The eREACH study: A randomized study of an eHEALTH delivery alternative for cancer genetic testing for hereditary predisposition in patients with metastatic cancers.

• DOI: 10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.10502
• Publication Date: 2025-05-28T14:10:42Z
• Authors: Angela R. Bradbury; Brian L. Egleston; Sarah Brown; Briana Mcleod; Dominique Fetzer; Cara Cacioppo; Janice Christiansen; Dana Farengo-Clark; Susan M. Domchek; Jessica E. Ebrahi...; Linda Fleisher; Sarah Howe; Kelsey Karpink; Kimberley T. Lee; Enida F. Selmani; Lynne I. Wagner; Michelle Weinberg; Kuang-Yi Wen; Elisabeth Wood
• Keywords: Genetic predisposition; Hereditary Cancer

10502 Background: With FDA approval of targeted therapies in patients with germline BRCA1/2 -related advanced cancers there is a need to evaluate efficient and effective delivery models for cancer genetic testing. Methods: eREACH 4 arm non-inferiority study where traditional standard-of-care pre-test (visit 1) post-test 2) counseling delivered by counselor (GC) are replaced patient-centered eHealth (digital) intervention or metastatic cancer. GC visits were offered telehealth the home. Arms include: A (GC/GC), B (GC/digital), C (digital/GC) D (digital/digital). Those assigned digital visit could request if preferred. Surveys completed at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) 6 months (T3). Primary outcomes change knowledge anxiety (T0-T1, T0-T2). Secondary include uptake testing, depression, specific distress, responses testing satisfaction. We used an intention-to-treat approach (ITT) as-treated (secondary). ANOVAs chi-squared tests hypothesis For we had additional rules based on magnitude sign effects. Results: 229 participants recruited from 14 states through Penn Medicine, community sites social media, 56-60 per arm.Participants 35-91 YO (mean 67 YO),and37% male, 17% non-white 43% less than college education. 70% academic sites, 21% 9% media. Cancer types were: 52% breast, 26% prostate, 18% pancreatic, 5% ovary. 173 (76%) (12% positive result, 12% VUS). In our primary ITT analyses, met threshold all secondary except (T0-T2) Increases greater A-C as compared Arm D, although differences small (averages +2.03-2.54 v +1.23). Uptake was lower arms (A: 94.7%, B: 92.7% v. C: 76.7%, D: 82.5%), non-inferiority. 20% 11% requested GC. As-treated analyses similar results. Conclusions: Offering one non-inferior two Reminders, outreach completion platforms clinic address uptake. The fully model may be associated gain, clinical significance small., longitudinal data help inform appropriateness model.