"I just wanted more": Hereditary cancer syndromes patients' perspectives on the utility of circulating tumour DNA testing for cancer screening.

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) predispose individuals to a higher risk of developing multiple cancers. However, current screening strategies have limited ability to screen for all cancer risks. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detects DNA fragments shed by tumour cells in the bloodstream and can potentially detect cancers early. This study aimed to explore patients' perspectives on ctDNA's utility to help inform its clinical adoption and implementation. We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study using semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were purposively sampled adult HCS patients recruited from a Canadian HCS research consortium. Thirty HCS patients were interviewed (n = 19 women, age range 20s-70s, n = 25 were white). Participants were highly concerned about developing cancers, particularly those without reliable screening options for early detection. They "just wanted more" than their current screening strategies. Participants were enthusiastic about ctDNA's potential to be comprehensive (detect multiple cancers), predictive (detect cancers early) and tailored (lead to personalized clinical management). Participants also acknowledged ctDNA's potential limitations, including false positives/negatives risks and experiencing additional anxiety. However, they saw ctDNA's potential benefits outweighing its limitations. In conclusion, participants' belief in ctDNA's potential to improve their care overshadowed its limitations, indicating patients' support for using ctDNA in HCS care.

"I don't need any more unknowns hanging over my head": Views of patients with cancer on variants of uncertain significance and low/moderate risk results from genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: We sought to explore patient-reported utility of all types of cancer results from genomic sequencing (GS). METHODS: Qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent GS within a trial. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used. Two coders coded transcripts, with use of a third coder to resolve conflicts. RESULTS: 25 patients participated: female (22), >50 years (18), European (12), Ashkenazi Jewish (5), Middle Eastern (3), or other ethnicity (5), with breast cancer history (20). Patients' perceptions of the utility of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical action. For example, when patients were enrolled into high-risk breast cancer surveillance programs for low/moderate risk breast cancer genes, they perceived the results to be very "useful" and of moderate-high utility. In contrast, patients receiving low/moderate risk or primary variants of uncertain significance results without clinical action perceived results as "concerning," leading to harms, such as hypervigilance about cancer symptoms. Overall, having supportive relatives or providers enhanced perceptions of utility. CONCLUSION: Patients' perceptions of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical management. Consequently, patients who received results without clinical action became hypervigilant, experiencing harms. Our findings call for a need to develop practice interventions to support patients with cancer undergoing GS.

How do members of the public expect to use variants of uncertain significance in their health care? A population-based survey.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can generate complex results, including variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In general, VUS should not inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the public's expected management of VUS. METHODS: An online, hypothetical survey was conducted among members of the Canadian public preceded by an educational video. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 arms, VUS or pathogenic variant in a colorectal cancer gene, and asked which types of health services they expected to use for this result. Expected health service use was compared between randomization arms, and associations between participants' sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and medical history were explored. RESULTS: Among 1003 respondents (completion rate 60%), more participants expected to use each type of health service for a pathogenic variant than for a VUS. However, a considerable proportion of participants expected to request monitoring (73.4%) and consult health care providers (60.9%) for a VUS. There was evidence to support associations between expectation to use health services for a VUS with family history of genetic disease, family history of cancer, education, and attitudes toward health care and technology. CONCLUSION: Many participants expected to use health services for a VUS in a colorectal cancer predisposition gene, suggesting a potential disconnect between patients' expectations for VUS management and guideline-recommended care.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

"Doctors shouldn't have to cheat the system": Clinicians' real-world experiences of the utility of genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: Emerging genetic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS) can generate a broad range of benefits, but funding criteria only prioritize diagnosis and clinical management. There is limited evidence on all types of benefits obtained from GS in practice. We aimed to explore real-world experiences of Canadian clinicians across specialties on the full range of benefits obtained from the results from GS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with Canadian clinicians. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using constant comparison. RESULTS: In total, 25 clinicians participated, including 12 geneticists, 7 genetic counselors, 4 oncologists, 1 neurologist, and 1 family physician. Although diagnoses and management were the most valued benefits of GS, clinicians also prioritized nontraditional utility, such as access to community supports. However, clinicians felt "restricted" by funding bodies, which only approved funding when GS would inform diagnoses and management. Consequently, clinicians sought ways to "cheat the system" to access GS (eg, research testing) but acknowledged workarounds were burdensome, drove inequity, and undermined patient care. CONCLUSION: Current governance structures undervalue real-world benefits of GS leading clinicians to adopt workarounds, which jeopardize patient care. These results support calls for the expansion of the definition of clinical utility and research to quantify the additional benefits.

"Game Changer": Health Professionals' Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management.

BACKGROUND: We explored health professionals' views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data. RESULTS: Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as "transformative" and a "game-changer". However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA's role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA's invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA's role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption.

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) can provide postmarket data to inform whether funded cancer drugs yield expected outcomes and value for money, but it is unclear how to incorporate RWE into Canadian cancer drug funding decisions. As part of the Canadian Real-World Evidence Value for Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration, this study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on the current state of RWE in Canada to inform a Canadian framework for use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study. Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from April to July 2018. Participants were Canadian and international stakeholders who had experience with RWE and drug funding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Thirty stakeholders participated in the study. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders indicated that RWE had value in cancer drug funding decisions. However, a cultural shift is needed to adopt RWE in decision-making. Further, the Canadian infrastructure for real-world data is currently inadequate for decision-making, and there is a need for committed investment in building capacity to collect and analyze RWE. Finally, there is a need for increased collaboration among key stakeholders. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that if RWE is to be used in drug funding decisions, there is a need for a cultural shift, improved data infrastructure, committed investment in capacity building and increased stakeholder collaboration. Together with local stakeholder engagement, application of these findings may contribute to optimizing implementation of RWE.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children.

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.

Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03244202; Pre-results.