MP09-16: Quality of Information in Spanish on BRCA and Genetic Testing in Prostate Cancer on YouTube

Brett Friedman*, Auburn Hills, MI, Kevin Pineault, Tatiana Sanchez Nolasco, New York, NY, Hala Borno, San Francisco, CA, Veda Giri, Philadelphia, PA, Stacy Loeb, New York, NY

Introduction: Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis in Hispanic/Latino male patients with a significant morbidity and mortality burden. Germline genetic testing, especially BRCA 1/2, can play an important role in decision-making around screening, management, and family impact. While Latino male focus groups have shown high interest in genetic testing for hereditary cancer, only 21% have heard of the tests compared to 50% of white and 33% of African-American men.Studies have also shown that Latino males are underrepresented among U.S. patients with prostate cancer referred for germline testing. Nationally, over 41 million people speak Spanish but 1 in 5 Latinos with Spanish spoken at home report speaking English “not well” or “not at all.” Our objective was to analyze the quality of top online content about genetic testing and BRCA 1/2 in prostate cancer in Spanish compared to English, as a potential contributor to the observed disparities in genetic evaluation

Methods: We focused on YouTube as the most commonly used social media platform in the U.S., and specifically by U.S. Hispanic adults. We conducted searches of YouTube in Spanish and English for searches of “BRCA y cancer de próstata,” “pruebas genéticas y cancer,” “BRCA and prostate cancer,” and “genetic testing and prostate cancer.” The first 10 videos from each search were examined using two validated instruments for the quality of consumer health information(n=40 total). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS.

Results: Among the top 40 videos in searches for BRCA and genetic testing, those in Spanish were more focused on basic information about prostate cancer, whereas English-language videos were significantly more likely to discuss genetic testing, clinical trials, and targeted therapy based on genetic results. Additionally, 20% of Spanish videos that came up in the search focused exclusively on women and breast cancer compared to 0% of English videos. A large majority ofSpanish-language videos (90%) were made in countries where Spanish is the primary language. Spanish-language videos had higher average view counts (13,888 vs 1,036; p=0.004), and more comments (20 vs 1; p = 0.007) compared to English-language videos. Although none of the videos in either language had significant misinformation, only 5% of Spanish videos demonstrated moderate- to high-qualityconsumer health information (DISCERN scores 4-5), compared to 45% of English videos (p=0.003). In both Spanish and English, few videos had high scores (PEMAT >75%) for understandability (20% and 30%, respectively) and actionability (10% and 20%, respectively) for lay audiences.

Conclusions: Spanish-language videos on BRCA and genetic testing in prostate cancer had a wider reach and user engagement compared to English-language videos; however, few Spanish videos contained high quality, understandable, and actionable information. Further study is warranted into the potential contribution of online information to disparities in knowledge and uptake of genetic evaluation among U.S. Hispanic/Latinomen with prostate cancer.

Source of Funding: Prostate Cancer Foundation and Department of Defense