Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is an effective option to prevent ovarian cancer in high-risk individuals, but adverse effects from premature menopause are a barrier to uptake. Interval salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (ISDO) may be an effective alternative. Objective To evaluate the association of ISDO vs RRSO and sexual function and menopausal symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized (patient preference) clinical trial was performed among Women Choosing Surgical Prevention participants with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variant conferring an increased risk for ovarian cancer. Patients from 9 US centers were enrolled from June 2, 2016, to October 28, 2020; chose ISDO or RRSO; and were followed up for 24 months. The analysis was performed on November 13, 2024. Interventions Participant-selected RRSO or ISDO. Main Outcomes and Measures Changes in sexual function and menopausal symptoms from baseline to 6, 12, and 24 months. Inverse probability weighting was applied to achieve covariate balance across groups. Results The analytic sample included 334 female participants (mean [95% CI] age at consent, 39.2 [38.7-.9.7] years) who underwent RRSO (n = 165) or ISDO (n = 169) and completed 6-month questionnaires. Significantly more participants experienced clinically meaningful worsening of sexual function at 6 months compared with baseline after RRSO vs ISDO (33.1% [39 of 118] vs 16.8% [17 of 101], respectively; odds ratio, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.20-3.35]) and at 12 months (39.2% [38 of 97] vs 18.3% [17 of 93], respectively; odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.09-2.63]). This finding was no longer significant at 24 months. When restricted to the RRSO group who took hormone replacement therapy, there was no significant worsening of total sexual function scores or menopausal symptoms compared with baseline. No interval ovarian cancers were reported. Conclusions and Relevance This nonrandomized clinical trial comparing RRSO with ISDO found that ISDO was less likely to impair sexual function, which addresses an important barrier to surgical prevention in high-risk patients in premenopause. After RRSO, use of hormone replacement therapy mitigated menopausal symptoms and prevented decline in sexual function. More information is needed about the safety of ISDO. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02760849

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.