Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Incidental Genomic Findings
NCT ID: NCT03244202
Last Updated: 2018-04-17
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
133 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2016-09-12
2018-04-02
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Incidental Genomics
NCT03597165
Development and Implementation of Electronic Decision Aids for Genetic Testing in Inherited Cancer Syndromes
NCT04704193
Clinical Trial of the Sequence of Cardiovascular Genetic Counseling and Testing
NCT05422573
Genetic Risk: Whether, When, and How to Tell Adolescents
NCT03421327
A Study of the Impact of Genetic Testing on Clinical Decision Making and Patient Care
NCT02487888
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Gaps: Decision aids (DAs) are best suited to meet this challenge, but no DA exists to guide patients' decisions about incidental GS results.
Rationale: It is not feasible to counsel patients on the thousands of incidental findings available to make informed choices about which incidental results they wish to receive because of the limited genomics expertise and capacity among oncologists, and the long wait times for genetic counseling. Our DA fills this critical care and translational gap by improving the quality of patients' decisions and saving oncologists time counseling patients on incidental findings.
Preliminary data: 1) DA development: We created an interactive online DA. It begins with a professional whiteboard video (by Dr. Mike Evans) that conveys the key concepts, risks and benefits of learning about incidental GS results to educate patients. It then prepares patients for decision-making using a values clarification exercise (with feedback of their preferences) and a knowledge questionnaire (with correct answers provided after). It ends by asking participants to select result categories they want to learn using a menu tool. 2) Usability testing: We also evaluated the DA's usability with 15 patients in 2 rounds. Interviews demonstrated strong face validity and content comprehension. Most patients found the amount of information 'just right' (11/15), clear (12/15) and balanced (14/15). All patients felt that the information was sufficient to reach a decision, that the DA was easy to use and would recommend it.
OBJECTIVES
1. Evaluate the efficacy of the DA compared to standard genetic counseling (GC)
2. Understand the decision-making patients' use regarding GS and selecting incidental findings.
METHODS
Phase 1 - RCT to evaluate the DA:
Methods: We will evaluate the efficacy of the DA in reducing decisional conflict compared to standard genetic counseling (GC) using a superiority trial.
Population: We will recruit adult cancer patients who are eligible to have GS (i.e., tested negative for the classic gene mutation associated with their cancer - e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH, MSH, PMS, APC, MUTYH) from genetics clinics at Mount Sinai Hospital, Princess Margaret Hospital and Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, ON Canada. We will include adults who speak and read English and exclude patients with metastatic/recurrent disease as incidental results are less consequential to this population.
Sample size: TThe primary outcome is decisional conflict; the study requires 64 patients/arm to detect the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.3 using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) (Appendix 3), assuming a standard deviation of 0.6, an alpha of 0.05 (two-sided) and power of 0.815,16. In the last 3 months, 244 patients with a family history of breast and colon cancer tested negative for their associated classic mutations (BRCA1/2, MLH, MSH, PMS, APC, MUTYH) most of who would be eligible for GS. Extrapolating this over the next 9 months we estimate that there would be 732 eligible patients. It is highly feasible to reach our target of 128 patients.
Participants will be consecutively randomized and allocated from an existing list of eligible subjects using a computer-generated randomization in a 1:1 ratio with random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Patients from each clinic will be randomized separately to ensure we have an even distribution of this population in both arms of the study.
Intervention arm: Participants will view the online DA and then complete the online self-administered measures (below) in one sitting within 14 days of recruitment. Next, they will speak with a GC over the telephone after the DA, using a standardized script. They will then complete the same online measures again after speaking to the GC.
Control arm: The GC will conduct the GC session over the telephone within 14 days of recruitment. A topics script will be used to standardize GC discussions covering standard educational content to enable patients to select incidental GS results (participants will not view the DA nor the video). Participants will complete the online self-administered measures after speaking with the GC.
Outcome: Consistent with the Ottawa Decisional Support Framework, our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are: knowledge of GS, satisfaction with decision, preparation for decision-making and anxiety.
Measures: We will use validated scales to assess decisional conflict, knowledge, anxiety, satisfaction with the decision and preparation for decision-making. We will develop a standardized topic script for the GC in each arm, as well as a questionnaire to collect intervention fidelity (e.g., usage statistics, duration of counseling sessions), demographic and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer status and genetic testing).
Analysis: Consistent with the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, our primary outcome is decisional conflict, assessed via the validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Knowledge is the secondary outcome, will be measured by the Cliseq genomic sequencing questionnaire and a set of internal developed knowledge questions. Satisfaction and anxiety with also be assessed. Satisfaction will be measured using the Satisfaction with Decision scale (SWD) and the Preparation for Decision Making scale (PrepDM). Anxiety will be measured using the state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). We will also include a demographics and cancer history questionnaire.
The analysis of outcomes will follow the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach. Mean DCS, SWD, PrepDM and STAI scores will be compared using a t-test. Knowledge scores will be assessed by summing the number of correct responses to the questions, and compared using t-tests. Linear regression will be used in a secondary analysis to account for known predictors for decisional outcomes such as education. Secondary analyses will compare the mean DCS, knowledge, SWD, PrepDM and STAI scores before and after GC in the intervention arm to explore the additional benefit of GC after the DA. Un/adjusted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals will be reported. We will use descriptive statistics to report participants' characteristics.
Phase 2 - qualitative study of decision making for incidental results:
A subset of study participants will be asked to take part in a qualitative interview about their decision-making regarding selecting incidental findings. These semi-structured interviews will take place over the phone with a total of 40 participants. For the qualitative component a purposeful sample of study participants will be used. We will target a mix of participants across ages, cancer type and stage, gender, and study group to assess the varying approaches to decision-making. At total of 40 participants will take part in the qualitative component.
Analysis: Qualitative data analysis will draw on grounded theory methodology. We will sort the data by searching for themes/patterns and variations within and across interviews using HypeRESEARCH. Coding, which is the first stage in the analysis process, will involve 'labeling' the data with descriptive codes. Two team members will independently code each transcript. Consensus on coding will be reached through comparison and discussion among these members. The second stage will involve constant comparison, where codes and their content will be compared across interviews to discern common and divergent themes and issues across them. The final stage is selective coding, which integrates all the codes under a central phenomenon to build a theory. Validation methods include triangulation and member checking.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Decision Aid Plus Counselling
Participants will use a decision aid to learn about genomic sequencing and select which incidental findings they would like to receive from genomic sequencing. After using the decision aid the participants will speak with a genetic counsellor over the phone about their choice.
Decision Aid Plus Counselling
The Genomics ADViSER is an decision aid designed to inform patients about genomic sequencing (GS) and aid them selecting which incidental findings they would like to receive from GS.
Genetic Counselling Only
Participants will a genetic counsellor over the phone to learn about genomic sequencing and select which incidental findings they would like to receive from genomic sequencing.
Genetic Counselling Only
Participants will learn about genomic sequencing and incidental findings by speaking directly with a genetic counsellor and select which incidental findings they would like to receive with a genetic counsellor.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Decision Aid Plus Counselling
The Genomics ADViSER is an decision aid designed to inform patients about genomic sequencing (GS) and aid them selecting which incidental findings they would like to receive from GS.
Genetic Counselling Only
Participants will learn about genomic sequencing and incidental findings by speaking directly with a genetic counsellor and select which incidental findings they would like to receive with a genetic counsellor.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Received a negative single gene test for a cancer gene mutation (e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH, MSH, PMS, etc.) or received a negative panel test
* Speak and read English
Exclusion Criteria
* Received positive panel testing or panel sequencing
* Have not had single gene testing related to their primary cancer condition (e.g., BRCA1/2 for breast/ovarian cancer, MLH, MSH, PMS colorectal cancer, etc.)
* Received a positive genetic test for a cancer gene mutation (e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH, MSH, PMS, APC, MUTYH, etc.)
* Do not speak or read English
* Family member participating in the study
* Participant in usability study of the DA
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
OTHER_GOV
Unity Health Toronto
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Yvonne Bombard, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Mount Sinai Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sunnybrook Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Shickh S, Clausen M, Mighton C, Casalino S, Joshi E, Glogowski E, Schrader KA, Scheer A, Elser C, Panchal S, Eisen A, Graham T, Aronson M, Semotiuk KM, Winter-Paquette L, Evans M, Lerner-Ellis J, Carroll JC, Hamilton JG, Offit K, Robson M, Thorpe KE, Laupacis A, Bombard Y. Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 26;8(4):e021876. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021876.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
16-052
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.