A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: Trial design and baseline findings

Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Contemporary clinical trials (Impact Factor: 1.99). 01/2011; 32(1):25-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper describes an ongoing randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
The trial includes asymptomatic patients who are 50-79years and are not up-to-date with CRC screening guidelines. Patients who responded to a baseline telephone survey are randomized to a GERA or Control group. GERA group participants meet with a nurse, decide whether to have a GERA blood test (a combination of genetic polymorphism and folate), and, if tested, receive GERA feedback. Follow-up telephone surveys are conducted at 1 and 6months. A chart audit is performed at 6months.
Of 2,223 eligible patients, 562 (25%) have enrolled. Patients who enrolled in the study were significantly younger than those who did not (p<0.001). Participants tended to be 50-59years (64%), female (58%), white (52%), married (51%), and have more than a high school education (67%). At baseline, most participants had some knowledge of CRC screening and GERA, viewed CRC screening favorably, and reported that they had decided to do screening. Almost half had worries and concerns about CRC.
One in four eligible primary care patients enrolled in the study. Age was negatively associated with enrollment. Prospective analyses using data for all participants will provide more definitive information on GERA uptake and the impact of GERA feedback.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.
    Journal of Behavioral Medicine 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10865-015-9626-5 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown.
    Annals of internal medicine 10/2014; 161(8):537-545. DOI:10.7326/M14-0765 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 08/2012; 22(1). DOI:10.1007/s10897-012-9530-x · 1.75 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014