Variant classification changes over time in the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory setting.

BACKGROUND: Variant classification in the setting of germline genetic testing is necessary for patients and their families to receive proper care. Variants are classified as pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign (LB) and benign (B) using the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology, with modifications for specific genes. As the literature continues to rapidly expand, and evidence continues to accumulate, prior classifications can be updated accordingly. In this study, we aim to characterise variant reclassifications in Ontario. METHODS: DNA samples from patients seen at hereditary cancer clinics in Ontario from January 2012 to April 2022 were submitted for testing. Patients met provincial eligibility criteria for testing for hereditary cancer syndromes or polycystic kidney disease. Reclassification events were determined to be within their broader category of significance (B to LB or vice versa, or P to LP or vice versa) or outside of their broader category as significance (ie, significant reclassifications from B/LB or VUS or P/LP, from P/LP to VUS or B/LB, or from VUS to any other category). RESULTS: Of the 8075 unique variants included in this study, 23.7% (1912) of variants were reassessed, and 7.2% (578) of variants were reclassified. Of these, 351 (60.7%) variants were reclassified outside of their broader category of significance. Overall, the final classification was significantly different for 336 (58.1%) variants. Importantly, most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification (n=245; 72.9%). Of note, most reclassified VUS was downgraded to B/LB (n=233; 84.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood for reclassification of variants on reassessment is high. Most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification. Our findings highlight the importance of periodic variant reassessment to ensure timely and appropriate care for patients and their families.

"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.

Certain heterozygous variants in the kinase domain of the serine/threonine kinase NEK8 can cause an autosomal dominant form of polycystic kidney disease.

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) resulting from pathogenic variants in PKD1 and PKD2 is the most common form of PKD, but other genetic causes tied to primary cilia function have been identified. Biallelic pathogenic variants in the serine/threonine kinase NEK8 cause a syndromic ciliopathy with extra-kidney manifestations. Here we identify NEK8 as a disease gene for ADPKD in 12 families. Clinical evaluation was combined with functional studies using fibroblasts and tubuloids from affected individuals. Nek8 knockout mouse kidney epithelial (IMCD3) cells transfected with wild type or variant NEK8 were further used to study ciliogenesis, ciliary trafficking, kinase function, and DNA damage responses. Twenty-one affected monoallelic individuals uniformly exhibited cystic kidney disease (mostly neonatal) without consistent extra-kidney manifestations. Recurrent de novo mutations of the NEK8 missense variant p.Arg45Trp, including mosaicism, were seen in ten families. Missense variants elsewhere within the kinase domain (p.Ile150Met and p.Lys157Gln) were also identified. Functional studies demonstrated normal localization of the NEK8 protein to the proximal cilium and no consistent cilia formation defects in patient-derived cells. NEK8-wild type protein and all variant forms of the protein expressed in Nek8 knockout IMCD3 cells were localized to cilia and supported ciliogenesis. However, Nek8 knockout IMCD3 cells expressing NEK8-p.Arg45Trp and NEK8-p.Lys157Gln showed significantly decreased polycystin-2 but normal ANKS6 localization in cilia. Moreover, p.Arg45Trp NEK8 exhibited reduced kinase activity in vitro. In patient derived tubuloids and IMCD3 cells expressing NEK8-p.Arg45Trp, DNA damage signaling was increased compared to healthy passage-matched controls. Thus, we propose a dominant-negative effect for specific heterozygous missense variants in the NEK8 kinase domain as a new cause of PKD.

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.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Genome Reporting for Healthy Populations-Pipeline for Genomic Screening from the GENCOV COVID-19 Study.

Genome sequencing holds the promise for great public health benefits. It is currently being used in the context of rare disease diagnosis and novel gene identification, but also has the potential to identify genetic disease risk factors in healthy individuals. Genome sequencing technologies are currently being used to identify genetic factors that may influence variability in symptom severity and immune response among patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The GENCOV study aims to look at the relationship between genetic, serological, and biochemical factors and variability of SARS-CoV-2 symptom severity, and to evaluate the utility of returning genome screening results to study participants. Study participants select which results they wish to receive with a decision aid. Medically actionable information for diagnosis, disease risk estimation, disease prevention, and patient management are provided in a comprehensive genome report. Using a combination of bioinformatics software and custom tools, this article describes a pipeline for the analysis and reporting of genetic results to individuals with COVID-19, including HLA genotyping, large-scale continental ancestry estimation, and pharmacogenomic analysis to determine metabolizer status and drug response. In addition, this pipeline includes reporting of medically actionable conditions from comprehensive gene panels for Cardiology, Neurology, Metabolism, Hereditary Cancer, and Hereditary Kidney, and carrier screening for reproductive planning. Incorporated into the genome report are polygenic risk scores for six diseases-coronary artery disease; atrial fibrillation; type-2 diabetes; and breast, prostate, and colon cancer-as well as blood group genotyping analysis for ABO and Rh blood types and genotyping for other antigens of clinical relevance. The genome report summarizes the findings of these analyses in a way that extensively communicates clinically relevant results to patients and their physicians. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: HLA genotyping and disease association Basic Protocol 2: Large-scale continental ancestry estimation Basic Protocol 3: Dosage recommendations for pharmacogenomic gene variants associated with drug response Support Protocol: System setup.

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.

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.

"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.

Principles of molecular testing for hereditary cancer.

Molecular testing for hereditary cancers has rapidly advanced over the past two decades. Next-generation sequencing has been widely adopted, which has made molecular testing increasingly accessible, and large gene panels are now routinely used in clinical care. Effectively using molecular testing as a tool for the management of patients with hereditary cancer involves understanding various basic principles. In this article, we provide an overview of general principles for molecular germline testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. We overview hereditary cancer etiology, clinical indications for molecular testing, test methodologies and limitations, interpretation and reporting of test results, the evolving nature of evidence on gene-disease relationships and penetrance, and resources related to the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

De novo variants in H3-3A and H3-3B are associated with neurodevelopmental delay, dysmorphic features, and structural brain abnormalities.

The histone H3 variant H3.3, encoded by two genes H3-3A and H3-3B, can replace canonical isoforms H3.1 and H3.2. H3.3 is important in chromatin compaction, early embryonic development, and lineage commitment. The role of H3.3 in somatic cancers has been studied extensively, but its association with a congenital disorder has emerged just recently. Here we report eleven de novo missense variants and one de novo stop-loss variant in H3-3A (n = 6) and H3-3B (n = 6) from Baylor Genetics exome cohort (n = 11) and Matchmaker Exchange (n = 1), of which detailed phenotyping was conducted for 10 individuals (H3-3A = 4 and H3-3B = 6) that showed major phenotypes including global developmental delay, short stature, failure to thrive, dysmorphic facial features, structural brain abnormalities, hypotonia, and visual impairment. Three variant constructs (p.R129H, p.M121I, and p.I52N) showed significant decrease in protein expression, while one variant (p.R41C) accumulated at greater levels than wild-type control. One H3.3 variant construct (p.R129H) was found to have stronger interaction with the chaperone death domain-associated protein 6.

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.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

Exome and genome sequencing in adults with undiagnosed disease: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing have been demonstrated to increase diagnostic yield in paediatric populations, improving treatment options and providing risk information for relatives. There are limited studies examining the clinical utility of these tests in adults, who currently have limited access to this technology. METHODS: Patients from adult and cancer genetics clinics across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were recruited into a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in adults. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and suspected of having a hereditary disorder but had received previous uninformative genetic test results. In total, we examined the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in 47 probands and 34 of their relatives who consented to participate and underwent exome or genome sequencing. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (8/47) of probands had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified in a gene associated with their primary indication for testing. The diagnostic yield for patients with a cancer history was similar to the yield for patients with a non-cancer history (4/18 (22%) vs 4/29 (14%)). An additional 24 probands (51%) had an inconclusive result. Secondary findings were identified in 10 patients (21%); three had medically actionable results. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends evidence to the diagnostic utility of exome or genome sequencing in an undiagnosed adult population. The significant increase in diagnostic yield warrants the use of this technology. The identification and communication of secondary findings may provide added value when using this testing modality as a first-line test.

Multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the province of Ontario.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of multigene panel testing among patients referred with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). METHODS: Patients who met provincial eligibility criteria were tested at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto. Gene sequencing and exon-level copy number variant (CNV) analysis was performed. The referring physician had the opportunity to choose between several different gene panels based on patient phenotype. Cases were included in the analysis based on personal and family history of cancer and the type of panel ordered. RESULTS: 3251 cases that received panel testing were included in this analysis. Overall, 9.1% (295) had a positive (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) result and 27.1% (882) had an inconclusive result (variant of uncertain significance). The genes with the highest prevalence of positive results were in BRCA2 (2.2%, 71/3235), BRCA1 (1.9%, 62/3235), and CHEK2 (1.4%, 40/2916). Of the positive cases, 9.8% (29) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with Lynch syndrome (MSH6, MSH2, MLH1, or PMS2). CONCLUSIONS: Our overall positive yield is similar to that reported in the literature. The yield of inconclusive results was three times that of positive results. By testing more individuals in families with HBOC and through data-sharing efforts, the clinical significance of most variants may eventually be determined and panel testing for monogenic cancer predisposition syndromes will have greater utility.

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.