Swisher Elizabeth M, Harris Heather M, Knerr Sarah, Theoryn Tesla N, Norquist Barbara M, Brant Jeannine, Shirts Brian H, Beers Faith, Cameron DaLaina, Dusic Emerson J, Riemann Laurie A, Devine Beth, Raff Michael L, Kadel Rabindra, Cabral Howard J, Wang Catharine
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Department of Bioethics and Humanities, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Mar 3;8(3):e250185. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0185.
Best practices for improving access to assessment of hereditary cancer risk in primary care are lacking.
To compare 2 population-based engagement strategies for identifying primary care patients with a family or personal history of cancer and offering eligible individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The EDGE (Early Detection of Genetic Risk) clinical trial cluster-randomized 12 clinics from 2 health care systems in Montana, Wyoming, and Washington state to 1 of 2 engagement approaches for assessment of hereditary cancer risk in primary care. The study population included 95 623 English-speaking patients at least 25 years old with a primary care visit during the recruitment window between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022.
The intervention comprised 2 risk assessment engagement approaches: (1) point of care (POC), conducted by staff immediately preceding clinical appointments, and (2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where letter and email outreach facilitated at-home completion. Patients who completed risk assessment and met prespecified criteria were offered genetic testing via a home-delivered saliva testing kit at no cost.
Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a visit who (1) completed the risk assessment and (2) completed genetic testing. Logistic regression models were used to compare the POC and DPE approaches, allowing for overdispersion and including clinic as a design factor. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate primary outcomes.
Over a 12-month window, 95 623 patients had a primary care visit across the 12 clinics. Those who completed the risk assessment (n = 13 705) were predominately female (64.7%) and aged between 65 and 84 years (39.6%). The POC approach resulted in a higher proportion of patients completing risk assessment than the DPE approach (19.1% vs 8.7%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72-4.17; P < .001) but a similar proportion completing testing (1.5% vs 1.6%; AOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64-1.46; P = .86). Among those eligible for testing, POC test completion was approximately half of that for the DPE approach (24.7% vs 44.7%; AOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64; P < .001). The proportion of tested patients identified with an actionable pathogenic variant was significantly lower for the POC approach than the DPE approach (3.8% vs 6.6%; AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = .003).
In this cluster randomized clinical trial of risk assessment delivery, POC engagement resulted in a higher rate of assessment of hereditary cancer risk than the DPE approach but a similar rate of genetic testing completion. Using a combination of engagement strategies may be the optimal approach for greater reach and impact.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746794.
在初级保健中,改善遗传性癌症风险评估可及性的最佳实践尚不存在。
比较两种基于人群的参与策略,以识别有癌症家族史或个人史的初级保健患者,并为符合条件的个体提供癌症易感性基因检测。
设计、地点和参与者:EDGE(遗传风险早期检测)临床试验将蒙大拿州、怀俄明州和华盛顿州2个医疗系统的12家诊所进行整群随机分组,分为2种参与方法中的1种,用于初级保健中遗传性癌症风险的评估。研究人群包括在2021年4月1日至2022年3月31日招募期间至少25岁且有初级保健就诊的95623名说英语的患者。
干预包括2种风险评估参与方法:(1)即时护理(POC),由工作人员在临床预约前立即进行;(2)直接患者参与(DPE),通过信件和电子邮件宣传促进在家完成。完成风险评估并符合预先设定标准的患者可通过免费的家庭唾液检测试剂盒获得基因检测。
主要结局是就诊患者中(1)完成风险评估和(2)完成基因检测的比例。使用逻辑回归模型比较POC和DPE方法,考虑过度离散,并将诊所作为设计因素纳入。采用意向性分析来评估主要结局。
在12个月的时间段内,12家诊所共有95623名患者进行了初级保健就诊。完成风险评估的患者(n = 13705)主要为女性(64.7%),年龄在65至84岁之间(39.6%)。POC方法导致完成风险评估的患者比例高于DPE方法(19.1%对8.7%;调整优势比[AOR],2.68;95%置信区间,1.72 - 4.17;P <.001),但完成检测的比例相似(1.5%对1.6%;AOR,0.96;95%置信区间,0.64 - 1.46;P =.86)。在符合检测条件的患者中,POC检测完成率约为DPE方法的一半(24.7%对44.7%;AOR,0.49;95%置信区间,0.37 - 0.64;P <.001)。POC方法识别出可采取行动的致病变异的检测患者比例显著低于DPE方法(3.8%对6.6%;AOR,0.61;95%置信区间,0.44 - 0.85;P =.003)。
在这项风险评估实施的整群随机临床试验中,POC参与导致遗传性癌症风险评估率高于DPE方法,但基因检测完成率相似。结合使用多种参与策略可能是实现更大覆盖范围和影响的最佳方法。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT04746794。