No abstract

In cancer genetic counseling (CGC), communication across language and culture challenges the model of practice based on shared decision-making. To date, little research has examined the decision-making process of low-income, limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in CGC. This study identified communication patterns in CGC sessions with this population and assessed how these patterns facilitate or inhibit the decision-making process during the sessions. We analyzed 24 audio recordings of CGC sessions conducted in Spanish via telephone interpreters at two public hospitals. Patients were referred for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; all were offered genetic testing. Audio files were coded by two bilingual English-Spanish researchers and analyzed using conventional content analysis through an iterative process. The 24 sessions included 13 patients, 6 counselors, and 18 interpreters. Qualitative data analyses identified three key domains - Challenges Posed by Hypothetical Explanations, Misinterpretation by the Medical Interpreter, and Communication Facilitators - that reflect communication patterns and their impact on the counselor's ability to facilitate shared decision-making. Overall, we found an absence of patient participation in the decision-making process. Our data suggest that when counseling LEP Latina patients via medical interpreter, prioritizing information with direct utility for the patient and organizing information into short- and long-term goals may reduce information overload and improve comprehension for patient and interpreter. Further research is needed to test the proposed counseling strategies with this population and to assess how applicable our findings are to other populations.

1578 Background: Barriers to population screening for BRCA mutations include access, availability of counseling, and readiness of care providers to participate in this process. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study evaluates a digital approach to genetic testing of a defined population using a medical model and risk-adapted follow-up. Methods: The BFOR study (Bforstudy.com) includes web-based enrollment open to individuals in four US cities who are age 25 or older and have at least one grandparent of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) ancestry. Participants receive web-based education, provide consent, complete questionnaires, and note their preference for receiving results either from their primary care provider (PCP) or BFOR staff. BRCA AJ founder mutation results are disclosed by (e)mail or phone, depending on need for additional counseling/genetic testing. Participants will be surveyed by email for up to 5 years; a subset of PCPs is also being surveyed. Results: From March 2018 to January 2019, 2562 participants enrolled: 78% female; < 30 years old, 8%; 30-50 years, 39%; > 50 years, 53%. At enrollment, 33% requested disclosure of results by PCP. Among 847 PCPs invited to disclose results, 45% accepted, 50% declined and 5% have yet to respond. 69 (3.2%) participants tested positive for a BRCA founder mutation, of whom 8 (12%) had no significant family history. 2087 participants tested negative, of whom 6% reported a known family mutation, 38% reported a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, and 56% no such history. The most common reason for study participation was referral by a friend. One individual with a distant history of breast cancer tested positive for a BRCA2 mutation and underwent risk reducing surgery that identified an early stage fallopian tube carcinoma. Her daughter then tested positive and underwent prophylactic surgeries. Conclusions: Population screening of individuals at higher risk for cancer-predisposing mutations is feasible and identifies individuals who would not have been tested using clinical criteria. Preliminary findings reveal challenges for engaging PCPs and at-risk individuals, particularly men. Ongoing follow-up and a second phase of the study will address these barriers to testing. Clinical trial information: NCT03351803.

Objective: Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is an effective strategy to prevent pelvic serous carcinoma for women at high risk of developing ovarian cancer; however, it results in premature menopause. Data is lacking to adequately counsel these women about potential effects of premature menopause on cognition and quality of life. Methods: A prospective study in premenopausal women at high risk of ovarian cancer to determine changes in cognition over time after RRSO and the impact of hormone therapy (HT) on cognition. Participants were surveyed before and after surgery using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive questionnaire and questions regarding domains of wellbeing at 6, 12 and 18 months. Data was tested for changes across time using mixed model regression and logistic regression. Results: Fifty-seven women were included. Sixty-three percent of participants used HT. At 6 months postoperatively, perceived cognitive impairment declined by 5.5 points overall (4.4 in non-HT users and 6 in HT users), P = 0.003. The other domains of cognition assessed did not change significantly over time and the use of HT did not impact scores. Sleep disruption was common in this cohort and was not mitigated by HT. Self-reported depression improved after RRSO (P = 0.004). Conclusion: Women at high risk of ovarian cancer who choose RRSO may experience declines in cognition within the first 6 months of surgical menopause. HT may cause small declines in perceived cognitive impairment at 6 months after RRSO. Women can expect more sleep disruption after menopause, which is not mitigated by HT. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A697.

Background: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of populationbased BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives. Methods: Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site. Results: In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Conclusions: An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians' geographic location. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.