Adolescent and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing to inform cancer care.

Next-generation sequencing offers opportunities for targeted cancer therapies and may identify pathogenic germline variants. Adolescents' perception of testing is not well understood. We surveyed 16 adolescents and 59 parents regarding motivations, attitudes, and knowledge related to paired tumor/germline sequencing. Participants generally had a good objective understanding of germline genetics and cancer risk, with parents scoring higher than adolescents. Nearly all participants were motivated by a desire to help other patients and to treat their child/themselves. Most adolescents reported involvement in the decision to enroll in the study. Study findings suggest important similarities and differences between parent and adolescent views.

Disclosing genetic risk for Alzheimer's dementia to individuals with mild cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of predicting conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia using apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 114 individuals with MCI to receive estimates of 3-year risk of conversion to AD dementia informed by APOE genotyping (disclosure arm) or not (non-disclosure arm) in a non-inferiority clinical trial. Primary outcomes were anxiety and depression scores. Secondary outcomes included other psychological measures. RESULTS: Upper confidence limits for randomization arm differences were 2.3 on the State Trait Anxiety Index and 0.5 on the Geriatric Depression Scale, below non-inferiority margins of 3.3 and 1.0. Moreover, mean scores were lower in the disclosure arm than non-disclosure arm for test-related positive impact (difference: -1.9, indicating more positive feelings) and AD concern (difference: -0.3). DISCUSSION: Providing genetic information to individuals with MCI about imminent risk for AD does not increase risks of anxiety or depression and may provide psychological benefits.

Next-generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of precision oncology interventions poses several challenges to informed consent and patient education. This study assessed cancer patients' understanding, expectations, and outcomes regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care. METHODS: A total of 297 patients (mean age: 59 years; 50% female; 96% white) with refractory, metastatic cancer were surveyed, including 217 who completed surveys both before and after undergoing integrated whole exome and transcriptome sequencing as part of a larger clinical research study. RESULTS: At baseline, the vast majority of patients expected to receive several potential direct benefits from study participation, including written reports of sequencing findings (88%), greater understanding of the causes of their cancer (74%), and participation in clinical trials for which sequencing results would make them eligible (84%). In most cases, these benefits were not realized by study completion. Despite explanations from study personnel to the contrary, most participants (67%-76%) presumed that incidental germline sequencing findings relevant to noncancerous health conditions (eg, diabetes) would automatically be disclosed to them. Patients reported low levels of concern about study risks at baseline and low levels of regret about study participation at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients' expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing.

Oncologists' Use of Genomic Sequencing Data to Inform Clinical Management.

PURPOSE: To determine whether oncologists intended to change treatment as a result of tumor sequencing, and subsequently, whether patients experienced an alteration of clinical management or derived clinical benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective survey of oncologists referring adult patients with rare, advanced, or refractory cancer to the Michigan Oncology Sequencing program was conducted from June 2014 to March 2015 to assess the use of and intent to disclose sequencing findings. Oncologists' responses were compared with the referred patients' self-reported survey responses, and a content analysis of disclosure documented in the medical record was performed. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to determine if clinical management was informed or changed by sequencing results. RESULTS: Oncologists (response rate, 93%) referring 112 consecutive patients were surveyed. Medical records of patients were reviewed for changes in clinical management on the basis of sequencing findings. Oncologists intended to change the treatment of 22% of patients (n = 24) on the basis of sequencing findings. Of these patients, 37.5% (n = 9) had an actual change in clinical management. Thirty-four patients with postsequencing survey data reported that a results disclosure discussion did not occur, despite documentation of disclosure by the physician in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that many oncologists view next-generation sequencing results to be potentially valuable in directing subsequent therapy for their patients; however, barriers in communicating results to patients and implementing them in clinical management remain.