A randomized controlled trial evaluating pretest cancer genetics educational video or in-person genetic counseling.

Abstract

10597 Background: Cancer genetic testing indications are rapidly expanding to determine treatment eligibility for patients with cancer, to identify individual cancer risk as well as to select family members at higher cancer risk when a pathogenic variant (PV) has been identified in the family. Currently, international guidelines recommend that all candidates for genetic testing should have genetic counseling to make an informed decision for genetic testing. However, with the increased demand for genetic testing, innovative ways to deliver pretest information are needed, especially in limited resource settings, where genetic cancer professionals’ availability is scarce. Methods: This is a non-inferiority trial comparing a pretest educational video to in-person genetic counseling. Participants referred for genetic cancer risk assessment at the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City were enrolled if they met international cancer genetic testing criteria and did not previously have genetic testing and/or counseling. The primary outcome was the uptake of genetic testing. Secondary outcomes included changes in genetic cancer knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction using validated tools. Results: A total of 250 participants were included: 124 were randomized to the in-person genetic counseling arm and 126 to the educational video arm. Mean age was 47.9 years (SD 12.7), 86.4% were women, 37.2% had high-school or less and 86.4% had personal history of cancer (70% breast cancer). Overall, test acceptance was 100% in both arms. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups: in-person from. 53 to .74 (diff .20; 95%CI .24-.26; p < 0.05) and video from .51 to .68 (diff .16; 95%CI .20-.12; p < 0.05). However, the in-person arm had a higher post counseling knowledge score (p 0.001). 43.5% and 42% of participants in the in-person and video arms had moderate-severe baseline anxiety. After intervention, both groups had a decrease in anxiety score: in-person from 5.2 to 4.7 (diff .58; 95% CI .09-1.08; p 0.01) and video from 4.9 to 4.1 (diff .75; 95%CI 0.42-1.08; p < 0.05). Both groups were satisfied with genetic services (97.5% and 92.5%, respectively; p 0.34). Conclusions: A pretest educational video was non-inferior regarding genetic testing acceptance. It was also associated with improved genetic cancer knowledge and decreased anxiety levels. These results support the use of educational videos before genetic testing where in-person genetic counseling availability is limited. Clinical trial information: pending .