Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gynecologic oncology 2023-06, Vol.173, p.22-30
Hauptverfasser: Frey, Melissa K., Ahsan, Muhammad Danyal, Webster, Emily, Levi, Sarah R., Brewer, Jesse T., Lin, Jenny, Blank, Stephanie V., Krinsky, Hannah, Nchako, Corbyn, Wolfe, Isabel, Thomas, Charlene, Christos, Paul, Cantillo, Evelyn, Chapman-Davis, Eloise, Holcomb, Kevin, Sharaf, Ravi N.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019–9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P 
ISSN:0090-8258
1095-6859
DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.001