Citations

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Introduction: Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care. Methods: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints. Conclusions: Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

151 Background: Decision aids (DAs) for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict, but the relative effect of pre-visit and within-visit DAs is not known, and effect sizes for minority populations has not been estimated. Methods: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-RCT in specialty urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, test the effect of pre-consultation and with-in consultation decision aids on patient knowledge immediately after specialty consultation compared to usual care. We used linear regression to estimate effects of each intervention arm, including the respective standard error, two-sided 95% confidence interval, and two-sided P value for testing the study’s hypotheses. Results: 103 patients were recruited and randomized to receive either the pre-visit decision aid, within-visit decision aid, or neither decision aids (usual care). In 2017 and 20018, we accrued similar numbers of men to pre-consultation aid (n = 37), during-consultation aid (n = 33) and usual care arms, respectively (n = 33). The median (range) age in years was 64 [49, 81]; 67.6% were White, 15.7% were Black or African American, 16.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% were not reported. 47.6%, 45.6%, and 6.8% had a baseline clinical stage of T1, T2, and T3, respectively. The median [range] prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.0 [2.4, 53.7]. There were no clinically notable imbalances. We obtained usable data on 102 of the 103 patient-participants. The pre-visit decision aid arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.694 (0.636, 0.753). The within-visit decision arm showed a very similar mean knowledge effect of 0.686 (0.625, 0.748). The usual care arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.644 (0.582,0.705). The linear regression model showed, that, compared with usual care, neither intervention effect achieved statistical significance in the primary analysis (p = 0.24, 0.330, for pre-visit and within-visit, respectively). Conclusions: Modest knowledge gains of pre-visit and during-visit decision aids for prostate cancer treatment were not statistically significant. Clinical trial information: NCT03182998 .

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .

Most individuals who undergo genomic screening will receive negative results or results not sufficient to warrant a clinical response. Even though a majority of individuals receive negative results, little is known about how negative results may impact individuals’ perception of disease risk. Changes in risk perception (specifically reductions in perceived risk) may affect both probands and their family members if inaccurate information is communicated to family members. We surveyed patients who received negative results as part of their participation in a genomic screening study and assessed their perceptions of disease risk following receipt of results. Participants had either hyperlipidemia or colon polyps (or both) and received their negative genomic screening results by mail. Of 1712 total individuals recruited, 1442 completed the survey (84.2% completion rate). Approximately one quarter of individuals believed their risk for heart disease to be lower and approximately one third of individuals believed their risk for colon cancer to be lower after receiving and evaluating their negative genomic screening result. 78% of those who believed their risk for one or both diseases had declined had already shared or intended to share their result with family members. Our study suggests patients may interpret a negative genomic screening result as implying a reduction in their overall disease risk.

AbstractHow does one committed to the claims of Christ and a biblical story of redemption live Christianly and navigate the competing worldviews encountered in everyday medical practice? Adopting the practical conceptual framework promoted by Reformed Christian philosopher and theologian Albert Wolters, we argue for an all-encompassing biblical understanding of God’s cosmic redemption plan for the entire creation order in contrast to a more typical sacred/secular duality. We then apply the concepts of structure and direction, drawn from a pretheological understanding of human life drawn from the Scripture, to a semi-fictional case study in discerning Christian faithfulness in everyday mundane aspects of medicine. Our subsequent analysis seeks to render an interpretation of what it means to live life consistent with that worldview when confronted with challenges like those presented in the case.