Video vs. in-person genetic counseling for men considering germline prostate cancer testing: A patient-choice study.

Abstract

1577 Background: Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rapidly increasing with higher demand for genetic counseling (GC). Alternate GC strategies need to be studied to address pretest informed consent. Here we conducted a patient-choice study of pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) or in-person GC (IPGC) and assessed men’s preference and patient-reported outcomes from the first cohort of the Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER) study. Methods: Eligibility for EMPOWER includes any male with PCA or at-risk for PCA based on family history or African American race. Men may choose pretest IPGC or VBGE. All receive results by a genetic professional. Demographics and PCA features were collected at baseline. The following outcomes and scales were assessed: baseline anxiety (GAD-7 scale), change in cancer genetics knowledge from baseline (Giri 2019), decisional conflict for GT (O’Connor 1993), and satisfaction (DeMarco 2004). Understanding of personal GT results was assessed after disclosure (Giri 2019). Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher’s exact, Chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests, as appropriate. Mean change in cancer genetics knowledge was compared with t-tests. Significance level was set a priori at 0.05. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). Results: At the time of this analysis, 94 men were enrolled. Characteristics of the cohort were: White (88.3%), bachelor’s degree (67%), PCA diagnosis (93%), mean age of consent 59 years (IPGC) and 61 years (VBGE), Gleason > = 8 (32%), and > = T3 (31%). The majority preferred VBGE (77%) vs. IPGC (23%). Men who opted for IPGC had lower educational levels ( < = high school/GED) (18% IPGC vs 7% VBGE) and reported higher baseline anxiety (45% IPGC vs. 24% VBGE). Cancer genetics knowledge improved significantly with IPGC vs. VBGE (+2.5 vs +0.8; p < 0.01). No differences were observed in decisional conflict, satisfaction, or understanding of personal GT results between IPGC vs. VBGE. Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (IPGC 91%, VBGE 93%). Pathogenic mutations were identified in 15% in IPGC group and 10.4% in VBGE group. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of men opted for VBGE, and results suggest that VBGE is comparable to IPGC for men considering PCA GT. IPGC may be more suitable for men with lower knowledge of cancer genetics and greater levels or anxiety. Further study is warranted.