Digital innovation for cancer risk assessment allows large-scale service redevelopment of regional cancer genetics service delivery.

Family-history assessment can identify individuals above population-risk for cancer to enable targeted Screening, Prevention and Early Detection (SPED). The online patient-facing cancer Family History Questionnaire Service (cFHQS) is a digitalised, resource efficient tool for family history data capture to facilitate this. The capturing of digital data from cFHQS allows for data interrogation of patients referred to Clinical Genetics for the purposes of service improvement. Digital data from 4,044 cFHQS respondents over a three-year period was collected and interrogated with respect to the number and type of familial tumour diagnoses to enable service improvement and streamlining of referral pathways. 81% of colorectal and 71% of breast screening assessments were population- or moderate-risk. Most patients who completed cFHQS reported more than one diagnosis of cancer/tumour/polyps in their family. 2.5% of family history assessment patients had a second indication that required assessment that would have been missed if single tumour type assessment was undertaken. Implementation of an innovative, digital family history data collection pathway has allowed large scale interrogation of referral patterns and assessment outcomes to enable service development. The high volume of inappropriate referrals to Clinical Genetics for population and moderate risk patients highlighted the need for dedicated secondary care pathway provision for these patients. The use of cFHQS streamlined family history assessment allows for redistribution of resources to improve equity and access to genetic cancer risk assessment.

'A good decision is the one that feels right for me': Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website.

INTRODUCTION: Patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making. METHODS: Short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one 'best fit' theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback. CONCLUSION: Meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.

Proactive familial cancer risk assessment: a service development study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Family history assessment can identify individuals above population-risk for cancer to enable targeted Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection (SPED). Family History Questionnaire Service (FHQS) is a resource-efficient patient-facing online tool to facilitate this. In the UK, cancer risk assessment is usually only offered to concerned individuals proactively self-presenting to their GP, leading to inequity in accessing SPED in the community. AIM: To improve access to community cancer genetic risk assessment and explore barriers to uptake. DESIGN & SETTING: Service development project of a digital pathway using the FHQS for cancer risk assessment across four general practices within the clinical remit of the South West Thames Centre for Genomics (SWTCG). METHOD: 3100 individuals aged 38-50 years were invited to complete the FHQS through either text message or email. A random selection of 100 non-responders were contacted to determine barriers to uptake. RESULTS: In total, n = 304/3100 (10%) registered for the FHQS. Responders were more likely to be British (63% vs 47%, P<0.001), speak English as their main language (92% vs 76%, P<0.001), and not require an interpreter (99.6% vs 94.9%, P = 0.001). Of 304 responders, 158 (52%) were automatically identified as at population-risk without full family history review. Of the remaining 146 responders, 52 (36%) required either additional screening referral (n = 23), genetics referral (n = 15), and/or advice to relatives (n = 18). Of 100 non-responders contacted, eight had incorrect contact details and 53 were contactable. Reasons for not responding included not receiving invitation details (n = 26), losing the invitation (n = 5), or forgetting (n = 4). CONCLUSION: The FHQS can be used as part of a low-resource primary care pathway to identify individuals in the community above population-risk for cancer requiring action. This study highlighted barriers to uptake requiring consideration to maximise impact and minimise inequity.

Compassionate Removal of Heated High-Flow Nasal Cannula for End of Life: Case Series and Protocol Development.

Patients often receive burdensome care at the end of life in the form of interventions that may need to be removed. Heated high-flow oxygen delivered through a nasal cannula (HHFNC) is one such intervention that can be delivered in the hospital yet is rarely available outside of this setting. During the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, health care systems continue to face the possibility of rationing critical life-sustaining equipment that may include HHFNC. We present a clinical protocol designed for weaning HHFNC to allow a natural death and ensuring adequate symptom management throughout the process. This was a retrospective chart review of 8 patients seen by an inpatient palliative care service of an academic tertiary referral hospital who underwent terminal weaning of HHFNC using a structured protocol to manage dyspnea. Eight patients with diverse medical diagnoses, including COVID-19 pneumonia, underwent terminal weaning of HHFNC according to the clinical protocol with 4 down-titrations of approximately 25% for both fraction of inspired oxygen and liter flow with preemptive boluses of opioid and benzodiazepine. Clinical documentation supported good symptom control throughout the weaning process. This case series provides preliminary evidence that the clinical protocol proposed has the ability to ensure comfort through terminal weaning of HHFNC.

Prevalence of pathogenic variants in DNA damage response and repair genes in patients undergoing cancer risk assessment and reporting a personal history of early-onset renal cancer.

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in multiple genes are known to increase the risk of early-onset renal cancer (eoRC). However, many eoRC patients lack PVs in RC-specific genes; thus, their genetic risk remains undefined. Here, we determine if PVs in DNA damage response and repair (DDRR) genes are enriched in eoRC patients undergoing cancer risk assessment. Retrospective review of de-identified results from 844 eoRC patients, undergoing testing with a multi-gene panel, for a variety of indications, by Ambry Genetics. PVs in cancer-risk genes were identified in 12.8% of patients-with 3.7% in RC-specific, and 8.55% in DDRR genes. DDRR gene PVs were most commonly identified in CHEK2, BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. Among the 2.1% of patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV, < 50% reported a personal history of hereditary breast or ovarian-associated cancer. No association between age of RC diagnosis and prevalence of PVs in RC-specific or DDRR genes was observed. Additionally, 57.9% patients reported at least one additional cancer; breast cancer being the most common (40.1% of females, 2.5% of males). Multi-gene testing including DDRR genes may provide a more comprehensive risk assessment in eoRC patients. Further validation is needed to characterize the association with eoRC.

Longitudinal follow-up after telephone disclosure in the randomized COGENT study.

PURPOSE: To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. METHODS: Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

Tumor-Based Genetic Testing and Familial Cancer Risk.

As genetic testing on somatic tumor tissue becomes a more routine part of personalized cancer treatment, a growing opportunity arises to identify hereditary germline variants within those results. These germline results can affect future cancer screening for both patients and their family members. Finding this germline information can be complicated as a result of differences between somatic and germline testing processes, nomenclature, and outcome goals (e.g., treatment impact). The goal of this review is to highlight differences between somatic and germline testing and outline a potential guide to allow for appropriate clinical interpretation of somatic testing results in order to better facilitate genetic counseling referrals and confirmatory germline testing.

Interaction of germline variants in a family with a history of early-onset clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Identification of genetic factors causing predisposition to renal cell carcinoma has helped improve screening, early detection, and patient survival. METHODS: We report the characterization of a proband with renal and thyroid cancers and a family history of renal and other cancers by whole-exome sequencing (WES), coupled with WES analysis of germline DNA from additional affected and unaffected family members. RESULTS: This work identified multiple predicted protein-damaging variants relevant to the pattern of inherited cancer risk. Among these, the proband and an affected brother each had a heterozygous Ala45Thr variant in SDHA, a component of the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) complex. SDH defects are associated with mitochondrial disorders and risk for various cancers; immunochemical analysis indicated loss of SDHB protein expression in the patient's tumor, compatible with SDH deficiency. Integrated analysis of public databases and structural predictions indicated that the two affected individuals also had additional variants in genes including TGFB2, TRAP1, PARP1, and EGF, each potentially relevant to cancer risk alone or in conjunction with the SDHA variant. In addition, allelic imbalances of PARP1 and TGFB2 were detected in the tumor of the proband. CONCLUSION: Together, these data suggest the possibility of risk associated with interaction of two or more variants.

Guidelines-Based Cancer Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To build skills related to cancer risk assessment including: identification of elevated personal or hereditary cancer risks, incorporation of cancer risk models into clinical care, and reviewing elements of cancer risk education and informed consent. DATA SOURCES: Consensus and professional guidelines and published literature. CONCLUSION: Applying consensus guidelines to cancer risk education, along with building partnerships with other providers, is essential for oncology nurses and will ensure proper patient care and follow-up. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nursing has embraced advances in genetics and genomics and developed standards of practice that include genetics and genomics competency.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Clinical testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2: a worldwide snapshot of technological practices.

Clinical testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 began over 20 years ago. With the expiration and overturning of the BRCA patents, limitations on which laboratories could offer commercial testing were lifted. These legal changes occurred approximately the same time as the widespread adoption of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies. Little is known about how these changes impacted laboratory practices for detecting genetic alterations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes. Therefore, we sought to examine current laboratory genetic testing practices for BRCA1/BRCA2. We employed an online survey of 65 questions covering four areas: laboratory characteristics, details on technological methods, variant classification, and client-support information. Eight United States (US) laboratories and 78 non-US laboratories completed the survey. Most laboratories (93%; 80/86) used MPS platforms to identify variants. Laboratories differed widely on: (1) technologies used for large rearrangement detection; (2) criteria for minimum read depths; (3) non-coding regions sequenced; (4) variant classification criteria and approaches; (5) testing volume ranging from 2 to 2.5 × 105 tests annually; and (6) deposition of variants into public databases. These data may be useful for national and international agencies to set recommendations for quality standards for BRCA1/BRCA2 clinical testing. These standards could also be applied to testing of other disease genes.

Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Inherited Mutations in Men Undergoing Multigene Panel Testing for Prostate Cancer: Emerging Implications for Personalized Prostate Cancer Genetic Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels are commercially available for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCA) predisposition, which necessitates tailored genetic counseling (GC) for men. Here we describe emerging results of Genetic Evaluation of Men, prospective multigene testing study in PCA to inform personalized genetic counseling, with emerging implications for referrals, cancer screening, and precision therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for men affected by or at high risk for PCA encompass age, race, family history (FH), and PCA stage/grade. Detailed demographic, clinical, and FH data were obtained from participants and medical records. Multigene testing was conducted after GC. Mutation rates were summarized by eligibility criteria and compared across FH data. The 95% CI of mutation prevalence was constructed by using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: Of 200 men enrolled, 62.5% had PCA. Eleven (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 9.9%) had mutations; 63.6% of mutations were in DNA repair genes. FH of breast cancer was significantly associated with mutation status (P = .004), and FH that met criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome was significantly associated with PCA (odds ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.18). Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 70 men (35.0%). Among mutation carriers, 45.5% had personal/FH concordant with the gene. A tailored GC model was developed based on emerging findings. CONCLUSION: Multigene testing for PCA identifies mutations mostly in DNA repair genes, with implications for precision therapy. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive genetic evaluation for PCA beyond metastatic disease, including early-stage disease with strong FH. Detailed FH is important for referrals of men for genetic evaluation. The results inform precision GC and cancer screening for men and their male and female blood relatives.

The Relevance of Hereditary Cancer Risks to Precision Oncology: What Should Providers Consider When Conducting Tumor Genomic Profiling?

Through tumor genomic profiling (TGP), existing and novel treatments can be selected to better target the specific dysregulated molecular pathways that drive growth and spread of a patient's tumor. Although the primary purpose of TGP is to detect targetable somatic mutations for treatment, TGP may also uncover germline mutations with important implications for patients and family members. Oncology care providers should be aware of the hereditary cancer risks associated with genes commonly tested by TGP. Further, patients should be informed about the possible discovery of hereditary cancer risk information and the relevance of this information to their health and that of family members, and should have their preferences toward further evaluation of hereditary risk information that could be revealed by TGP documented in the medical record and followed.

Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (ß = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.

Utilizing Remote Real-Time Videoconferencing to Expand Access to Cancer Genetic Services in Community Practices: A Multicenter Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Videoconferencing has been used to expand medical services to low-access populations and could increase access to genetic services at community sites where in-person visits with genetic providers are not available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of, patient feedback of, and cognitive and affective responses to remote two-way videoconferencing (RVC) telegenetic services at multiple sociodemographically diverse community practices without access to genetic providers. METHODS: Patients at 3 community sites in 2 US states outside the host center completed RVC pretest (visit 1, V1) and post-test (visit 2, V2) genetic counseling for cancer susceptibility. Surveys evaluated patient experiences, knowledge, satisfaction with telegenetic and cancer genetics services, anxiety, depression, and cancer worry. RESULTS: A total of 82 out of 100 (82.0%) approached patients consented to RVC services. A total of 61 out of 82 patients (74%) completed pretest counseling and 41 out of 61 (67%) proceeded with testing and post-test counseling. A total of 4 out of 41 (10%) mutation carriers were identified: BRCA2, MSH2, and PMS2. Patients reported many advantages (eg, lower travel burden and convenience) and few disadvantages to RVC telegenetic services. Most patients reported feeling comfortable with the video camera--post-V1: 52/57 (91%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--and that their privacy was respected--post-V1: 56/57 (98%); post-V2: 40/41 (98%); however, some reported concerns that RVC might increase the risk of a confidentiality breach of their health information--post-V1: 14/57 (25%); post-V2: 12/41 (29%). While the majority of patients reported having no trouble seeing or hearing the genetic counselor--post-V1: 47/57 (82%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--51 out of 98 (52%) patients reported technical difficulties. Nonetheless, all patients reported being satisfied with genetic services. Compared to baseline, knowledge increased significantly after pretest counseling (+1.11 mean score, P=.005); satisfaction with telegenetic (+1.74 mean score, P=.02) and genetic services (+2.22 mean score, P=.001) increased after post-test counseling. General anxiety and depression decreased after pretest (-0.97 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.37 mean depression score, P=.046) and post-test counseling (-1.13 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.75 mean depression score, P=.01); state anxiety and cancer-specific worry did not significantly increase. CONCLUSIONS: Remote videoconferencing telegenetic services are feasible, identify genetic carriers in community practices, and are associated with high patient satisfaction and favorable cognitive and affective outcomes, suggesting an innovative delivery model for further study to improve access to genetic providers and services. Potential barriers to dissemination include technology costs, unclear billing and reimbursement, and state requirements for provider licensure.

Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer risk has been associated with positive outcomes in high risk women. However, little is known about how patients perceive TC. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus usual care (UC; in-person genetic counseling), we compared high risk women's perceptions of: (1) overall satisfaction with genetic counseling; (2) convenience; (3) attentiveness during the session; (4) counselor effectiveness in providing support; and (5) counselor ability to recognize emotional responses during the session. Among the 554 participants (TC, N = 272; UC, N = 282), delivery mode was not associated with self-reported satisfaction. However, TC participants found counseling significantly more convenient than UC participants (OR = 4.78, 95 % CI = 3.32, 6.89) while also perceiving lower levels of support (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.40-0.80) and emotional recognition (OR = 0.53, 95 % CI = 0.37-0.76). In exploratory analyses, we found that non-Hispanic white participants reported higher counselor support in UC than in TC (69.4 % vs. 52.8 %; OR = 3.06, 95 % CI = 1.39-6.74), while minority women perceived less support in UC vs. TC (58.3 % vs. 38.7 %; OR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.39-1.65). We discuss potential research and practice implications of these findings which may further improve the effectiveness and utilization of TC.

Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.