TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing

Stacy Loeb,Scott W Keith,Heather H Cheng,Amy E Leader,Laura Gross,Tatiana Sanchez Nolasco,Nataliya Byrne,Rebecca Hartman,Lauren H Brown,Christopher Michael Pieczonka,Leonard G Gomella,William Kevin Kelly,Costas D Lallas,Nathan Handley,Patrick Johnston Mille,James Ryan Mark,Gordon Andrew Brown,Sameer Chopra,Alexandra McClellan,David R Wise,Lucas Hollifield,Veda N Giri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00552

Abstract:Purpose: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. Methods: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. Results: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. Conclusion: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.