These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Rana HQ, Stopfer JE, Weitz M, Kipnis L, Koeller DR, Culver S, Mercado J, Gelman RS, Underhill-Blazey M, McGregor BA, Sweeney CJ, Petrucelli N, Kokenakes C, Pirzadeh-Miller S, Reys B, Frazier A, Knechtl A, Fateh S, Vatnick DR, Silver R, Kilbridge KE, Pomerantz MM, Wei XX, Choudhury AD, Sonpavde GP, Kozyreva O, Lathan C, Horton C, Dolinsky JS, Heath EI, Ross TS, Courtney KD, Garber JE, Taplin ME.
    Journal: JCO Oncol Pract; 2023 Nov; 19(11):1069-1079. PubMed ID: 37733980.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]