A qualitative focus group analysis: Increasing fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs.

Genetic counselors are an integral part of the healthcare system; however, the number of genetic counselors in many parts of the United States is limited, impacting access to comprehensive healthcare for all patients. One solution to addressing this deficit includes modifying genetic counseling training programs to increase student enrollment. Fieldwork capacity, driven by a limited number of rotation sites and supervisors, produces a significant bottleneck to entering the profession. Other professions have reported on techniques to increase fieldwork capacity; however, the practicality of these techniques for genetic counseling training has yet to be explored. This study seeks to investigate the perspectives of key stakeholders in genetic counseling training programs on the practicality of techniques already posited in the literature from other allied health professions. Semi-structured focus group interviews with 25 participants were conducted at the 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors conference. Participants included program directors and supervisors from clinical, industry, and laboratory backgrounds. The focus group responses were analyzed using directed content analysis and a split coding technique, after which several themes emerged within the larger domains of rotation structures, systems infrastructure, skill-building methods, and other novel techniques to increase fieldwork capacity. Emerging themes included the importance of finding quality student placements rather than maximizing the quantity of participatory cases; a need for transparency about the transferability of skills learned from novel experiences; scaffolding student entrustment to expand supervisor capacity; and recognizing nuances in implementation for individual programs. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of openness in communication to manage expectations for students and supervisors, who may be more hesitant to try novel rotation placements and skill-building techniques. Genetic counseling programs may use these results to address the bottleneck of fieldwork capacity, increasing student enrollment.

The Genetic Testing Experience of Individuals with Parkinson's Disease.

Background: The perspective and experiences of individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) regarding genetic testing is limited. Objectives: To determine if anticipated benefits and negative consequences of genetic testing noted in prior studies have occurred in a surveyed group of patients with PD and to identify reasons why some individuals with PD have not had testing. Methods: Individuals were surveyed from 22 support/advocacy groups throughout the US. Information about patient demographics and genetic testing were assessed, along with the consequences experienced after testing or anticipated by those who have not had testing. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficient, ANOVA, and independent sample t-test were utilized for data analysis. Results: Of the genetic testing group (n = 78), most received testing through a research study (44.9%) or a Direct-to-Consumer company (46.2%). Most did not meet with a genetic counselor before (87.2%) or after testing (64.1%). Fewer positive and fewer negative consequences were reported after testing compared to the consequences anticipated by those who have not undergone testing (P < 0.001, all comparisons). Of the non-genetic testing group (n = 166), 49.4% did not undergo testing because they were not aware it was available and 38.0% because their doctor did not offer it. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate the need for providers to have genetic testing discussions with PD patients, who may otherwise seek testing via Direct-to-Consumer companies or be unaware it is available. Collaborations with genetic counselors trained in providing anticipatory guidance may assist patients in forming more realistic expectations regarding the consequences experienced after genetic testing for PD.

Psychosocial impact of proactive rapid genetic counseling following breast cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: As germline genetic referral becomes increasingly routine as part of the care of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, it is important to understand the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis. We examined the psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) impact of providing proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in the immediate aftermath of a breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We randomized 330 patients in a 2:1 ratio to proactive rapid genetic counseling (RGCT; N = 222) versus usual care (UC; N = 108). Participants completed a baseline telephone survey before randomization and definitive surgery and a follow-up survey at 1-month post-randomization. We evaluated the impact of RGCT versus UC on breast cancer genetic knowledge, distress, QOL, and decisional conflict. Given that 43% of UC participants and 86% of RGCT participants completed genetic counseling prior to the 1-month assessment, we also evaluated the impact of genetic counseling participation over and above group assignment. RESULTS: The RGCT intervention led to increased breast cancer genetic knowledge relative to UC but did not differentially impact other study outcomes. Across groups patients who participated in genetic counseling had significantly increased knowledge and improved QOL compared to those who did not participate in genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: While prior research has documented the impact of genetic counseling and testing on surgical decisions, these results confirm that participation in genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis can yield improvements in knowledge and QOL in the short-term.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.

PURPOSE: Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. METHODS: We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. RESULTS: Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20). CONCLUSION: Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review.

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Open communication of Duchenne muscular dystrophy facilitates disclosure process by parents to unaffected siblings.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive childhood onset neuromuscular disease with no known cure. There is extensive literature about the impact of a diagnosis on the psychosocial well-being of unaffected siblings, with a need for additional research to provide information about optimal ways to disclose this information to unaffected children. We sought to explore the parental experiences of disclosing a sibling's diagnosis of DMD to unaffected children who were age 8-17 years old either at the time of their sibling's diagnosis or presently. Parents were recruited through Maryland Muscular Dystrophy Association, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Neuromuscular Center. An interview guide, rooted in family communication, was created to incorporate themes and topics found in literature specific to DMD and disclosure to unaffected siblings. We qualitatively explored these experiences through semi-structured interviews and performed thematic analysis using a coding system to identify overarching themes and subthemes. Several main themes regarding challenges to the disclosure process emerged. We identified the following themes in procedural aspects of disclosure: lack of provider support, importance of the DMD community, and open and gradual timeline of disclosure. Under emotional experiences, we identified these themes: overwhelming nature, elements of surprise disclosure, and balancing parental and sibling needs. Most questions from unaffected siblings related to procedural elements of care such as treatments and equipment. Additional unanticipated themes emerged that may contribute to the knowledge of family culture surrounding DMD: the complex role of Facebook as a family resource, deferring carrier testing for siblings, and inclusion of DMD in school projects. While the process of disclosure is complicated by a variety of factors such as lack of provider support and overwhelming emotional burden, families highlight the importance of open communication in discussion with unaffected children.

A narrative literature review: Growing the workforce through increased fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs.

In response to mounting concerns regarding a perceived shortage of genetic counselors, the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group (WFWG) was established in 2013 to identify barriers to growth of the genetic counseling workforce. After completing a workforce analysis and confirming a shortage, the WFWG convened a strategic planning session in 2017 to identify goals and strategies that would increase the number of certified counselors to meet the current and future workforce demands and ensure access to genetic counselor services. Subcommittees were formed and charged with achieving assigned goals; one such subcommittee included a curriculum working group to build a dynamic and effective educational infrastructure to increase the number of genetic counselors graduated from accredited training program. This paper reports of progress of the WFWG Curriculum Subcommittee toward achieving this goal through a narrative literature review that identifies innovative education methods that help to increase capacity of fieldwork training, both in genetic counseling training programs and in other health professions. Of the five thematic areas identified in this study, four are analyzed for insight into building clinical capacity: systems/infrastructure, rotation structure/models, skill building, and novel techniques. While additional studies are needed to establish best practices in these thematic areas, there are several take-aways that training programs can begin to utilize as they look to expand training opportunities. While growth of the genetic counseling workforce will continue to be a long-term issue, programs should begin to think creatively and innovatively about how to reach beyond traditional fieldwork training formats to build capacity. The strategies explored in this paper offer feasible and untapped solutions that can help support efforts to establish a sustainable genetic counseling workforce.

Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in genetically high risk newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM. RESULTS: Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM. CONCLUSION: The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.

Caregivers' perception of and experience with variants of uncertain significance from whole exome sequencing for children with undiagnosed conditions.

Despite its promising diagnostic yield, whole exome sequencing (WES) frequently introduces variant(s) of uncertain significance (VUS), which have been speculated to cause parental stress and anxiety. This study aimed to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving a VUS from pediatric WES on caregivers and to identify implications for clinical practice. Fourteen telephone interviews were conducted with parents or legal guardians who received VUS results from their child's WES to assess their understanding of the result, affective responses, perceived impact, and adaptation. Our content analysis showed that most participants had a good understanding of the purpose of the test and the majority of them recalled the result category. Most participants deemed the result had no impact thus far on their perception of their child's condition. However, one participant reported feelings of fear related to the VUS. Most participants experienced a range of emotions from receiving the result. The majority of participants reported that this result did not significantly alter their child's care or their ability to take care of their child, and three participants reported empowerment. Additionally, several participants expressed an interest in research studies and peer support groups dedicated to families with a VUS identified on WES. Our study elicited new information about the psychosocial impact of receiving a VUS from WES. This insight may help to guide pre- and post-WES counseling in the future.

Genetic counseling in industry settings: Opportunities in the era of precision health.

The skill sets of genetic counselors are strongly utilized in industry, as evidenced by 20% of genetic counselors reporting employment within industry in 2016. In addition, industry genetic counselors are expanding their roles, taking on new responsibilities, and creating new opportunities. These advances have impacted the profession as a whole including, but not limited to, genetic counseling training curricula, a shift back to genetic counseling directly to patients, and a growing influence of genetic counselors on industry test offerings. Industry genetic counselors and training programs are working together to address the challenges and opportunities presented by workforce changes and novel interpretations of how genetic counselors' core competencies can be utilized. Counseling of patients by industry genetic counselors has become more commonplace and addresses a need for alternate service delivery models. Industry genetic counselors often provide significant contributions to test development, education, marketing, and interpretation. Beyond these broad examples, individual industry genetic counselors have created unique niches for themselves, using their genetic counseling training combined with unique opportunities offered through industry, as illustrated by genetic counselors' various roles and responsibilities highlighted here.

Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer patients who carry BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutations may consider bilateral mastectomy. Having bilateral mastectomy at the time of diagnosis not only reduces risk of a contralateral breast cancer, but can eliminate the need for radiation therapy and yield improved reconstruction options. However, most patients do not receive genetic counseling or testing at the time of their diagnosis. In this trial, we tested proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in order to facilitate pre-surgical genetic counseling and testing. METHODS: We recruited newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at increased risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Of 379 eligible patients who completed a baseline survey, 330 agreed to randomization in a 2:1 ratio to RGCT (n = 220) versus UC (n = 108). Primary outcomes were genetic counseling and testing uptake and breast cancer surgical decisions. RESULTS: RGCT led to higher overall (83.8% vs. 54.6%; p < 0.0001) and pre-surgical (57.8% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.001) genetic counseling uptake compared to UC. Despite higher rates of genetic counseling, RGCT did not differ from UC in overall (54.1% vs. 49.1%, p > 0.10) or pre-surgical (30.6% vs. 27.4%, p > 0.10) receipt of genetic test results nor did they differ in uptake of bilateral mastectomy (26.6% vs. 21.8%, p > 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Although RGCT yielded increased genetic counseling participation, this did not result in increased rates of pre-surgical genetic testing or impact surgical decisions. These data suggest that those patients most likely to opt for genetic testing at the time of diagnosis are being effectively identified by their surgeons.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs in-person counseling (usual care [UC]). METHODS: We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies. RESULTS: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; χ2 = 4.43, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-term adverse outcomes.

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.

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.

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variant prevalence among the first 10,000 patients referred for next-generation cancer panel testing.

PURPOSE: Germ-line testing for panels of cancer genes using next-generation sequencing is becoming more common in clinical care. We report our experience as a clinical laboratory testing both well-established, high-risk cancer genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH1, MSH2) as well as more recently identified cancer genes (e.g., PALB2, BRIP1), many of which have increased but less well-defined penetrance. METHODS: Clinical genetic testing was performed on over 10,000 consecutive cases referred for evaluation of germ-line cancer genes, and results were analyzed for frequency of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and were stratified by testing panel, gene, and clinical history. RESULTS: Overall, a molecular diagnosis was made in 9.0% of patients tested, with the highest yield in the Lynch syndrome/colorectal cancer panel. In patients with breast, ovarian, or colon/stomach cancer, positive yields were 9.7, 13.4, and 14.8%, respectively. Approximately half of the pathogenic variants identified in patients with breast or ovarian cancer were in genes other than BRCA1/2. CONCLUSION: The high frequency of positive results in a wide range of cancer genes, including those of high penetrance and with clinical care guidelines, underscores both the genetic heterogeneity of hereditary cancer and the usefulness of multigene panels over genetic tests of one or two genes.Genet Med 18 8, 823-832.

Intentions for risk-reducing surgery among high-risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility is now part of routine clinical practice. Although rates of risk-reducing surgery following genetic testing have been increasing, little is known about attitudes toward risk-reducing surgery in women prior to genetic counseling and testing. This study examines correlates of patient intentions to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing oophorectomy (RRO). METHODS: Participants were 696 women, ages 21-85, who sought breast cancer gene 1 and 2 (BRCA1/2) genetic counseling and had at least a 10% risk of carrying a mutation. The sample included women who were affected with breast or ovarian cancer and unaffected women with a known familial BRCA1/2 mutation. Participants completed a precounseling telephone questionnaire. RESULTS: Prior to receiving genetic counseling, 23.3% of participants were considering RRM and 42.5% were considering RRO. Variables that were independently associated with RRM intentions were cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.26), perceived risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.05-1.28), education (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.03-2.99), and age (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.98). Predictors of RRO intentions were perceived risk for ovarian cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.14-1.37), perceived risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.15-2.62), marital status (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.34-2.76), and age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Because precounseling intentions predict subsequent risk-reducing surgery decisions, this study identified patient factors associated with surgical intentions. These factors reinforce the critical role for pretest genetic counseling in communicating accurate risk estimates and management options, and addressing psychosocial concerns, to facilitate informed decision making regarding RRM and RRO.

Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling.

PURPOSE: As genetic counseling and testing become more fully integrated into clinical care, alternative delivery models are increasingly prominent. This study examines predictors of genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer among high-risk women in a randomized trial of in-person versus telephone-based genetic counseling. METHODS: Methods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses. RESULTS: Of the 669 participants, 600 completed counseling and 523 received test results. As previously reported, participants randomized to telephone counseling were significantly less likely to be tested. In intention-to-treat analyses, completion of counseling and testing was associated with: race/ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-3.20), perceived stress (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98), knowledge (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23), and randomization group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.16). Further, race/ethnicity moderated the association between randomization group and testing; minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing. CONCLUSION: Evidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction is presented. The overall increased access made possible with telephone genetic counseling should be considered in light of the possibility that this may also lead to lower rates of testing among high-risk minority women. Additional care should be taken to assess and address potential barriers when services are delivered by telephone.Genet Med 17 6, 467-475.

Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling.

This study examines communication about limitations of genomic results interpretation for colon cancer risk during education and counseling of minority participants. As part of a larger study conducted from 2010 to 2012, participants recruited from a large primary care clinic were offered testing for a research panel of 3 genomic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) for colorectal cancer risk. Genetic counselors conducted pre- and post-test sessions which included discussion of limitations of result interpretation due to the lack of racial/ethnic diversity in research populations from which risk data are derived. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Many participants did not respond directly to this limitation. Among the participants that responded directly to this race-related limitation, many responses were negative. However, a few participants connected the limited minority information about SNPs with the importance of their current research participation. Genetic counselor discussions of this limitation were biomedically focused with limited explanations for the lacking data. The communication process themes identified included: low immediacy (infrequent use of language directly involving a participant), verbal dominance (greater speaking ratio of the counselor to the patient) and wide variation in the degree of interactivity (or the amount of turn-taking during the discussion). Placed within the larger literature on patient-provider communication, these present results provide insight into the dynamics surrounding race-related educational content for genomic testing and other emerging technologies. Clinicians may be better able to engage patients in the use of new genomic technology by increasing their awareness of specific communication processes and patterns during education or counseling sessions.

Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. RESULTS: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. CONCLUSION: Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

Translational Genomic Research: Protocol Development and Initial Outcomes following SNP Testing for Colon Cancer Risk.

Although single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) testing for disease susceptibility is commercially available, translational studies are necessary to understand how to communicate genomic information and potential implications for public health. We explored attitudes about and initial responses to genomic testing for colon cancer risk. Following development of the educational materials, we offered testing for three colon cancer SNPs in a pilot study with primary care patients. Participants completed pre- and post-test sessions and interviews. We analyzed interview transcripts with qualitative software using thematic analysis. All 20 participants opted for SNP testing. Qualitative analysis identified several themes: Motivations for SNP Testing, Before/After: Meaning of Results, Emotional Responses to SNP Results and Genomic Literacy/ Information Delivery. Results demonstrate that individuals will pursue SNP testing in the context of pre and post-test education. SNP results may influence health behaviors like healthy eating and exercise yet did not appear to impact colon cancer screening intentions.