Telephone-Based Counseling Effective for Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Article

The use of telephone counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer was noninferior to in-person counseling with no significant adverse effects on long-term outcomes.

The use of telephone counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer was noninferior to in-person counseling with no significant adverse effects on long-term outcomes, according to the results of a study published August 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. However, the testing uptake was lower for patients who received telephone counseling.

VIDEO:

Anita Y. Kinney, PhD, RN, discusses telephone-based genetic counseling for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

“This study provides strong long-term evidence that telephone counseling for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is not inferior to in-person counseling with regard to fostering informed decision making, minimizing adverse psychologic and quality-of-life outcomes, and promoting perceived personal control 1 year after counseling,” wrote Anita Y. Kinney, PhD, RN, of the University of New Mexico, and colleagues. “Alternative care delivery approaches, such as telephone communication, can make cancer genetic services more widely accessible without sacrificing safety.”

According to the study, it is recommended that women at risk for hereditary cancer get clinical genetic risk assessments from trained cancer genetic professionals, however, previous research has shown that as few as one-third of at-risk women receive genetic counseling.

For this study the researchers used population-based sampling to identify women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and randomly assigned them to in-person (n = 495) or telephone-based (n = 493) genetic counseling and testing. Both in-person counseling and telephone-based counseling included an educational brochure and visual aids. These women could decide to provide a sample at their appointment or bring a BRCA1/2 buccal test kit home. Women assigned to telephone counseling were mailed sealed packets containing the same printed materials. If the women decided to undergo testing they were mailed a testing kit.

At 1 year, the researchers found that telephone-based counseling was noninferior to in-person counseling for all of the psychosocial and informed decision-making outcomes: anxiety, cancer-specific distress, perceived personal control, and decisional conflict about their testing decision.

By 1 year, more women who had in-person counseling underwent testing than did women who received telephone counseling (27.9% vs 37.3%).

“A contributing factor to the lower overall uptake of testing in this study may be the active recruitment strategy, which identified eligible women from population-based sources without any direct involvement of or referral from their primary health care providers,” the researchers wrote. “In general, recommendation from a health care provider strengthen perceptions about the importance of genetic risk assessment.”

Testing among women in rural areas was higher for both telephone counseling (38.7% vs 25.9%) and in-person counseling (41.3% vs 36.6%) compared with testing in women in urban areas. According to the researchers, this suggested that “BRCA1/2 testing interests were satisfied by expanding access to genetic counseling through the two modalities.”

Recent Videos
Breast cancer care providers make it a goal to manage the adverse effects that patients with breast cancer experience to minimize the burden of treatment.
Social workers and case managers may have access to institutional- or hospital-level grants that can reduce financial toxicity for patients undergoing cancer therapy.
Insurance and distance to a tertiary cancer center were 2 barriers to receiving high-quality breast cancer care, according to Rachel Greenup, MD, MPH.
Antibody-drug conjugates are effective, but strategies such as better understanding the mechanisms of action may lead to enhanced care for patients with cancer. Antibody-drug conjugates are effective, but strategies such as better understanding the mechanisms of action may lead to enhanced care for patients with cancer.
ADCs demonstrate superior efficacy vs chemotherapy but maintain a similar efficacy profile that requires multidisciplinary collaboration to optimally treat.
According to Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FASCO, antibody-drug conjugates are slowly replacing chemotherapy as a standard treatment for breast cancer.
Administering oral SERD-based regimens may enhance patients’ quality of life when undergoing treatment for ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.
Gedatolisib-based triplet regimens may be effective among patients with prior endocrine resistance or rapid progression following frontline therapy.
Oncologists are still working on management strategies for neuropathy; a common adverse effect related to chemotherapeutics for ovarian cancer.
Genetic testing information can be used to risk-stratify ovarian cancer survivors for breast cancer, particularly those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
Related Content