ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Research Participants' Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research.

Secondary or incidental results can be identified in genomic research that increasingly uses whole exome/genome sequencing. Understanding research participants' preferences for secondary results and what influences these decisions is important for patient education, counseling, and consent, and for the development of policies regarding return of secondary results. Two hundred nineteen research participants enrolled in genomic studies were surveyed regarding hypothetical preferences for specific types of secondary results, and these preferences were correlated with demographic information and psychosocial data. The majority of research participants (73%) indicated a preference to learn about all results offered, with no clear pattern regarding which results were not desired by the remaining participants. Participants who reported greater interest in genetic privacy were less likely to indicate a preference to learn all results, as were individuals who self-identified as Jewish. Although most research participants preferred to receive all secondary results offered, a significant subset preferred to exclude some results, suggesting that an all-or-none policy would not be ideal for all participants. The correlations between preferences to receive secondary results, religious identification, and privacy concerns demonstrate the need for culturally sensitive counseling and educational materials accessible to all education levels to allow participants to make the best choices for themselves.

Incidental germline variants in 1000 advanced cancers on a prospective somatic genomic profiling protocol.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing in cancer research may reveal germline variants of clinical significance. We report patient preferences for return of results and the prevalence of incidental pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Targeted exome sequencing of 202 genes was carried out in 1000 advanced cancers using tumor and normal DNA in a research laboratory. Pathogenic variants in 18 genes, recommended for return by The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, as well as PALB2, were considered actionable. Patient preferences of return of incidental germline results were collected. Return of results was initiated with genetic counseling and repeat CLIA testing. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients who underwent sequencing, 43 had likely PGVs: APC (1), BRCA1 (11), BRCA2 (10), TP53 (10), MSH2 (1), MSH6 (4), PALB2 (2), PTEN (2), TSC2 (1), and RB1 (1). Twenty (47%) of 43 variants were previously known based on clinical genetic testing. Of the 1167 patients who consented for a germline testing protocol, 1157 (99%) desired to be informed of incidental results. Twenty-three previously unrecognized mutations identified in the research environment were confirmed with an orthogonal CLIA platform. All patients approached decided to proceed with formal genetic counseling; in all cases where formal genetic testing was carried out, the germline variant of concern validated with clinical genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, 2.3% patients had previously unrecognized pathogenic germline mutations in 19 cancer-related genes. Thus, genomic sequencing must be accompanied by a plan for return of germline results, in partnership with genetic counseling.