Facilitated Cascade Genetic Testing for Relatives of Individuals With BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 44.7 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Roni Nitecki Wilke, Haley A Moss, Maria D Iniesta, Xun Xu, Sarah Linhart, Ravi N Sharaf, Alexander Melamed, Karen H Lu, J Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Melissa K Frey
{"title":"Facilitated Cascade Genetic Testing for Relatives of Individuals With <i>BRCA1/2</i> Pathogenic Variants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Roni Nitecki Wilke, Haley A Moss, Maria D Iniesta, Xun Xu, Sarah Linhart, Ravi N Sharaf, Alexander Melamed, Karen H Lu, J Alejandro Rauh-Hain, Melissa K Frey","doi":"10.1200/JCO-26-00735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite the potential for substantial public health impact of cascade genetic testing (CGT), few at-risk relatives complete testing. We compared facilitated CGT with standard of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Probands with newly diagnosed <i>BRCA1/2</i> germline pathogenic variants were cluster-randomized to a facilitated cascade testing intervention or standard care. Random assignment occurred at the proband level and was stratified by personal cancer history, the number of first-degree relatives (FDRs; 1-2 <i>v</i> ≥3), and time since genetic testing (≤6 months <i>v</i> >6-12 months). Adult FDRs without prior testing per self-report were enrolled. The intervention included navigation support and access to genetic testing services; control FDRs received a letter, consistent with standard clinical practice. Free germline genetic testing was available to all FDRs regardless of arm assignment. The primary outcome was completion of genetic testing at 6 months, compared using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 151 probands with <i>BRCA1</i> (52%) <i>or BRCA2</i> (48%) pathogenic variants, 72% had a prior cancer diagnosis. Probands were randomly assigned, with 142 and 144 FDRs assigned to the intervention and control arms, respectively. At 6 months, genetic testing uptake was significantly higher among FDRs in the intervention group compared with the control group (73.2% [adjusted 95% CI, 64.4 to 82.1] <i>v</i> 50.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 41.0 to 60.4]; <i>P</i> < .001). By 18 months, 90% of intervention FDRs completed genetic testing. Among 206 FDRs who completed testing, 95 (46%) were found to have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant; of these, 82 (86%) carried the familial variant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this randomized trial, facilitated CGT significantly increased genetic testing uptake among FDRs of probands with <i>BRCA</i><i>1/2</i> pathogenic variants compared with standard care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"JCO2600735"},"PeriodicalIF":44.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-26-00735","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the potential for substantial public health impact of cascade genetic testing (CGT), few at-risk relatives complete testing. We compared facilitated CGT with standard of care.

Methods: Probands with newly diagnosed BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants were cluster-randomized to a facilitated cascade testing intervention or standard care. Random assignment occurred at the proband level and was stratified by personal cancer history, the number of first-degree relatives (FDRs; 1-2 v ≥3), and time since genetic testing (≤6 months v >6-12 months). Adult FDRs without prior testing per self-report were enrolled. The intervention included navigation support and access to genetic testing services; control FDRs received a letter, consistent with standard clinical practice. Free germline genetic testing was available to all FDRs regardless of arm assignment. The primary outcome was completion of genetic testing at 6 months, compared using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.

Results: Among 151 probands with BRCA1 (52%) or BRCA2 (48%) pathogenic variants, 72% had a prior cancer diagnosis. Probands were randomly assigned, with 142 and 144 FDRs assigned to the intervention and control arms, respectively. At 6 months, genetic testing uptake was significantly higher among FDRs in the intervention group compared with the control group (73.2% [adjusted 95% CI, 64.4 to 82.1] v 50.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 41.0 to 60.4]; P < .001). By 18 months, 90% of intervention FDRs completed genetic testing. Among 206 FDRs who completed testing, 95 (46%) were found to have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant; of these, 82 (86%) carried the familial variant.

Conclusion: In this randomized trial, facilitated CGT significantly increased genetic testing uptake among FDRs of probands with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants compared with standard care.

BRCA1/2致病变异个体亲属的便利级联基因检测:一项随机对照试验。
目的:尽管级联基因检测(CGT)可能对公众健康产生重大影响,但很少有高危亲属完成检测。我们比较了便利CGT和标准护理。方法:对新诊断的BRCA1/2种系致病变异的先证者进行集群随机分组,以促进级联检测干预或标准护理。在先证者水平进行随机分配,并根据个人癌症史、一级亲属数量(fdr; 1-2 v≥3)和自基因检测以来的时间(≤6个月v bb0 6-12个月)进行分层。本研究纳入了未事先进行自我报告测试的成年fdr。干预措施包括导航支持和获得基因检测服务;对照fdr收到一封信,与标准临床实践一致。所有fdr均可获得免费种系基因检测,无论手臂分配如何。与双侧Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel测试相比,主要结局是6个月时完成基因检测。结果:在151名BRCA1(52%)或BRCA2(48%)致病变异的先证者中,72%有癌症诊断史。先证者随机分配,干预组和对照组分别有142名和144名fdr。6个月时,干预组fdr的基因检测摄取率明显高于对照组(73.2%[调整95% CI, 64.4至82.1]vs 50.7%[调整95% CI, 41.0至60.4];P < .001)。到18个月时,90%的干预fdr完成了基因检测。在完成检测的206名fdr中,95名(46%)被发现有致病性或可能致病性变异;其中,82人(86%)携带家族变异。结论:在这项随机试验中,与标准治疗相比,便利的CGT显著增加了BRCA1/2致病变异先证者fdr的基因检测摄入量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal of Clinical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
8215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书