From intention to action: Assessing need and creating a JEDI toolkit for individuals teaching cancer genetics curriculum.

The effects of systemic racism persist in cancer care and contribute to disparities. Recent publications have shown that injustices and biases continue to affect the field of genetic counseling in the form of microaggressions, barriers to entry, and disparate patient care. Toolkits are one method that can be used to incorporate anti-racist practices to address this need. We sought to identify the current state of coverage of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) topics during cancer genetics training across genetic counseling training programs (GCTPs) and utilize this information to create a novel toolkit that would support integration of anti-racist pedagogy into formal genetic counseling curricula. To accomplish this aim, recent learners and program directors/cancer course instructors were surveyed using two novel surveys. The survey responses, which helped to identify the frequency and manner of incorporation of JEDI topics into cancer curricula in GCTPs, led to the development of an educational toolkit. Recent learners and instructors/program directors identified multiple content areas within cancer genetic training in which they felt incorporating JEDI topics would be desired. A toolkit to support the incorporation of anti-racist teaching and practices into cancer genetics training in GCTPs was created. This toolkit can be adapted to focus on topics relevant to the care of other marginalized identities and to support the learning of other healthcare providers receiving cancer genetics education.

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Family history and cancer risk study (FOREST): A clinical trial assessing electronic patient-directed family history input for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary cancer syndromes cause a high lifetime risk of early, aggressive cancers. Early recognition of individuals at risk can allow risk-reducing interventions that improve morbidity and mortality. Family health history applications that gather data directly from patients could alleviate barriers to risk assessment in the clinical appointment, such as lack of provider knowledge of genetics guidelines and limited time in the clinical appointment. New approaches allow linking these applications to patient health portals and their electronic health records (EHRs), offering an end-to-end solution for patient-input family history information and risk result clinical decision support for their provider. METHODS: We describe the design of the first large-scale evaluation of an EHR-integrable, patient-facing family history software platform based on the Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (SMART on FHIR) standard. In our study, we leverage an established implementation science framework to evaluate the success of our model to facilitate scalable, systematic risk assessment for hereditary cancers in diverse clinical environments in a large pragmatic study at two sites. We will also evaluate the success of the approach to improve the efficiency of downstream genetic counseling resulting from pre-counseling pedigree generation. CONCLUSIONS: Our research study will provide evidence regarding a new care delivery model that is scalable and sustainable for a variety of medical centers and clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT05079334 on 15 October 2021.

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants.

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.