Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether phone results were equivalent to in-person result disclosure for individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing. METHODS: A total of 111 of 136 subjects undergoing education and counseling for BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing agreed to randomization to phone or in-person result disclosure. Content and format for both sessions were standardized. Data from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Psychological General Well-Being index were collected at baseline and then again at 1 week and 3 months after disclosure of test results. Baseline measures were administered after the following had occurred: counseling/education session had been conducted, informed consent had been obtained, and decision to be tested had been made. Satisfaction and cost assessments were administered after the result session. At 1 week, participants were asked their preferred method of result disclosure. RESULTS: There were no differences in anxiety and general well-being measures between 50 phone and 52 in-person results disclosure. Both groups reported similar rates of satisfaction with services. Among those with a preference, 77% preferred the notification method assigned. There was a statistically significant preference for phone results among the 23% who did not prefer the method assigned. Greater costs were associated with in-person result disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that phone results are a reasonable alternative to traditional in-person BRCA1/2 genetic test disclosure without any negative psychologic outcomes or compromise in knowledge. However, further study is needed in a more clinically representative population to confirm these findings.

Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: An efficient approach to education and counseling before BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing is necessary for effective utilization of testing in the community. Education and counseling, when delivered individually, are limited by a shortage of trained health care providers as well as by financial and time constraints. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretest education and counseling for breast cancer genetics in a group setting is equivalent to that provided on an individual basis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients at high risk for harboring a BRCA mutation were randomly assigned to group or individual education and counseling sessions. Group education was followed by brief individual counseling. Knowledge and Impact of Events Scales (IES) were administered at baseline and after education and counseling and at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months. Satisfaction with education and counseling was measured at completion of the session. Preferred method of education and counseling was solicited at 3 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in knowledge or IES scores between groups. When stratified by genetic test results, knowledge scores showed no difference. Regardless of group, post-test IES scores in patients with positive results were higher than patients with negative or uninformative results but returned to baseline by 12 months. Participants were equally satisfied with either method they were assigned. Significantly more time was spent per patient in individual sessions (1.25 hours) than in group education (0.74 hours). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that group education and counseling may confer similar benefits compared with traditional individual sessions. Additional investigation of this approach in larger numbers of patients is warranted.