A B S T R A C T PurposeAlthough guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. Patients and MethodsParticipants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n ϭ 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n ϭ 335). UC participants received in-person pre-and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. ResultsTC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d ϭ 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, Ϫ0.61), perceived stress (d ϭ Ϫ0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d ϭ Ϫ0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, Ϫ0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d ϭ 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d ϭ Ϫ1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. ConclusionGenetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs. J Clin

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients’ ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants’ interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined “SNP”, and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75%) were “very” or “somewhat interested” in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85%) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.

Although single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) testing for disease susceptibility is commercially available, translational studies are necessary to understand how to communicate genomic information and potential implications for public health. We explored attitudes about and initial responses to genomic testing for colon cancer risk. Following development of the educational materials, we offered testing for three colon cancer SNPs in a pilot study with primary care patients. Participants completed pre- and post-test sessions and interviews. We analyzed interview transcripts with qualitative software using thematic analysis. All 20 participants opted for SNP testing. Qualitative analysis identified several themes: Motivations for SNP Testing, Before/After: Meaning of Results, Emotional Responses to SNP Results and Genomic Literacy/ Information Delivery. Results demonstrate that individuals will pursue SNP testing in the context of pre and post-test education. SNP results may influence health behaviors like healthy eating and exercise yet did not appear to impact colon cancer screening intentions.