Comparing pretest video genetic education for prostate cancer patients: Do patients need assistance?
Authors: Greenberg Samantha , Orlando Elizabeth , Devlin Morgan , Low Sara , Anson Amanda , O Neil Brock , Kohlmann Wendy , Wong Bob , Dechet Christopher B. , Sanchez Alejandro , Tward Jonathan David , Johnson Skyler B , Agarwal Neeraj , Kohli Manish , Gupta Sumati , Swami Umang , Maughan Benjamin L. 
Published: June 2022

5061 Background: Expanded germline genetic testing recommendations for individuals with prostate cancer (PCa) have resulted in increased demand for pre-test genetic education. As a result, alternative service delivery models in genetic counseling (GC) have been suggested. Previous research has shown no difference in genetic testing uptake when video genetic education (VGE) is used rather than face-to-face counseling. However, data is limited when evaluating how VGE is delivered to patients. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pre-test VGE on genetic testing uptake when facilitated by a GC assistant or self-completed by the patient. Methods: PCa patients referred for GC were contacted for pre-test VGE. Patients were randomized to undergo VGE with a GC assistant via Zoom (assistant-led) or perform VGE on their own via email instructions (patient-led). Assistant-led VGE was scheduled via standard of care, and patient-led VGE involved electronic and phone contact. In both arms, pre-test VGE included administrating family history collection via electronic software and viewing of informational genetics video. VGE completion and genetic testing uptake was the primary outcome measured for all participants. Initial pilot data was presented previously. This analysis represents the entire study period outcome. Data analysis used t-test, Fisher’s exact and chi square. Results: From 10/1/2020-12/31/2021, 266 PCa patients were referred. In total, 254 were randomized, with 130 in the assistant-led intervention and 124 randomized to the patient-led arm. Technological limitations, loss to follow up, and procedural withdrawals resulted in 41 (31.5%) patients in the assistant-led arm and 65 (52.4%) in the self-led arm. The primary reason for discontinuing the process was lack of patient response to contact to schedule their genetics visit (n = 109, 35 patient-led, 74 assistant-led). There was significantly more loss to follow up in the assistant-led arm versus the self-led arm (p < 0.001). Of those who completed VGE, the median age was 66 years, with no difference between the two arms (p = 0.66). Participants primary identified as white (n = 96, 91%) and non-Hispanic (n = 100, 94%). There was no difference in uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.09) between patient and assistant led VGE. Conclusions: A randomized intervention suggests no difference in genetic testing uptake when pre-test VGE occurs with an assistant or is patient-led. Analyses of satisfaction, decision conflict, and knowledge are needed to evaluate if patient-led VGE is a suitable alternative to GC. Loss to follow up given standard of care scheduling approaches for assistant-led VGE suggests pre-test VGE may be better delivered during oncology visits. Additional evaluation of the facilitators and barriers, in addition to larger multi-center studies, are required to consider patient-led pre-test VGE as a primary method of pre-testing genetic education.