Breast CancerNCT00419510
Genetic Counseling in African American Women
A study testing Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling in people with Breast Cancer and Ovarian Cancer, run by University of Pennsylvania at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The objectives of this study are to develop a Culturally Tailored Genetic (CTGC) protocol for African American women and evaluate its impact on decision making and satisfaction about BRCA1/2 testing, quality of life, and cancer control practices compared to Standard Genetic Counseling (SGC). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 204 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2003to Sep 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Female
- African American or Black
- 5% to 10% prior probability of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation
Who cannot join
- Men
- Individuals who are not African American or Black
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104
About this study
Official title: Genetic Counseling for Breast Cancer Susceptibility in African American Women
The objectives of this study are to develop a Culturally Tailored Genetic (CTGC) protocol for African American women and evaluate its impact on decision making and satisfaction about BRCA1/2 testing, quality of life, and cancer control practices compared to Standard Genetic Counseling (SGC). A secondary objective of this study is to identify African American women who are most and least likely to benefit from CTGC vs. SGC.
Read the detailed description
Five to 10% of all breast cancer cases have been attributed to two breast ovarian cancer susceptibility genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). Genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations is now available through clinical research programs using standard counseling protocols. The goal of pre test counseling is to facilitate informed decision making about whether to be tested and to prepare participants for possible outcomes. The goal of post test counseling is to provide information about risk status, recommendations for surveillance, and options for prevention. However, previous research suggests that African American and Caucasian women differ in their attitudes about and responses to pre test education and counseling. Increasingly, cultural beliefs and values are being recognized as important factors in genetic counseling. Despite recommendations to increase the cultural sensitivity of breast cancer risk counseling, such programs have not been developed or evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling (CTGC) protocol for African American women and evaluate its impact on psychological functioning and health behaviors compared with Standard Genetic Counseling (SGC) in a randomized clinical trial.
- To evaluate the relative impact of CTGC vs. SGC on decision making and satisfaction about BRCA1/2 testing. Compared to SGC, CTGC will lead to higher rates of test acceptance and satisfaction with testing decisions. These effects will be mediated by increases in perceived benefits and decreases in perceived limitations and risks of genetic testing.
- To evaluate the impact of CTGC vs. SGC on quality of life and health behaviors following BRCA1/2 testing. Compared to SGC, CTGC will lead to larger decreases in general and cancer specific distress, greater increases in adherence to cancer screening guidelines, and lower rates of prophylactic surgery. Reductions in psychological distress will be mediated by increased use of spiritual coping strategies.
Secondary Aim
To identify African American women who are most and least likely to benefit from CTGC vs. SGC. We predict that the relative benefits of CTGC will be greatest for women with greater endorsement of African American cultural values and those identified as BRCA1/2 carriers.
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer
- Being tested
- Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling
- Keywords
- Genetic counseling, BRCA1 and BRCA2, African American
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms, Ovarian Neoplasms, Fanconi Anemia, Complementation Group D1
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Culturally Tailored Genetic CounselingBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Psychological functioning
Cancer screening behaviors
Cancer risk reduction behaviors
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Jan 2007 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2003
- Primary completionSep 2012
- Study completionSep 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Breast CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PennsylvaniaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pennsylvania
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- United States Department of Defense
- Investigators
- Chanita Hughes-Halbert, Ph.D., Principal investigator, University of Pennsylvania
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00419510
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 704355
- Other IDs
- DAMD17-00-1-0262
- Status last verified
- Aug 2016
- First submitted
- 4 Jan 2007
- Last updated
- 17 Aug 2016
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Halbert CH, Kessler L, Collier A, Weathers B, Stopfer J, Domchek S, McDonald JA. Low rates of African American participation in genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations: racial disparities or just a difference? J Genet Couns. 2012 Oct;21(5):676-83. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9485-y. Epub 2012 Jul 12.
PubMed 22790832Halbert CH, Kessler L, Troxel AB, Stopfer JE, Domchek S. Effect of genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in African American women: a randomized trial. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7-8):440-8. doi: 10.1159/000293990. Epub 2010 Mar 17.
PubMed 20234119
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Aug 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Genetic Counseling for Breast Cancer Susceptibility in African American Women
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00419510
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 704355
- Conditions
- Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer
- Keywords
- Genetic counseling, BRCA1 and BRCA2, African American
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PennsylvaniaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- United States Department of Defense
- Study start
- Feb 2003
- Primary completion
- Sep 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Jan 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objectives of this study are to develop a Culturally Tailored Genetic (CTGC) protocol for African American women and evaluate its impact on decision making and satisfaction about BRCA1/2 testing, quality of life, and cancer control practices compared to Standard Genetic Counseling (SGC). A secondary objective of this study is to identify African American women who are most and least likely to benefit from CTGC vs. SGC.
Detailed description
Five to 10% of all breast cancer cases have been attributed to two breast ovarian cancer susceptibility genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). Genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations is now available through clinical research programs using standard counseling protocols. The goal of pre test counseling is to facilitate informed decision making about whether to be tested and to prepare participants for possible outcomes. The goal of post test counseling is to provide information about risk status, recommendations for surveillance, and options for prevention. However, previous research suggests that African American and Caucasian women differ in their attitudes about and responses to pre test education and counseling. Increasingly, cultural beliefs and values are being recognized as important factors in genetic counseling. Despite recommendations to increase the cultural sensitivity of breast cancer risk counseling, such programs have not been developed or evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling (CTGC) protocol for African American women and evaluate its impact on psychological functioning and health behaviors compared with Standard Genetic Counseling (SGC) in a randomized clinical trial.
- To evaluate the relative impact of CTGC vs. SGC on decision making and satisfaction about BRCA1/2 testing. Compared to SGC, CTGC will lead to higher rates of test acceptance and satisfaction with testing decisions. These effects will be mediated by increases in perceived benefits and decreases in perceived limitations and risks of genetic testing.
- To evaluate the impact of CTGC vs. SGC on quality of life and health behaviors following BRCA1/2 testing. Compared to SGC, CTGC will lead to larger decreases in general and cancer specific distress, greater increases in adherence to cancer screening guidelines, and lower rates of prophylactic surgery. Reductions in psychological distress will be mediated by increased use of spiritual coping strategies.
Secondary Aim
To identify African American women who are most and least likely to benefit from CTGC vs. SGC. We predict that the relative benefits of CTGC will be greatest for women with greater endorsement of African American cultural values and those identified as BRCA1/2 carriers.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Female
- African American or Black
- 5% to 10% prior probability of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Men
- Individuals who are not African American or Black
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Psychological functioning
Cancer screening behaviors
Cancer risk reduction behaviors
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Aug 2016.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22790832Halbert CH, Kessler L, Collier A, Weathers B, Stopfer J, Domchek S, McDonald JA. Low rates of African American participation in genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations: racial disparities or just a difference? J Genet Couns. 2012 Oct;21(5):676-83. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9485-y. Epub 2012 Jul 12.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 20234119Halbert CH, Kessler L, Troxel AB, Stopfer JE, Domchek S. Effect of genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in African American women: a randomized trial. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7-8):440-8. doi: 10.1159/000293990. Epub 2010 Mar 17.
Related trials for Breast Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingPhase 2
Gene Signatures to Guide HR+MBC Therapy in a Diverse Cohort
Invasive Mammary Carcinoma, Metastatic Breast Cancer
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Comparison of Reliability, Time Cost, and Participant Comfort of Lymphedema Assessments in Upper Extremity
Lymphedema, Upper Extremity Lymphedema
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Combination With or Without Famitinib as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Participants With Triple Negative Breast Cancer (BCTOP-T-N01)
TNBC - Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
Testing Whether Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib is as Effective as Chemotherapy Followed by Hormone Therapy With Ribociclib for the Treatment of High Anatomic Stage Breast Cancer With Low Recurrence Risk, The RxFINE-Low Trial
Anatomic Stage II Breast Cancer AJCC v8, Anatomic Stage IIIA Breast Cancer AJCC v8
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Chanita Hughes-Halbert, Ph.D. principal investigator
University of Pennsylvania
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Culturally Tailored Genetic Counseling in people with Breast Cancer and Ovarian Cancer, run by University of Pennsylvania at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Aug 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Psychological functioning. The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00419510, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Aug 2016.