Engagement and return of results preferences among a primarily African American genomic sequencing research cohort.

Genomics researchers are increasingly interested in what constitutes effective engagement of individuals from underrepresented groups. This is critical for longitudinal projects needed to inform the implementation of precision medicine. Return of results is one opportunity for engagement. The aims of this study were to determine participant perspectives on optimal engagement strategies and priorities for return of results and the extent to which focus groups were an effective modality for gathering input on these topics. We conducted six professionally moderated focus groups with 49 participants in a genomics research study. Transcripts from audio-recorded sessions were coded by two researchers and themes were discussed with the wider research team. All groups raised the issue of mistrust. Individuals participated nonetheless to contribute their perspectives and benefit their community. Many group members preferred engagement modalities that are offered to all participants and allow them to share the nuances of their perspectives over the use of participant representatives and surveys. All groups created a consensus ranking for result return priorities. Results for life-threatening conditions were the highest priority to return, followed by those related to treatable conditions that affect physical or mental health. We advocate for engagement strategies that reach as many participants as possible and allow them to share their perspectives in detail. Such strategies are valued by participants, can be effective for developing return of results policies, and may help institutions become more trustworthy.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.

PURPOSE: We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context. METHODS: We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94). CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing.

PURPOSE: Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS. METHODS: Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments. RESULTS: We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

Effects of Implicit Racial Bias and Standardized Patient Race on Genetic Counseling Students' Patient-Centered Communication.

Clinician racial bias has been associated with less patient-centered communication, but little is known about how it affects trainees' communication. We investigated genetic counseling students' communication during sessions with Black or White standardized patients (SPs) and the extent to which communication was associated with SP race or student scores on the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT). Sixty students conducted a baseline SP session and up to two follow-up sessions. Students were randomly assigned to a different White or Black SP and one of three clinical scenarios for each session. Fifty-six students completed the IAT. Session recordings were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Linear regression models assessed the effects of IAT score and SP race on a variety of patient-centered communication indicators. Random intercept models assessed the within-student effects of SP race on communication outcomes during the baseline session and in follow-up sessions (n = 138). Students were predominantly White (71%). Forty students (71%) had IAT scores indicating some degree of pro-White implicit preference. Baseline sessions with White relative to Black SPs had higher patient-centeredness scores. Within-participant analyses indicate that students used a higher proportion of back-channels (a facilitative behavior that cues interest and encouragement) and conducted longer sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Students' stronger pro-White IAT scores were associated with using fewer other facilitative statements during sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Different patterns of communication associated with SP race and student IAT scores were found for students than those found in prior studies with experienced clinicians.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results.

PURPOSE: People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale. METHODS: We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Motivations to learn genomic information are not exceptional: Lessons from behavioral science.

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility-the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes-is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, its clinical utility and personal utility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

Use of a web-based portal to return normal individual research results in Early Check: Exploring user behaviors and attitudes.

Early Check is a voluntary, large-scale expanded newborn screening study in North Carolina that uses a self-directed web-based portal for return of normal individual research results (IRR). Little is known about participant perspectives in using web-based portals to receive IRR. This study explored user attitudes and behaviors within the Early Check portal using three methods: (1) a feedback survey available to the consenting parent of participating infants (typically mothers), (2) semi-structured interviews conducted with a subset of parents, and (3) Google Analytics. During an approximate 3-year period, 17 936 newborns received normal IRR and there were 27 812 visits to the portal. Most surveyed parents reported viewing their baby's results (86%, 1410/1639). Parents largely found the portal easy to use to get results, and helpful in understanding the results. However, 10% of parents said it was difficult to find enough information to understand their baby's results. In Early Check, providing normal IRR via the portal made a large-scale study practical, and was highly rated by most users. Return of normal IRR may be particularly amenable to web-based portals, as the consequences to participants from not viewing results are modest, and the interpretation of a normal result is relatively straightforward.

Future-oriented Emotions and Decisions to Receive Genomic Testing Results Among U.S. Adults of African Ancestry.

BACKGROUND: Future-oriented emotions are associated with consequential health decision-making, including genomic testing decisions. However, little is known about the relative role of various future-oriented emotions in such decisions. Moreover, most research on predictors of decision making regarding genomic testing is conducted with white participants. PURPOSE: This study examined the role of future-oriented emotions in decisions to receive genomic testing results in U.S. individuals of African descent. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from a genomic sequencing cohort (N = 408). All participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean (Mage = 56.3, 74.7% female). Participants completed measures assessing anticipatory affect (worry about genetic testing results), anticipated distress (feeling devastated if genetic testing showed an increased risk for fatal disease), and anticipated regret (regretting a decision not to learn results). Outcomes were intentions for learning actionable, nonactionable, and carrier results. RESULTS: Anticipated regret was robustly positively associated with intentions to receive actionable (b = 0.28, p < .001), nonactionable (b = 0.39, p < .001), and carrier (b = 0.30, p < .001) results. Anticipated distress was negatively associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results only (b = -0.16, p < .01). Anticipatory negative affect (worry) was not associated with intentions. At higher levels of anticipated regret, anticipated distress was less strongly associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results (b = 0.14, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the role of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing among participants who are typically underrepresented in genomic testing studies and behavioral medicine broadly. Future work should examine whether interventions targeting future-oriented emotions such as anticipated regret may have clinically meaningful effects in genetic counseling in similar cohorts.

Future-oriented emotions (emotions directed toward a future outcome, such as worrying about a future outcome, or expecting to feel distress or regret if a particular outcome occurs) are important predictors of health decisions, including decisions to seek and receive genomic testing results. Understanding how such factors relate to decisions to receive genetic testing results is particularly important in medically-underserved groups such as individuals of African ancestry, who are underrepresented in genomics and behavioral science research. We analyzed survey responses from a genomic sequencing cohort where all 408 participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean, and were asked about their level of worry, anticipated distress, and anticipated regret about results, plus their interest in receiving three types of genomic testing results from the study. We found that participants who expected that they would regret their decision to not learn the results had stronger intentions to receive all three types of results; those who expected to feel distressed by a genetic testing result that showed an increased risk for a fatal disease were less interested in nonactionable genetic testing results specifically. Our results highlight the differing roles of specific types of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing decisions, among participants who are typically underrepresented in this type of research.

Acceptability of an online communication training intervention for genetic counseling students.

Technology provides opportunities to enhance communication skills training for genetic counseling graduate students. We assessed the acceptability of an online communication training program. Graduate student volunteers completed five online training modules on basic communication skills with opportunities to practice the skills within three simulated/standardized patient (SP) sessions. Participants completed online questionnaires reporting on acceptability, perceived usefulness, and realism of the modules and SP sessions. They also reported on the ease of transferring skills from the modules to clinical practice. Out of the 60 students who completed the baseline session, 35 (58%) completed all five training modules. Out of these 35 students, most found the modules to be useful (94%) and agreed that they were relevant to clinical practice (97%). At least 88% of participants found the genetic counselors, patient, and case scenarios to be realistic. Twenty-eight students had participated in clinical rotations since completing the intervention. Of these, 17 (61%) reported that it was at least slightly easy to use the skills in actual clinical cases. Most students also reported being able to transfer the skills they had learned into clinical practice. While the training was well-received, the relatively low completion rate of 58% raises concern that the intervention may need formal integration into the program curriculum to succeed due to the time and effort demands on students.

Misunderstood terms and concepts identified through user testing of educational materials for fragile X premutation: "Not weak or fragile?"

Complicated genetic mechanisms and unpredictable health risks associated with the FMR1 premutation can result in challenges for patient education when the diagnosis is made in a newborn. From October 15, 2018, to December 10, 2021, North Carolina parents could obtain FMR1 premutation results about their newborns through a voluntary expanded newborn screening research study. The study provided confirmatory testing, parental testing, and genetic counseling. We developed web-based educational materials to augment information about fragile X premutation conveyed by a genetic counselor. Many genetics education materials are developed for the lay population. However, relatively little research is published on how well individuals understand these materials. We conducted three rounds of iterative user testing interviews to help refine web-based educational materials that support understanding and self-paced learning. The participants included 25 parents with a 2-year college degree or less and without a child identified with fragile X syndrome, premutation, or gray-zone allele. Content analysis of interview transcripts resulted in iterative changes and ultimately saturation of findings. Across all rounds of interviews, there were two terms that were commonly misunderstood (fragile and carrier) and two terms that elicited initial misconceptions that were overcome by participants. Many also had difficulty understanding the relationship between fragile X premutation and fragile X syndrome as well as appreciating the implications of having a "fragile X gene." Website layout, formatting, and graphics also influenced comprehension. Despite iterative changes to the content, certain issues with understandability persisted. The findings support the need for user testing to identify misconceptions that may interfere with understanding and using genetic information. Here, we describe a process used to develop and refine evidence-based, understandable parental resources on fragile X premutation. Additionally, we provide recommendations to address ongoing educational challenges and discuss the potential impact of bias on the part of expert content developers.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

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

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

An accessible, relational, inclusive, and actionable (ARIA) model of genetic counseling compared with usual care: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Effective approaches to communicate genomic information are needed to ensure equitable care. In a randomized controlled superiority trial, we tested a novel practice model that aims to make genetic counseling inclusive, by making the communication accessible, relational, and actionable (ARIA). METHODS: In total, 696 English- and Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for individuals from historically underserved backgrounds, were randomized in 1:1 ratio to ARIA or usual care. Primary outcomes were accuracy of recall, communication satisfaction, and perceived understanding. In total, 33 participants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Recall and understanding were high for all participants. ARIA participants scored higher on the relationship scale of communication satisfaction (mean difference = 0.09, 95% CI = <0.01 to 0.17). Moderator analyses of communication satisfaction showed that those with lower health literacy reported less communication difficulty in ARIA and those using medical interpreters reported greater communication ease in ARIA. No significant difference was found on other primary and secondary outcomes. Qualitative data enhanced understanding of how and why ARIA can be effective. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a genetic counseling intervention that focuses on specific communication skills to enhance relationship-building, patient engagement, and comprehension can be effective with all patients and may be especially valuable for patients of lower health literacy and Spanish-speakers who use a medical interpreter.

Further validation of the Perceptions of Uncertainties in Genome Sequencing scale among patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing.

It is important to understand how individuals perceive uncertainties and the consequent impact on their psychological well-being and health behavior. The Perceptions of Uncertainties in Genome Sequencing (PUGS) scale measures clinical, affective, and evaluative uncertainties about information from sequencing. The PUGS scale has been shown to be valid and reliable among individuals receiving results about their genomes. This study assessed whether its validity generalized to patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on data from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n = 310) to identify a measurement model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the adequacy of the resulting fit. EFA identified the same three-factor structure reported previously. CFA confirmed that the measurement model yielded a good fit (χ2 /df = 3.72, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, and RMSEA = 0.09) and satisfied convergent and discriminant validity. These findings provide further evidence of the validity and reliability of the PUGS scale in measuring three types of uncertainty. Continued application will facilitate an evidence-based approach to intervention and enhance understanding of what it is like to receive results. In turn, this will improve clinical outcomes as undergoing sequencing becomes an increasingly common experience.

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.

Identifying Needs, Challenges, and Benefits Among Adults and Parents of Children With Hirschsprung Disease.

ABSTRACT: Adults with Hirschsprung disease (HD), unaffected parents of children with HD, and affected adults with an affected child completed a cross-sectional survey with open-ended questions about greatest needs at diagnosis and at current time, greatest challenges encountered, and any benefits of having HD or having a child with HD. In the 297 respondents, information and good medical care were common needs at diagnosis and at the time of survey, but the information needed evolved with time. Managing ongoing symptoms was a frequently cited need and challenge, along with managing medical care and the social and emotional impact of HD. Perceived benefits included empathy for others and new perspectives on life. The needs and challenges identified in this study can guide healthcare providers in discussions with families. Provision of information, recommendations, and referrals based on each individual family's needs can support families with HD throughout the lifecycle and facilitate adaptation.

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.

The role of future-oriented affect in engagement with genomic testing results.

Future-oriented emotions such as anticipatory affect (i.e., current affect experienced regarding a potential future outcome) and anticipated affect (i.e., expectations about potential future affect), are uniquely associated with health decision-making (e.g., electing to receive results of genomic testing). This study investigated the degree to which negative anticipated and anticipatory emotions predict health decision making over time, and whether such emotions predict social, emotional, and behavioral responses to anticipated information (e.g., genomic testing results). 461 participants (M age = 63.9, SD = 5.61, 46% female) in a genomic sequencing cohort who elected to receive genomic sequencing (carrier) results were included in the current study. Anticipated and anticipatory affect about sequencing results were assessed at baseline. Psychological and behavioral responses to sequencing results, including participants' reported anxiety, decisional conflict, and distress about sequencing results, whether they shared results with family members, and their intentions to continue learning results in the future, were collected immediately, one month, and/or six months after receiving results. More negative anticipated and anticipatory affect at baseline was significantly and independently associated with lower intentions to continue learning results in the future, as well as higher levels of anxiety and uncertainty at multiple time points after receiving results. Anticipated negative affect was also associated with greater decisional conflict, and anticipatory negative affect was also associated with greater distress after receiving results. Future-oriented emotions may play an important role in decisions that unfold over time, with implications for genomic testing, behavioral medicine, and health decision-making broadly.

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.