'I Live With Lynch. Cancer Worry Ebbs Into the Background, Then Something Brings It to the Fore.' A Qualitative Interview Study Exploring How Lynch Syndrome Carriers Make Sense of Their Cancer Risks and Implications to Support Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome carriers ('carriers') are presented with complex, emotionally laden choices regarding management of increased genetic cancer risks. Decision aids encourage active involvement in values-based health decisions. This paper aimed to address the research question: How do Lynch syndrome carriers make sense of their chances of developing cancer, and what are the implications for providing support with decision making about genetic cancer risk management? METHODS: Adult carriers were recruited through a genetics service or involvement with Lynch Syndrome UK. Semi-structured interviews explored lived experiences of carriers' access to care with a focus on decision support. Themes were constructed using framework analysis. These were developed into a conceptual model with recommendations for codevelopment of improved information and support including a tailored decision aid to complement integrated healthcare. RESULTS: Twenty participants included 12 women and eight men, half with a history of cancer. Six overarching themes were: (1) finding balance with Lynch; (2) living 'on higher alert'; (3) managing uncertainty: 'I've thought about it a lot'; (4) burden of responsibility: 'It's on me'; (5) access to joined-up care and support: 'There's something missing'; and (6) influence/pressure from others. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative interview study provided in-depth insights from Lynch syndrome carriers about their lived experiences, informed by their values. Recommendations to empower carriers to make sense of genetic cancer risks and support decisions included accessible, trusted information, educated healthcare professionals, shared decision making, and joined-up integrated care pathways complemented by tailored decision aids.

Attitudes towards disclosure of familial genetic risk in a Mediterranean island population - A survey of the Maltese population.

Germline genetic testing has implications that extend beyond the individual patient to relatives, particularly for high-penetrance variants implicated in hereditary cancer or neurodegenerative syndromes. Many countries encourage patient-led communication to inform at-risk relatives, although the efficacy and uptake of this approach varies. Alternative scenarios envisage direct contact mediated by clinicians. The familial disclosure of sensitive genetic information is also determined by complex socio-ethnic factors. To date, no study has explored whether relatives would want to be informed of familial genetic risk and their preferences on different methods of communication in Malta. We thus used a published instrument that utilizes hypothetical scenario methodology to survey the attitudes of the Maltese population (n = 334) to receiving genetic information from family members. Two vignettes on Huntington's disease and colorectal cancer were presented. We also explored preferences towards the communication of genetic risk, confidentiality, and disclosure policies. Our preliminary results show that most respondents want to be informed of their increased risk by a family member or a clinician and would opt to receive confirmatory genetic testing. Most respondents preferred being informed of genetic risk by a close relative, but in the case of non-disclosure would want to be informed by a clinician. Most respondents expressed preference in favour of the introduction of registries, legislative change and sharing of contact details to address cases of nondisclosure. Our findings contribute further to evidence that supports, in selected hypothetical scenarios, an envisioned change in disclosure of genetic data policy by the public that is different from current practice to date.

The psychosocial impact of prostate cancer screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.

OBJECTIVES: To report the long-term outcomes from a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the 'Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted Screening in men at higher genetic risk and controls' (IMPACT) study. The IMPACT study is a multi-national study of targeted prostate cancer (PrCa) screening in individuals with a known germline pathogenic variant (GPV) in either the BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1) or the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a psychosocial questionnaire prior to each annual screening visit for a minimum of 5 years. The questionnaire included questions on sociodemographics and the following measures: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, Memorial Anxiety Scale for PrCa, Cancer Worry Scale, risk perception and knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 760 participants completed questionnaires: 207 participants with GPV in BRCA1, 265 with GPV in BRCA2 and 288 controls (non-carriers from families with a known GPV). We found no evidence of clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor health-related quality of life in the cohort as a whole. Individuals in the control group had significantly less worry about PrCa compared with the carriers; however, all mean scores were low and within reported general population norms, where available. BRCA2 carriers with previously high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels experience a small but significant increase in PrCa anxiety (P = 0.01) and PSA-specific anxiety (P < 0.001). Cancer risk perceptions reflected information provided during genetic counselling and participants had good levels of knowledge, although this declined over time. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the longitudinal psychosocial impact of a targeted PrCa screening programme for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. The results reassure that an annual PSA-based screening programme does not have an adverse impact on psychosocial health or health-related quality of life in these higher-risk individuals. These results are important as more PrCa screening is targeted to higher-risk groups.

Attitudes toward genetic testing, family planning and preimplantation genetic testing in families with a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant.

Individuals with a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant (PV) have a highly increased life time risk of melanoma and pancreatic cancer. This cross-sectional study assessed the attitudes among toward genetic testing, family planning, and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in confirmed CDKN2A PV carriers and individuals with a 50% risk of the PV (at-risk carriers) using of a one-time questionnaire.A total of 537 individuals were screened for eligibility, of whom 208 of 366 (57%) confirmed carriers (56% female, median age 54 years [IQR 46-63]) and 39 of 171 (23%) at-risk carriers (59% female, median age of 26 years [IQR 22-32]) participated in the study. Primary motivations for genetic testing were to gain control over their personal and children's cancer risk, as well as increasing cancer surveillance practices. In contrast, concerns about obtaining a mortgage and life insurance were frequently cited as reasons for postponing genetic testing. Family planning decisions remained largely unaffected in both confirmed and at-risk carriers; however, the majority of confirmed carriers were still unaware of their familial or personal cancer risk when starting a family. More than 60% of the participants were unfamiliar with PGT and only a minority (19% of confirmed carriers and 10% of at-risk carriers) would be open to considering PGT as a reproductive option. This study found different attitudes toward genetic testing, family planning, and PGT among individuals affected by the CDKN2A PV. Understanding these different attitudes can help clinicians to address the complexities surrounding these issues, especially for younger individuals facing difficult decisions about the timing of genetic testing, family planning, and the potential use of assisted reproductive options.

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. RESULTS: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. PROSPERO: CRD42023444890.

Psychological distress and uterine fibroids: a bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: Observational data indicates a connection between emotional discomfort, such as anxiety and depression, and uterine fibroids (UFs). However, additional investigation is required to establish the causal relationship between them. Hence, we assessed the reciprocal causality between four psychological disorders and UFs utilizing two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: To evaluate the causal relationship between four types of psychological distress (depressive symptoms, severe depression, anxiety or panic attacks, mood swings) and UFs, bidirectional two-sample MR was employed, utilizing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with these conditions. Both univariate MR (UVMR) and multivariate MR (MVMR) primarily applied inverse variance weighted (IVW) as the method for estimating potential causal effects. Complementary approaches such as MR Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode were utilized to validate the findings. To assess the robustness of our MR results, we conducted sensitivity analyses using Cochran's Q-test and the MR Egger intercept test. RESULTS: The results of our UVMR analysis suggest that genetic predispositions to depressive symptoms (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.563, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.209-2.021, P = 0.001) and major depressive disorder (MDD) (OR = 1.176, 95% CI = 1.044-1.324, P = 0.007) are associated with an increased risk of UFs. Moreover, the IVW model showed a nominally significant positive correlation between mood swings (OR: 1.578; 95% CI: 1.062-2.345; P = 0.024) and UFs risk. However, our analysis did not establish a causal relationship between UFs and the four types of psychological distress. Even after adjusting for confounders like body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol consumption, and number of live births in the MVMR, the causal link between MDD and UFs remained significant (OR = 1.217, 95% CI = 1.039-1.425, P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Our study presents evidence supporting the causal relationship between genetic susceptibility to MDD and the incidence of UFs. These findings highlight the significance of addressing psychological health issues, particularly depression, in both the prevention and treatment of UFs.

The role of loneliness and social isolation in mediating the relationship between childhood maltreatment and schizophrenia: A genetically informed approach.

Observational studies have found loneliness and social isolation to mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and schizophrenia. Limitations with observational studies (e.g., confounding and reverse causation), however, have meant the robustness of these relationships has thus far not been explored. To address this gap, the current study utilized genomic structural equation modeling (genomic SEM) and Mendelian randomization (MR) to perform a genetic mediation analysis between childhood maltreatment, loneliness/isolation, and schizophrenia, using summary statistics from three genome-wide association studies (sample sizes 105,318-487,647). While we observed a putative effect of both childhood maltreatment (inverse variance weighted OR = 3.44 per standard deviation increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.66-7.13], p < .001) and loneliness/isolation (OR = 2.98, 95% CI [1.37-6.46], p = .006) on schizophrenia, our hypothesis that loneliness/isolation would mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and schizophrenia was not supported (genomic SEM indirect effect = -0.05, SE = 0.05, p = .255; MR indirect effect = 0.10, SE = 0.11, p = .369). Furthermore, reverse mediation analysis indicated that the effect may be in the opposite direction (genomic SEM indirect effect = 0.11, SE = 0.02, p < .001; MR indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.00, p < .001), accounting for 20.3%-28.9% of the total effect. The current results suggest that intervening in loneliness/isolation in individuals with a history of childhood maltreatment is unlikely to reduce schizophrenia risk. On the contrary, targeting loneliness/isolation in individuals with a genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia may diminish childhood maltreatment risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Factors associated with psychological distress during genetic counseling in high-risk women with breast cancer in Turkey.

PURPOSE: This study aims to shed light on the rather neglected area of research of psychological distress in women facing genetic counselling in Turkey, where few institutions providing such counselling exist. METHODS: 105 breast cancer patients presenting for genetic testing completed a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire as well as validated structured questionnaires including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S/T) and the Health Motivation Sub-dimension of Champion's Health Belief Model Scale. RESULTS: 69.5% of the participants had lost a family member from cancer; 80% said the term "cancer" elicited negative thoughts (e.g., death, fear, and incurable disease). 62.9% and 37.1% attributed cancer to stress or sorrow, and genetic susceptibility, respectively. There was a negative association between health motivation and BDI scores (r:-0.433, p < 0.001). Married individuals had higher BDI and STAI-S scores (p = 0.001, p = 0.01 respectively), as well as lower STAI-T scores (p = 0.006). BDI, STAI-S and STAI-T scores were higher in those refusing genetic testing (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003 respectively) and those with metastases (p = 0.03, p = 0.01, p = 0.03 respectively). Furthermore, individuals with low health motivation were more likely to exhibit high BDI scores (p < 0.001) and low STAI-T scores (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Common perceptions and beliefs about cancer and genetic testing during genetic counselling were found to have a negative impact on distress in high-risk women with breast cancer. The negative relationship between psychological distress and health motivation may reduce patients' compliance with genetic counselling recommendations. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be considered as an important part of genetic counselling.

Men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a pathogenic germline variant in breast cancer genes: disclosure of genetic test results to relatives.

Some patients with metastatic prostate cancer carry a pathogenic germline variant (PV) in a gene, that is mainly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women. If they test positive for such a PV, prostate cancer patients are encouraged to disclose the genetic test result to relatives who are at risk in case the carrier status changes the relatives' medical care. Our study aimed to investigate how men who learned they carry a PV in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 or ATM disclosed their carrier status to at-risk relatives and to assess the possible psychological burden for the carrier and their perception of the burden for relatives. In total, 23 men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a PV completed the IRI questionnaire about family communication; 14 also participated in a semi-structured interview. Patients felt highly confident in discussing the genetic test result with relatives. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was experienced as a burden, whereas being informed about genetic testing results did in most cases not add to this burden. Two patients encountered negative experiences with family communication, as they considered the genetic test result to be more urgent than their relatives. This mixed-methods study shows that metastatic prostate cancer patients with a PV in genes mainly associated with increased risk of breast cancer feel well-equipped to communicate about this predisposition in their families. Carriers felt motivated to disclose their genetic test result to relatives. Most of them indicated that the disclosure was not experienced as a psychological burden.

Psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a scoping review.

Despite increased awareness and availability of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome for over 20 years, there is still significant underuse of cascade genetic testing among at-risk relatives. This scoping review synthesized evidence regarding psychosocial barriers and facilitators of family communication and/or uptake of cascade genetic testing in relatives from HBOC families. Search terms included 'hereditary breast and ovarian cancer' and 'cascade genetic testing' for studies published from 2012-2022. Through searching common databases, and manual search of references, 480 studies were identified after excluding duplications. Each article was reviewed by two researchers independently and 20 studies were included in the final analysis. CASP, RoBANS 2.0, RoB 2.0, and MMAT were used to assess the quality of included studies. A convergent data synthesis method was used to integrate evidence from quantitative and narrative data into categories and subcategories. Evidence points to 3 categories and 12 subcategories of psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade testing: (1) facilitators (belief in health protection and prevention; family closeness; decisional empowerment; family support, sense of responsibility; self-efficacy; supportive health professionals); (2) bidirectional concepts (information; perception of genetic/cancer consequences; negative emotions and attitude); and (3) barriers (negative reactions from family and negative family dynamics). Healthcare providers need to systematically evaluate these psychosocial factors, strengthen facilitators and alleviate barriers to promote informed decision-making for communication of genetic test results and uptake of genetic testing. Bidirectional factors merit special consideration and tailored approaches, as they can potentially have a positive or negative influence on family communication and uptake of genetic testing.

Understanding Social, Cultural, and Religious Factors Influencing Medical Decision-Making on BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing in the Orthodox Jewish Community.

INTRODUCTION: Although the prevalence of a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is about 1:400 (0.25%) in the general population, the prevalence is as high as 1:40 (2.5%) among the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Despite cost-effective preventive measures for mutation carriers, Orthodox Jews constitute a cultural and religious group that requires different approaches to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing relative to other groups. This study analyzed a dialog of key stakeholders and community members to explore factors that influence decision-making about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in the New York Orthodox Jewish community. METHODS: Qualitative research methods, based on Grounded Theory and Narrative Research, were utilized to analyze the narrative data collected from 49 key stakeholders and community members. A content analysis was conducted to identify themes; inter-rater reliability was 71%. RESULTS: Facilitators of genetic testing were a desire for preventive interventions and education, while barriers to genetic testing included negative emotions, feared impact on family/romantic relationships, cost, and stigma. Views differed on the role of religious leaders and healthcare professionals in medical decision-making. Education, health, and community were discussed as influential factors, and concerns were expressed about disclosure, implementation, and information needs. CONCLUSION: This study elicited the opinions of Orthodox Jewish women (decision-makers) and key stakeholders (influencers) who play critical roles in the medical decision-making process. The findings have broad implications for engaging community stakeholders within faith-based or culturally distinct groups to ensure better utilization of healthcare services for cancer screening and prevention designed to improve population health.

Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

BACKGROUND: Understanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes. PURPOSE: This review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing. STUDY SELECTION: Following independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework. LIMITATIONS: This review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS: Test effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Test effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.

A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Why do people seek out polygenic risk scores for complex disorders, and how do they understand and react to results?

We sought to explore individuals' motivations for using their direct-to-consumer genetic testing data to generate polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using a not-for-profit third-party tool, and to assess understanding of, and reaction to their results. Using a cross-sectional design, users of Impute.me who had already accessed PRS results were invited to complete an online questionnaire asking about demographics, motivations for seeking PRSs, understanding and interpretation of PRSs, and two validated scales regarding reactions to results-the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR). Independent samples T-tests and ANOVA were used to explore associations between the variables. 227 individuals participated in the study. The most frequently reported motivation was general curiosity (98.2%). Only 25.6% of participants correctly answered all questions assessing understanding/interpretation of PRSs. Over half of participants (60.8%) experienced a negative reaction (upset, anxious, and/or sad on FACToR scale) after receiving their PRSs and 5.3% scored over the threshold for potential post-traumatic stress disorder on the IES-R. Lower understanding about PRS was associated with experiencing a negative psychological reaction (P values <0.001). Higher quality pre-test information, particularly to improve understanding, and manage expectations for PRS may be useful in limiting negative psychological reactions.

Patient-reported anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing cancer genetic risk information with family members.

While prior studies have largely focused on family communication of diagnostic single-gene test results or specific types of cancer testing results, far less work has investigated family communication of cancer-related genetic results that include multi-gene panels, a broad array of cancer types/stages, and participants without family history of cancer. The study we report here examined individuals' anticipated barriers and benefits to sharing genetic information with family members. An 80+ gene panel was performed on participants recruited from Mayo Clinic, diagnosed with different cancer types, who did not have a family history suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants completed a 49-item survey before receiving genetic test results. Family variant testing was provided to family members at no cost, allowing factors influencing intent to share to be examined in the absence of financial burdens. In all, 1721 of 2984 individuals who received genetic testing completed the survey (57.7% completion rate). Participants' intent to share with parents, siblings, and children was inversely related to the number of anticipated barriers to sharing and directly related to the number of anticipated benefits to sharing. Of those participants who did not intend to share with parents, siblings, and adult children, 64.8%, 30.3%, and 67.6% reported that there were no barriers, while 17.1%, 24.5%, and 40.2.% reported there were no benefits. Findings indicate that barriers to sharing genetic information with family members vary across family member types, and an inability to identify at least one benefit of sharing with family members is a predictor of intent not to share.

Psychosocial Effect of Newborn Genomic Sequencing on Families in the BabySeq Project: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) may provide health benefits throughout the life span, but there are concerns that it could also have an unfavorable (ie, negative) psychosocial effect on families. Objective: To assess the psychosocial effect of nGS on families from the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of nGS on the clinical care of newborns from well-baby nurseries and intensive care units. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted from May 14, 2015, to May 21, 2019, at well-baby nurseries and intensive care units at 3 Boston, Massachusetts, area hospitals, 519 parents of 325 infants completed surveys at enrollment, immediately after disclosure of nGS results, and 3 and 10 months after results disclosure. Statistical analysis was performed on a per-protocol basis from January 16, 2019, to December 1, 2019. Intervention: Newborns were randomized to receive either standard newborn screening and a family history report (control group) or the same plus an nGS report of childhood-onset conditions and highly actionable adult-onset conditions (nGS group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean responses were compared between groups and, within the nGS group, between parents of children who received a monogenic disease risk finding and those who did not in 3 domains of psychosocial impact: parent-child relationship (Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale), parents' relationship (Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale), and parents' psychological distress (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale). Results: A total of 519 parents (275 women [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 35.1 [4.5] years) were included in this study. Although mean scores differed for some outcomes at singular time points, generalized estimating equations models did not show meaningful differences in parent-child relationship (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale scores: postdisclosure, 0.04 [0.15]; 3 months, -0.18 [0.18]; 10 months, -0.07 [0.20]; joint P = .57) or parents' psychological distress (between-group ratio of adjusted mean [SE] Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores: postdisclosure, 1.04 [0.08]; 3 months, 1.07 [0.11]; joint P = .80) response patterns between study groups over time for any measures analyzed in these 2 domains. Response patterns on one parents' relationship measure differed between groups over time (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale scores: postdisclosure, -0.19 [0.07]; 3 months, -0.04 [0.07]; and 10 months, -0.01 [0.08]; joint P = .02), but the effect decreased over time and no difference was observed on the conflict measure responses over time. We found no evidence of persistent negative psychosocial effect in any domain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of nGS, there was no persistent negative psychosocial effect on families among those who received nGS nor among those who received a monogenic disease risk finding for their infant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511.

Young people's moral attitudes and motivations towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing for inherited risk of Alzheimer disease.

PURPOSE: Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sales of genetic tests for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk, a heated debate has arisen over whether these tests should indeed be offered online and direct-to-consumer (DTC). As this debate progresses, it is important to understand the ethical perspectives and motivations of young people, who are a key target group for DTC services. METHODS: Thirty-one grandchildren of people with LOAD, aged 16-26, were interviewed about their moral attitudes and motivations with regards to DTC genetic testing for LOAD. RESULTS: Even though most participants claimed that people should have the right to access these services, they also expressed concerns about potential distress in response to learning about risk, particularly for minors. About a third were interested in testing, primarily to gain self-knowledge regarding one's health; however, face-to-face services were vastly preferred over the online option. CONCLUSION: While DTC genetic companies often market their services as a "fun consumer product", DTC testing for LOAD was largely understood as a serious health screening procedure and a vulnerable moment in the lives of young people in Alzheimer's families. This points to the importance of appropriate standards of information and support to young people pre- and post-testing.

Incidental findings in a series of 2500 gene panel tests for a genetic predisposition to cancer: Results and impact on patients.

With next generation sequencing, physicians are faced with more complex and uncertain data, particularly incidental findings (IF). Guidelines for the return of IF have been published by learned societies. However, little is known about how patients are affected by these results in a context of oncogenetic testing. Over 4 years, 2500 patients with an indication for genetic testing underwent a gene cancer panel. If an IF was detected, patients were contacted by a physician/genetic counsellor and invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to assess their understanding of the result, the change in medical care, the psychological impact, and the transmission of results to the family. Fourteen patients (0.56%) were delivered an IF in a cancer predisposition gene (RAD51C, PMS2, SDHC, RET, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDKN2A, CDH1, SUFU). Two patients did not collect the results and another two died before the return of results. Within the 10 patients recontacted, most of them reported surprise at the delivery of IF, but not anxiety. The majority felt they had chosen to obtain the result and enough information to understand it. They all initiated the recommended follow-up and did not regret the procedure. Information regarding the IF was transmitted to their offspring but siblings or second-degree relatives were not consistently informed. No major adverse psychological events were found in our experience. IF will be inherent to the development of sequencing, even for restricted gene panels, so it is important to increase our knowledge on the impact of such results in different contexts.

Influential Factors on Risk-reduction Mastectomy in a High-risk Breast Cancer Population With Genetic Predispositions.

BACKGROUND: Carriers of deleterious mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are presented with critical choices regarding cancer risk management. Risk-reduction mastectomy is a major preventative strategy in this population. Understanding the decision-making process for prophylactic mastectomy is essential in patient-centered care for high-risk carriers and patients with breast cancer. We sought to provide insight into influential factors underlying preventative surgery decisions among individuals with high breast cancer risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of pathogenic carriers of high-risk breast cancer genes who presented to the Moffitt GeneHome clinic between March 2017 and June 2020. Associations between preventative mastectomy choice and influence variables were analyzed via unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 258 high-risk mutation carriers, 104 (40.3%) underwent risk-reduction mastectomy. A significantly higher proportion of mastectomy patients reported prior history of breast cancer (68.9% vs. 16.5%; P < .001) and history of other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgeries (61.7% vs. 25.8%; P < .001). Significant predictors affecting surgery decision included previous breast cancer history (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.59-19.63; P < .0001), other risk-reduction or noncancer-related surgical history (aOR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.28-9.47; P < .0001), and age at presentation to the genetics clinic (< 35 years old: aOR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.04-7.4; P = .042; 35-55 years old: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.19-5.18; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Preventive mastectomy decisions are highly personal and complex. In our sample, we observed prior history or concurrent breast cancer, history of other risk-reduction surgery or noncancer-related surgery, and younger age at presentation to the GeneHome clinic to be predictive of mastectomy uptake.