An interventional study of Telephone Genetic Counseling in Breast Cancer and Hereditary Breast Cancer, sponsored by Georgetown University. Completed at 4 sites in United States. Open to female participants aged 21 Years to 90 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-01.
Sponsored by Georgetown University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Participating in genetic cancer risk assessments (GCRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) can inform treatment and risk management decisions and improve breast cancer outcomes. However, Latina women underuse GCRA services, which may increase breast cancer disparities. This study will adapt and test the impact of a Culturally Adapted Telephone Genetic Counseling Intervention to enhance the use and quality of genetic counseling services for underserved Latina women at-risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
SPECIFIC AIMS Women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 50-80% and 15-40% lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer, respectively.1 Breast cancer survivors with BRCA1/2 mutations are three times more likely to develop contralateral breast cancer than non-carriers.2 The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends referral for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) genetic cancer risk assessments (genetic counseling and consideration of genetic testing; GCRA) for women at high risk of carrying a mutation.3 A positive genetic test can inform treatment in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and management in survivors and unaffected women.4 Latinas have a significantly higher BRCA1/2 gene mutation prevalence than non-Latina Whites,5 yet they are 4-5 times less likely to have GCRA.6 Reasons for lower GCRA use include access, language barriers, and psychosocial factors.7-12 Fewer than 5% of the already limited number of genetic counselors in the US speak a language other than English.13 Developing alternative strategies to enhance GCRA access is important to ensure national guidelines are met and to reduce disparities.5,14
Our preliminary data suggest that GCRA referral guidelines are not consistently met among high-risk Latinas, many of whom are often not offered GCRA or are offered testing without counseling due to access and language barriers. Alternative strategies for delivery of genetic services, such as telephone genetic counseling (TGC), are safe, acceptable, and effective in both urban and rural populations.15,16 TGC can be a viable alternative strategy to in-person counseling for Latinas given that (1) TGC can enhance access to comprehensive genetic counseling by reducing cost and logistic barriers, which are especially important in underserved groups17; (2) TGC can also maximize the reach and access to the few Spanish-speaking genetic counselors in the US.13 Our initial data indicate that providers will increase the number of referrals to GCRA if Spanish genetic counseling is available. Thus, by overcoming access and language barriers, Spanish TGC can increase GCRA access among this high-risk yet underserved population.
Beyond addressing access and language barriers, Spanish TGC may enhance the quality of information conveyed during counseling. Given the shortage of Spanish-speaking genetics professionals, English-speaking counselors use phone or in-person interpretation services with Spanish-speaking patients. Unfortunately, the quality of the information conveyed via Spanish interpreters is suboptimal.18 Interpreters do not have the requisite genetics expertise and may reduce, omit, or revise content.19 An initial study found that during HBOC genetic counseling, interpreters translated probabilistic statements as definitive or shortened and altered key explanations of risk information.18 In addition to potential content inaccuracies, interpretation typically precludes 'small talk' that helps build rapport.20 Our preliminary data align, suggesting both Latinas and providers report concerns about accuracy and rapport in sessions with interpreters. Spanish TGC could improve counseling quality by eliminating the need for interpretation for Latinas who are referred to and attend counseling.
The investigators will compare evidence-based TCG developed by members of my mentoring team16,21 to usual care (UC) among high-risk, Spanish-speaking Latinas. The investigators anticipate that usual care will consist of either no referral to GCRA, offer of direct genetic testing without counseling, or genetic counseling with interpretation. Guided by the Ottawa Framework for Informed Decision Making22 the investigators propose a two phased mixed methods study. In Phase I, the investigators will conduct interviews with high-risk Latinas (n=15) to adapt the intervention materials using the Learner Verification and Revision frame.23 In Phase II, the investigators will use a cluster randomized design with four sites randomized to Spanish TGC (n=2 sites) or UC (n=2 sites). Our primary outcome is genetic counseling uptake among 60 high risk Latinas. Genetic testing uptake will be a secondary outcome. Among women who receive genetic counseling either through TGC or with an interpreter, the investigators will assess counseling quality by evaluating women's knowledge, counseling satisfaction, and communication in 20 audiotaped sessions. The investigators will assess communication using the gold standard RIAS quantitative coding system 24 and qualitative discourse analysis.25 Participants will complete assessments at baseline, post-counseling, and at 3 months. The investigators aim to:
Aim 1. Culturally adapt the TGC booklet and genetic counseling protocols. Aim 2. Evaluate the impact of TGC vs. UC on GCRA access. Participants randomized to TGC (vs. UC) will have H.2.1. higher genetic counseling uptake H.2.2. higher testing uptake 3 months post intervention.
Aim 3. Assess the quality of genetic counseling sessions among participants who attend the sessions. H.3.1. Participants randomized to TGC (vs. UC) will have higher HBOC knowledge and satisfaction and lower decisional conflict and distress. H.3.2. The investigators will explore communication patterns in 20 TGC and genetic counseling sessions with an interpreter using quantitative and qualitative methods.
Given access barriers and the shortage of Spanish speaking genetic counselors, adapting and translating TGC intervention is a promising strategy that could reduce disparities by broadening the reach and accessibility to genetic counseling while enhancing the quality of the service.
12,544 studies on the registry are indexed under Breast Neoplasms; 2,892 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 37 is below the median of 72 across 9,303 interventional studies indexed under Breast Neoplasms.
Browse Breast Neoplasms studies →Georgetown University is the lead sponsor of 286 studies on the registry; 42 are open to participants now.
Of its 28 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 20 (71%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants will continue with their usual medical care. Usual care may vary at different sites. Based on the investigator's preliminary data usual care can result in not GCRA referral, referral directly to testing, or referral to genetic counseling with an interpreter. The investigators will document usual care for participants from the sites randomized to usual care.
Participants will receive telephone genetic counseling with the culturally adapted protocol and booklet
Behavioral: Telephone Genetic Counseling
A genetic counselor fluent in Spanish (see letter of support) will conduct the TGC. The TGC intervention consists of two sessions. Prior to the sessions the investigators will mail participants the education materials with information to be reviewed prior to the genetic counseling session and a set of visual aids that the counselor will refer to during the session to facilitate the understanding of the information conveyed in the session.
Number of participants that receive genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA)
The RA will conduct a follow-up call to inquire whether participants randomized to Usual Care completed a GCRA appointment and to gather information about the place where the appointment was held and name of the genetic counselor
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Change in knowledge
The investigators will measure knowledge with the 13-item Breast Cancer Genetic Knowledge Scale by Erblich et al., 2005 answered in a True/False/Do not know format. Answers are recoded to correct or incorrect. The number of correct responses are added to create a score ranging from 0-13. Higher scores mean higher breast cancer genetics knowledge.
Time frame: Change from baseline to three months after baseline
Change in decisional conflict
The investigators will measure decisional conflict with the 16-item Decisional-Conflict Scale by O'Connor AM, 1995. The scale is rated on a 1-5 scale. Answers are aggregated to yield a score from 16-80. The higher the final score, the least decisional conflict.
Time frame: Change from baseline to three months after baseline
Distress
The investigators will measure distress using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short anxiety scale by Pilkonis, P.A., Choi, S.W., Reise, S.P., Stover, A.M., Riley, W.T., Cella, D., on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). The scale is 1 - 6 scale, in which higher scores mean higher distress.
Time frame: At baseline
Decision Satisfaction
The investigators will measure satisfaction with healthcare decisions using the 5 item Satisfaction with healthcare decisions scale by Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al., 1996. The scale answers go from 1- 5. The higher scores represent higher satisfaction with healthcare decisions.
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Satisfaction with counseling
The investigators use a scale developed by their team, which have been used in prior published work (see DeMarco TA, Peshkin BN, Mars BD, Tercyak KP., 2004 and Tercyak KP, Demarco TA, Mars BD, Peshkin BN., 2004). This 5-item scale is answered from 1-5, with higher scores signifying higher satisfaction with counseling.
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Number of participants that receive genetic testing
The RA will conduct a follow-up call to inquire whether participants pursued genetic testing or not.
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Communication
Communication outcomes will be qualitatively measured using discourse analysis (e.g., "Number of patient-initiated questions" will be coded following guidelines).
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Communication
Communication outcomes will be quantitatively measured following RIAS medical interaction coding guidelines (e.g., patient centeredness).
Time frame: Three months after baseline
Acceptability
Using a 12-item scale, the RA will assess whether participants perceived the genetic counseling session as acceptable or not based on answers from 1 - 10 and "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree"
Time frame: Thee months after baseline
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Georgetown University