Measuring high-risk parents' opinions about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for adult-onset inherited cancer syndromes in their adolescent and young adult children.

Neither direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing nor predictive genetic testing for adult-onset conditions is recommended for minor children due to ethical concerns and low clinical utility. However, parents with pathogenic variants (PVs) in disease-causing genes may be interested in pursuing genetic testing that includes the familial PV for their children. The Pediatric Testing Attitudes Scale (P-TAS) was previously developed to examine high-risk parents' opinions about pediatric BRCA genetic testing for adult-onset breast/ovarian cancer. Here, the psychometric properties of the P-TAS were examined in a new sample of N = 126 parents (M age = 47.2 years) with PVs in a more complete set of cancer risk genes represented on DTC panel tests. The mean score on the P-TAS was 44 out of a maximum score of 60, indicating that a majority of parents generally held favorable opinions about testing their children for adult-onset inherited cancer syndromes. The internal consistency of the full scale was high (α = 0.91). A factor analysis identified two-component scales, labeled Attitudes and Beliefs (α = 0.93) and Decision Making and Communication (α = 0.83). In a multivariable regression model, P-TAS co-factors accounted for 34% of variance in parental opinions, including the frequency of prior family communication about cancer and the likelihood of utilizing DTC genetic testing with children (R2  = 0.34, p < 0.001). Results suggest that the P-TAS remains a reliable measure to assess high-risk parents' opinions about pediatric DTC genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, with promising validity. Applications of the P-TAS include informing genetic counseling practice, pediatric medical care, and policy guidelines surrounding DTC genetic testing.

Decision making in liver transplantation--limited application of the liver donor risk index.

The liver donor risk index (LDRI), originally developed in 2006 by Feng et al. and since modified, is a method of evaluating liver grafts from deceased donors through the determination of the relative risk of graft failure after transplantation. Online and paper surveys about attitudes and practices regarding decision making in liver transplantation and the role of the LDRI were sent to liver transplant physicians. One hundred forty-seven of 401 eligible respondents (37%) returned partial or complete surveys. The majority of the respondents were male (116/134 or 87%) and practiced in academic medical centers (128/138 or 93%). Transplant coordinators initially contacted the candidate with an offer in 81% of the programs. Eighty-eight of 143 respondents (62%) reported that they were very familiar with the LDRI, but the vast majority (114/137 or 83%) rarely or never discussed the concept of the LDRI with their patients. A majority of the respondents (96/132 or 73%) believed that the LDRI does not adequately describe a liver's relative risk of graft failure and that there are factors making the LDRI potentially misleading (122/138 or 88%). Nevertheless, 60 of 130 respondents (46%) believed that the LDRI would increase/improve shared decision making. The LDRI has not been widely adopted because of concerns that (1) it does not accurately reflect posttransplant survival, (2) it excludes relevant donor and recipient factors, and (3) it is too complicated for candidates to grasp. There is a need to improve it or to develop other decision-making tools to help promote shared decision making. There is also great diversity in how liver offers are made to ambulatory candidates and in how transplant programs address a candidate's refusal. Research is needed to determine evidence-based best practice.

The Advantages and Challenges of Testing Children for Heritable Predisposition to Cancer.

The increased application of germline genetic testing is expanding our understanding of the risk factors associated with childhood cancer development, and, in some cases, such testing is also informing clinical management. Nonetheless, the incorporation of genetic testing into the pediatric oncology setting is complex and associated with many ethical and practical challenges. The decision as to whether to pursue clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition for children should always be guided by the best interest of the child. Despite this fundamental ethical principle, patients, parents, and health care providers may differ in their opinions. Clinical genetic testing to detect the presence of predisposition syndromes associated with childhood-onset cancers, particularly those for which surveillance and preventive measures have proven to enhance outcome, is currently well accepted. On the other hand, clinical genetic testing of children for syndromes associated with adult-onset cancers has raised many concerns about the potential for psychological harm and disrespect of patient autonomy. As a consequence, such testing is not encouraged. The challenges surrounding germline genetic testing are further complicated when testing is done in the research setting and/or when it involves whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing approaches, which can uncover genetic variants that may or may not be associated with the disease under study. Accordingly, there is great debate around these processes and the most appropriate approaches regarding the return of test results. Future research is needed to enhance knowledge about how best to incorporate genomic information into clinical practice.