From ownership to custodianship of tumor biopsy tissue in genomic testing: a mixed methods study of patient views.

Tumor mutation profiling (MP) is often conducted on tissue from biopsies conducted for clinical purposes (diagnostic tissue). We aimed to explore the views of patients with cancer on who should own tumor biopsy tissue, pay for its storage, and decide on its future use; and determine their attitudes to and predictors of undergoing additional biopsies if required for research purposes. In this mixed methods, cross-sectional study, patients with advanced solid cancers enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n = 397) completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing MP (n = 356/397). A subset (n = 23) also completed a qualitative interview. Fifty percent of participants believed they and/or relatives should own and control access to diagnostic tissue. Most (65.5%) believed the government should pay for tissue preparation. Qualitative themes included (1) custodianship of diagnostic tissue, (2) changing value of tissue across time and between cultures, (3) equity regarding payment, and (4) cost-benefit considerations in deciding on additional biopsies. Policy and regulation should consider patient perspectives. Extension of publicly funded health care to include tissue retrieval for clinical trials should be considered.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling.

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.

Validation of the multidimensional impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Questionnaire to assess impact of waiting for genome sequencing results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the existing Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale, which assesses impact of receiving genetic test results on individuals being assessed for cancer risk, can be successfully adapted to cancer patients experiencing prolonged waiting for results of germline genome sequencing (GS). METHODS: Patients previously diagnosed with likely hereditary cancer (n = 250) who were waiting for germline GS results completed questionnaires 3 months after baseline. We adapted the MICRA to measure anxiety associated with waiting for results, and assessed factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validation. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed four factors: distress, positive experience, family support and uncertainty. Internal consistency for each sub-scale was high with the values of Cronbach's alpha for the distress, positive experiences, family support and uncertainty sub-scales 0.92, 0.88, 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Test-retest reliability was poor, with intra-class correlations of 0.53, 0.13, 0.33 and 0.52 for the four factors, respectively. Construct validation showed large correlations between the MICRA distress and uncertainty sub-scale scores and the Impact of Events score intrusion (0.42 and 0.62, respectively) and IES avoidant thinking sub-scales (0.40 and 0.58, respectively) but not the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale sub-scales. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted MICRA identified test-related anxiety and uncertainty in a population of cancer patients waiting for germline GS results. Results suggest that the distress and uncertainty sub-scales of the adapted measure are most useful in this context.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Value of whole-genome sequencing to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study.

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS.

Longitudinal patterns in fear of cancer progression in patients with rare, advanced cancers undergoing comprehensive tumour genomic profiling.

INTRODUCTION: Fear of cancer progression (FCP) impacts quality of life and is a prevalent unmet need in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, particularly as treatment options are reduced. We aimed to identify longitudinal patterns in FCP over 6 months in patients with advanced cancer receiving comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their correlates. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic disease (∼70% rare cancers) receiving or post their last line of standard therapy completed questionnaires at T0 (prior to CTGP), T1 (immediately post CTGP results) and T2 (2 months later). RESULTS: High stable (N = 52; 7.3%) and low/moderate stable (N = 56; 7.8%) FCP patterns over time typified the largest participant groups (N = 721). Those with an immediately actionable variant versus a non-actionable variant (p = 0.045), with higher FCP (p < 0.001), and lower Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being (FACIT-Sp) scores (p = 0.006) at T0, had higher FCP at T1. Those with higher FCP at T0 (p < 0.001) and at T1 (p < 0.001), lower FACIT-Sp scores at T1 (p = 0.001), lower education (p = 0.031) and female gender (p = 0.027) had higher FCP at T2. DISCUSSION: Routine screening for psychological/spiritual characteristics in those about to undergo CTGP may help to identify patients who may benefit from closer monitoring and provision of psychosocial support. Future studies should explore interventions to best address FCP in this vulnerable group, as interventions assessed to date have almost all addressed patients with curative cancers or newly diagnosed advanced disease.

Fear of cancer recurrence in patients undergoing germline genome sequencing.

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence/occurrence (FCR/O) is prevalent and associated with poorer psychological outcomes but can also motivate individuals to pursue genomic information about cancer risk. Guided by Protection Motivation Theory, this study investigated FCR/O prevalence and associated factors among probands previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely heritable origin, and their relatives, who had agreed to have germline genome sequencing. METHODS: Three hundred and forty-eight probands and 167 relatives completed the Concerns about Recurrence Questionnaire (adapted for occurrence for some relatives) within 1 month of agreeing to undertake genome sequencing. Linear regressions investigated demographic, disease, attitude and behavioral associations with FCR/O. RESULTS: Probands demonstrated greater FCR compared to relatives. In probands, greater FCR was associated with being female, non-English speaking at home, less time since diagnosis, greater intention to change behavior if gene variant found, lower perceived ability to cope with results, higher perceived susceptibility to having a recurrence, and more negative attitudes towards uncertainty. For relatives with cancer, greater FCR was associated with being male, greater intention to change behavior if a gene variant found, and higher perceived susceptibility to recurrence. In relatives without cancer, greater FCO was associated with not having had genetic testing prior to this study, lower perceived ability to cope with results, and higher perceived susceptibility to developing cancer. CONCLUSION: Current findings on FCR/O prevalence and associated demographic and attitudinal variables in those who pursue genomic risk information might be used to target interventions that can prevent adverse psychological outcomes in vulnerable patients.

Cancer patients' views and understanding of genome sequencing: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about knowledge of, and attitudes towards, genome sequencing (GS) among individuals with a personal history of cancer who decide to undergo GS. This qualitative study aimed to investigate baseline knowledge and attitudes among individuals previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely genetic origin who have consented to GS. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants (n=20) from the longitudinal Psychosocial Issues in Genomic Oncology study, within a month of consenting to GS and prior to receiving any results. Participants were adults with a cancer of likely genetic aetiology who are undertaking GS as part of a larger genetic study. RESULTS: Analysis identified three main themes: limited understanding of genomics; multifactorial motivation; and complex decision making. While motivations such as obtaining health information about self and family appear to be the main drivers for undertaking GS, these motivations are sometimes based on limited knowledge of the accuracy and utility of GS, creating unrealistic expectations. This in turn can prolong the deliberation process and lead to ongoing decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Understanding the degree and nature of patient understanding of GS, as well as their attitudes and decision-making processes, will enable healthcare professionals to better manage patient expectations and appropriately engage and support patients to make an informed decision when pursuing GS.

Pursuing germline genome sequencing to reduce illness uncertainty may involve additional uncertainties for cancer patients: A mixed-methods study.

Cancer-related illness uncertainty has been associated with poorer psychological outcomes for patients. While some cancer patients believe obtaining genomic information will reduce their illness uncertainty, the complexity of genomics has the potential to compound illness uncertainty. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely heritable origin immediately following their decision to have germline genome sequencing. Participant (N = 348) negative attitudes toward uncertainty were associated with higher satisfaction with decision to have germline genome sequencing and greater fear of cancer recurrence. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a subset of participant (N = 20) revealed the following four themes: (a) germline genome sequencing to reduce illness uncertainty; (b) germline genome sequencing to reduce uncertainty related to relatives' risk; (c) uncertainty generated by germline genome sequencing; and (d) resilience and coping with uncertainty. This study demonstrated the complexity of uncertainty in germline genome sequencing in cancer patients. These results provide genomic healthcare professionals with important information about cancer patient's motivation to pursue germline genome sequencing, the specific uncertainties generated by germline genome sequencing, and how cancer patients cope with uncertainty.

Patient experience of uncertainty in cancer genomics: a systematic review.

While genomics provides new clinical opportunities, its complexity generates uncertainties. This systematic review aimed to summarize what is currently known about the experience of uncertainty for adult patients undergoing cancer genomic testing. A search of five databases (2001 to 2018) yielded 6508 records. After removing duplicates, abstract/title screening, and assessment of full articles, ten studies were included for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative studies were subjected to thematic analysis, and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Cancer genomic results reduced uncertainty for patients regarding treatment decisions but did not reduce uncertainty in the risk context. Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis revealed four themes: (1) coexisting uncertainties, (2) factors influencing uncertainty, (3) outcomes of uncertainty, and (4) coping with uncertainty. Uncertainty can motivate, or be a barrier to, pursuing cancer genomic testing. Appraisal of uncertainty influences the patient experience of uncertainty, the outcome of uncertainty for patients, as well as the coping strategies utilized. While this systematic review found that appraisal of uncertainty is important to the patients' experience of uncertainty in the cancer genomic context, more mixed methods longitudinal research is needed to address the complexities that contribute to patient uncertainty across the process.

Who should access germline genome sequencing? A mixed methods study of patient views.

Implementation of any new medical test, including germline genome sequencing (GS) to inform cancer risk, should take place only when a test is effective, ethically justifiable and acceptable to a population. Little empirical evidence exists on patient views regarding GS for cancer risk. The aim of this study was to elicit opinions on who should be offered GS and who should pay for it. Participants with a probable genetic basis for their cancer (n = 335) and blood relatives (n = 199) were recruited to undergo GS and invited to complete questionnaires at baseline. A subset (n = 40) also participated in qualitative interviews about their views regarding access to GS to detect cancer risk. Our response rate was 92% for questionnaires and 100% for interviews. Participants expressed high enthusiasm overall for access to GS for those with a family history of cancer and anyone who requested testing, but enthusiasm was lower for universal access, if opting out was possible and finances not an issue. Rationales for these views reflected maximising the sound use of resources. Challenges to introducing community screening via GS to limit cancer burden were raised, including the current limits of science and individual ability to cope with uncertain results. Participants undergoing GS supported cancer risk testing for those with a family history of cancer but were concerned about the challenges of designing and implementing a population-based GS cancer-screening program.

Advanced cancer patient preferences for receiving molecular profiling results.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to discern preferences for receiving somatic molecular profiling (MP) results in cancer patients who have given consent to undergo testing. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to explore patients' views on which MP results they would like to receive and why. Advanced cancer patients (n = 1299) completed questionnaires after giving consent to participate in a parent genomics study and undergoing MP. A subset of patients (n = 20) participated in qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Almost all (96%) participants were interested in receiving results which would direct cancer treatment (ie, were actionable). A smaller majority wanted to access results which were not actionable (64%) or were variants of unknown significance (60%). Most (86%) were interested in finding out about germline findings, though not as a priority. Themes identified in interview data were: (a) Cancer is the focus; (b) Trust in clinicians; and (c) Respect for a right not to know. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of advanced cancer patients undergoing MP prioritised results which would lead to treatment options. They trusted their oncologists to help them navigate the results return process. While there was interest in knowing about other results, this was a lesser priority. Nevertheless, given high levels of interest in receiving all results, ethical aspects of not providing uninformative results requires further research, including a consideration of patient rationales for desiring this information and what health professionals can and should do to support patients in the absence of meaningful information being available.

Experiences and perspectives of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

AIM: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is higher for those who are older, immune-compromised, or chronically ill. Vaccines are an effective strategy in reducing mortality and morbidity from COVID-19. However, for COVID-19 vaccination programs to reach full potential, vaccines must be taken up by those at greatest risk, such as cancer patients. Understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in cancer patient COVID-19 vaccine uptake will be critical to ensuring appropriate support, and information is provided to facilitate vaccination. The aim of this research was to explore the longitudinal views of cancer stakeholders regarding COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 23), family members (n = 10), cancer health professionals (n = 19), and representatives of cancer nongovernment organizations (n = 7) across Australia 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. RESULTS: All stakeholder groups expressed mostly positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, with the following key themes identified: (1) high motivation-vaccination perceived as offering health protection and hope; (2) hesitancy-concern about vaccine hesitancy among the general population, with a minority hesitant themselves; (3) confusion and frustration-regarding the vaccine rollout and patient eligibility; (4) uncertainty-about vaccination in the context of cancer; (5) access to vaccination; and (6) desire for expert individualized advice-on vaccine interaction with cancer treatments. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the COVID-19 vaccine concerns and information needs of cancer stakeholders. Policymakers need to provide clear tailored information regarding vaccine eligibility, accessibility, benefits, and risks to facilitate vaccine uptake.

Family communication and results disclosure after germline sequencing: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Research on family communication of germline genome sequencing (GS) results (versus of genetic results after targeted genetic testing) is still emerging, yet potentially complex results increase the importance of communicating risk to relatives. Promoting equity by ensuring patients have sufficient health literacy to interpret results is important in this context. This study aimed to identify cancer patients' perceived importance of result disclosure, predictors of perceptions, and perspectives on family communication. METHODS: This explanatory-sequential, cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved participants (n = 246) completing a questionnaire and (n = 20) a semi-structured interview. Ordinal logistic regressions determined associations between potential predictors and perceived importance of result disclosure. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: More participants intended disclosing to nuclear (77.4%) than to extended family (42.7%). More than half (59.3%) felt results were family information; 62.7% believed it was important to disclose results to family members. Nuclear and extended family communication scores and education level were significantly positively associated with perceived importance of disclosure (p < 0.05). Six qualitative themes were identified: i) Responsibility to inform, ii) Choice, iii) Autonomy, iv) Family Communication, v) Significance of results, and vi) Health professional role. CONCLUSION: Low health literacy and family conflict can complicate communication of GS results. Patients seek clear, interpretable information in a format they can easily communicate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals can facilitate discussion of GS results by offering written information, encouraging disclosure, exploring existing family dynamics and communication patterns, and offering strategies to improve family communication. Centralised genetic communication offices and chatbots can also be helpful.

Effectively communicating comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results: Mitigating uncertainty for advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To understand advanced cancer patients' experience of uncertainty when receiving comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their perceptions of how healthcare provider (HCP) communication impacts uncertainty. METHODS: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CTGP results. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. RESULTS: We identified three themes that illustrate patient experience of uncertainties when receiving CTGP results: 1. Type and degree of uncertainty fluctuates along with changing illness circumstances and the nature of the CTGP results; 2. HCPs' co-ordination of care and communication shapes uncertainty, with immediate, clearer and simpler information promoting certainty; and 3. Patients felt that communicating results to reduce relatives' uncertainty is important, with patients choosing the time and process for achieving this and desiring HCPs support. CONCLUSION: Oncology patients are confronted with an array of uncertainties. Clear, simple communication from HCPs about results and their implications, and support to manage uncertainty, will be of benefit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If CTGP is to become routine clinical practice, clear communication will be crucial in reducing uncertainty. Awareness of potential uncertainties experienced by patients when receiving results, will assist HCPs to address uncertainties, reduce uncertainty where possible, and offer targeted support to patients struggling with uncertainty.

Psychological outcomes in advanced cancer patients after receiving genomic tumor profiling results.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CGP) offers hope for personalized treatment for cancer patients when other treatment options have been exhausted. However, receipt of nonactionable or ambiguous results could be an ongoing source of distress. We investigated patterns of hope, anxiety, depression, and CGP-specific anxiety in advanced cancer patients after receiving CGP results and 2-3 months later. METHOD: Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal psychosocial substudy, embedded in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program, and had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient and accessible tissue for CGP. At T0 (before receiving CGP results), 1,431 participants completed sociodemographic, disease and psychosocial measures. At T1 (1-4 weeks after receiving CGP results) and T2 (2-3 months post-T1), 374 participants completed psychological outcome measures. Predictors of outcomes at T2 were identified using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of participants did not experience significant hopelessness or distress at T1 and T2. Hope decreased by T2, yet general anxiety and CGP-specific anxiety also decreased. Receiving actionable results did not impact psychological outcomes at T2. At T2, lower hope, and higher anxiety, depression and CGP-specific anxiety were associated with lower self-efficacy. Psychological and demographic factors (age, socioeconomic status, language, medical occupation, urban living, family history of cancer) independently predicted one or more psychological trajectories. Worse health status and perceived susceptibility to cancer progression predicted hope and anxiety trajectories. CONCLUSION: Further research on interventions to best support patients undergoing CGP with high anxiety, hopelessness, fear of cancer progression, and poorer health is urgently needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results.

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. In conclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.

Psychological impact of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results for advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results. METHODS: Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available. RESULTS: Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p < 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001-0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients.

Cancer patient knowledge about and behavioral intentions after germline genome sequencing.

OBJECTIVES: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes. METHODS: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors. RESULTS: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients' motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results. METHODS: Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality. RESULTS: 182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.