评估初级保健诊所遗传性癌症风险的策略:一项集群随机临床试验。

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Elizabeth M Swisher, Heather M Harris, Sarah Knerr, Tesla N Theoryn, Barbara M Norquist, Jeannine Brant, Brian H Shirts, Faith Beers, DaLaina Cameron, Emerson J Dusic, Laurie A Riemann, Beth Devine, Michael L Raff, Rabindra Kadel, Howard J Cabral, Catharine Wang
{"title":"评估初级保健诊所遗传性癌症风险的策略:一项集群随机临床试验。","authors":"Elizabeth M Swisher, Heather M Harris, Sarah Knerr, Tesla N Theoryn, Barbara M Norquist, Jeannine Brant, Brian H Shirts, Faith Beers, DaLaina Cameron, Emerson J Dusic, Laurie A Riemann, Beth Devine, Michael L Raff, Rabindra Kadel, Howard J Cabral, Catharine Wang","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Best practices for improving access to assessment of hereditary cancer risk in primary care are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746794.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 3","pages":"e250185"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11889468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies to Assess Risk for Hereditary Cancer in Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth M Swisher, Heather M Harris, Sarah Knerr, Tesla N Theoryn, Barbara M Norquist, Jeannine Brant, Brian H Shirts, Faith Beers, DaLaina Cameron, Emerson J Dusic, Laurie A Riemann, Beth Devine, Michael L Raff, Rabindra Kadel, Howard J Cabral, Catharine Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Best practices for improving access to assessment of hereditary cancer risk in primary care are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746794.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"e250185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11889468/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0185\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0185","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:缺乏在初级保健中改善获得遗传性癌症风险评估的最佳做法。目的:比较两种基于人群的参与策略,以确定具有癌症家族史或个人病史的初级保健患者,并为符合条件的个体提供癌症易感性基因检测。设计、环境和参与者:EDGE(早期遗传风险检测)临床试验群-从蒙大拿州、怀俄明州和华盛顿州的两个卫生保健系统中随机抽取12家诊所,采用两种参与方法中的一种来评估初级保健中的遗传性癌症风险。研究人群包括95 623名至少25岁的英语患者,在2021年4月1日至2022年3月31日的招募窗口期间进行了初级保健访问。干预:干预包括两种风险评估参与方法:(1)护理点(POC),由工作人员在临床预约之前立即进行;(2)直接患者参与(DPE),其中信件和电子邮件外联促进在家完成。完成风险评估并符合预先规定标准的患者通过家庭提供的唾液检测试剂盒免费进行基因检测。主要结局和措施: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。逻辑回归模型用于比较POC和DPE方法,允许过度分散,并将临床作为设计因素。意向治疗分析用于评价主要结局。结果:在12个月的窗口中,95 623名患者在12个诊所进行了初级保健访问。完成风险评估的患者(n = 13 705)主要为女性(64.7%),年龄在65 - 84岁之间(39.6%)。POC入路完成风险评估的患者比例高于DPE入路(19.1% vs 8.7%;调整优势比[AOR], 2.68;95% ci, 1.72-4.17;结论和相关性:在风险评估交付的聚类随机临床试验中,POC参与导致遗传癌症风险评估率高于DPE方法,但基因检测完成率相似。使用参与策略的组合可能是获得更大范围和影响力的最佳方法。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT04746794。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strategies to Assess Risk for Hereditary Cancer in Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Best practices for improving access to assessment of hereditary cancer risk in primary care are lacking.

Objective: 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.

Intervention: 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.

Main outcomes and measures: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusions and relevance: 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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746794.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信