Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance.

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Narrative therapy and family therapy in genetic counseling: A scoping review.

Genetic counseling facilitates psychological and social adaptation in clients and families. Two psychotherapeutic approaches, narrative and family therapy foster client adaptation to adverse situations and may enhance the genetic counseling process. This scoping review aimed to describe the applications of narrative therapy and family therapy in genetic counseling, and to document the actual and perceived value of these approaches in a genetic counseling setting. Nine original research articles and six commentary articles met the study inclusion criteria. Original articles reported on positive client attitudes when these approaches were applied to hereditary cancer and Huntington disease settings. Five studies applied either approach in group sessions, where safety was key to positive outcomes, including sharing lived experiences and coping strategies. Balanced utilization of structured and open elements in group sessions maximized a sense of control, while also allowing for opportunity to self-disclose. Narrative therapy interventions were time efficient and were reported to foster connection with others and shape a new adaptive narrative centered around strengths. Family therapy approaches, based on experiential family therapy, the intersystem model, object relations family therapy, and the social ecology model, required a greater time commitment, but promoted disclosure of complex feelings and diffused tension. Family therapy genogram tools were feasible in practice, easy to implement, and effective at identifying communication barriers. Commentary articles highlighted the alignment of both approaches with genetic counseling goals and their potential value in practice. Utilization of psychotherapeutic approaches can improve counselors' ability to shape sessions, enhance insight and optimize efficacy, and flexibility in moving between models can maximize impact. This review highlights the paucity of studies investigating the efficacy of these psychotherapeutic approaches in the genetic counseling context and the need for more outcomes-based research on the utilization of narrative or family therapy in genetic counseling practice.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS: Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS: In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION: PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop an online educational program for using polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast and ovarian cancer risk assessments and to evaluate the impact on the attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness of genetic health care providers (GHPs). METHODS: The educational program comprises an online module that covers the theoretical aspects of PRS and a facilitated virtual workshop with prerecorded role-plays and case discussions. Data were collected in pre- and posteducation surveys. Eligible participants were GHPs working in Australian familial cancer clinics registered to recruit patients for a breast and ovarian cancer PRS clinical trial (n = 12). RESULTS: A total of 124 GHPs completed the PRS education, of whom 80 (64%) and 67 (41%) completed the pre- and posteducation surveys, respectively. Before education, GHPs reported limited experience, confidence, and preparedness using PRS, but they recognized its potential benefits. After education, GHPs indicated improved attitudes (P ≤ .001), confidence (P ≤ .001), knowledge (P ≤ .001), and preparedness (P ≤ .001) to use PRS. Most GHPs thought that the program entirely met their learning needs (73%) and was completely relevant to their clinical practice (88%). GHPs identified PRS implementation barriers, including limited funding models, diversity issues, and need for clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our education program improved GHP attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness for using PRS/personalized risk and provides a framework for the development of future programs.

The MC1R r allele does not increase melanoma risk in MITF E318K carriers.

BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for melanoma is not cost-effective, but genetic characterization could facilitate risk stratification and targeted screening. Common Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) red hair colour (RHC) variants and Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) E318K separately confer moderate melanoma susceptibility, but their interactive effects are relatively unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether MC1R genotypes differentially affect melanoma risk in MITF E318K+ vs. E318K- individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Melanoma status (affected or unaffected) and genotype data (MC1R and MITF E318K) were collated from research cohorts (five Australian and two European). In addition, RHC genotypes from E318K+ individuals with and without melanoma were extracted from databases (The Cancer Genome Atlas and Medical Genome Research Bank, respectively). χ2 and logistic regression were used to evaluate RHC allele and genotype frequencies within E318K+/- cohorts depending on melanoma status. Replication analysis was conducted on 200 000 general-population exomes (UK Biobank). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 1165 MITF E318K- and 322 E318K+ individuals. In E318K- cases MC1R R and r alleles increased melanoma risk relative to wild type (wt), P < 0.001 for both. Similarly, each MC1R RHC genotype (R/R, R/r, R/wt, r/r and r/wt) increased melanoma risk relative to wt/wt (P < 0.001 for all). In E318K+ cases, R alleles increased melanoma risk relative to the wt allele [odds ratio (OR) 2.04 (95% confidence interval 1.67-2.49); P = 0.01], while the r allele risk was comparable with the wt allele [OR 0.78 (0.54-1.14) vs. 1.00, respectively]. E318K+ cases with the r/r genotype had a lower but not significant melanoma risk relative to wt/wt [OR 0.52 (0.20-1.38)]. Within the E318K+ cohort, R genotypes (R/R, R/r and R/wt) conferred a significantly higher risk compared with non-R genotypes (r/r, r/wt and wt/wt) (P < 0.001). UK Biobank data supported our findings that r did not increase melanoma risk in E318K+ individuals. CONCLUSIONS: RHC alleles/genotypes modify melanoma risk differently in MITF E318K- and E318K+ individuals. Specifically, although all RHC alleles increase risk relative to wt in E318K- individuals, only MC1R R increases melanoma risk in E318K+ individuals. Importantly, in the E318K+ cohort the MC1R r allele risk is comparable with wt. These findings could inform counselling and management for MITF E318K+ individuals.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health.

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

Australasian genetic counselors' attitudes toward disability and prenatal testing: Findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Diagnostic genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for conditions associated with disability are becoming increasingly available to consumers. This genetic information can be used in the disability setting to inform factors such as prognosis, management, and reproductive decision-making. Genetic counselors (GCs) play an important role in the provision of genetic testing and NIPT, and their attitudes toward disability can influence how genetic information is communicated and shape patients' responses. This study aimed to evaluate and describe Australasian GCs' experience with and attitudes toward disabilities to identify potential biases and training needs. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 400 GCs registered with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Of the 106 respondents (participation rate: 26%), a significantly greater proportion were more comfortable interacting with individuals with physical disability as compared to intellectual disability (p < 0.001). GCs with personal experiences with disabilities reported significantly greater comfort interacting with people with intellectual disability than those without experience (p = 0.012). Qualitative analysis revealed discomfort was less reflective of bias than inexperience and apprehension about communicating disrespectfully. GCs believed people with disabilities experience discrimination and that having a disability could make a person stronger, wiser, and more motivated. Most GCs viewed prenatal testing for disabilities positively as it allowed for decisions regarding continuing the pregnancy and/or provided opportunity to prepare. Challenges identified for prenatal counseling included negative societal attitudes and the low visibility of disability. GCs felt that 'personal beliefs' was the primary factor influencing the decision to terminate a pregnancy affected by disability. These findings highlight important education and training needs for GCs to improve preparedness and comfort when communicating with people with a disability.

The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care.

Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.

Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk.

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Knowledge, views and expectations for cancer polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of health professionals.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma I: Primary and Secondary Preventative Behaviours.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification. METHODS: Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility. RESULTS: Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma II: Psychosocial Outcomes and Attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Although genetic testing for known familial melanoma genes is commercially available, clinical implementation has been restrained as utility is unclear, concerns of causing psychological distress are often cited, and consumer interest and perceptions are not well understood. A review of studies exploring participant-reported psychosocial outcomes and attitudes towards genetic testing for familial melanoma will provide insight into common emotional and cognitive responses. METHODS: Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted using a date range of January 1995 to June 2020. Studies examining any psychosocial outcomes alongside genetic testing (real or hypothetical), in participants described as having a high risk of melanoma, were eligible. A narrative synthesis of results was used to describe psychosocial outcomes and summarise participant beliefs and attitudes towards genetic testing. RESULTS: Limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes was found. No impacts on perceived risk or control were reported, and minimal decisional regret was recorded. Generalised distress was comparable between both genetic mutation carriers and non-carriers, often decreasing over time from pretesting levels. Melanoma-specific distress was frequently higher in carriers than non-carriers; however, this difference was present prior to testing and often associated with personal melanoma history. Overall, participants' attitudes towards testing were largely positive, with benefits more frequently described than limitations, and support for testing minors was strong. CONCLUSIONS: This review has found evidence of few adverse psychological outcomes following genetic testing. There was no indication of increased distress after genetic test results had been disclosed. If these findings were replicated in additional, larger, diverse populations over a longer follow-up period, this would be compelling evidence to guide clinical recommendations.

Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: 'Another piece of the pie'.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are personalized assessments of disease risk based on the cumulative effect of common low-risk genetic variants. PRS have been shown to accurately predict women's breast cancer risk and are likely to be incorporated into personalized breast cancer risk management programs. However, there are few studies investigating the individual impact of receiving a breast cancer PRS. Existing studies have not demonstrated significant changes in perceived risk or risk management behaviors after receipt of polygenic risk information. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women with a family history of breast cancer construct breast cancer risk perceptions after receipt of a breast cancer PRS. Unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer who had not previously received genetic counseling regarding their breast cancer risk were invited to participate in this study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who attended a familial cancer clinic in the Australian states of Victoria and Tasmania. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Women's lived experience played a significant role in the construction and maintenance of their breast cancer risk perception. Women's pre-existing risk perceptions were informed by their family history and their knowledge that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease. Knowing that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease enabled most women to integrate genetic information with their pre-existing notions of risk. Women reported that the information they received was consistent with their existing notions of personal risk and screening advice. Therefore, the PRS did not lead to a change in perceived risk or risk management behaviors for most women. The results of this study provide insight into how polygenic risk information is integrated with pre-existing notions of risk, which will inform its implementation into clinical practice.

Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field.

Polygenic factors are estimated to account for an additional 18% of the familial relative risk of breast cancer, with those at the highest level of polygenic risk distribution having a least a twofold increased risk of the disease. Polygenic testing promises to revolutionize health services by providing personalized risk assessments to women at high-risk of breast cancer and within population breast screening programs. However, implementation of polygenic testing needs to be considered in light of its current limitations, such as limited risk prediction for women of non-European ancestry. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for polygenic breast cancer risk, including the discovery of variants associated with breast cancer at the genome-wide level of significance and the use of polygenic risk scores to estimate breast cancer risk. We also review the different applications of this technology including testing of women from high-risk breast cancer families with uninformative genetic testing results, as a moderator of monogenic risk, and for population screening programs. Finally, a potential framework for introducing testing for polygenic risk in familial cancer clinics and the potential challenges with implementing this technology in clinical practice are discussed.

Uptake of polygenic risk information among women at increased risk of breast cancer.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are increasingly being implemented to assess breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess and determine factors associated with uptake of PRS among women at increased risk of breast cancer for whom genetic testing to date had been uninformative. Participants were recruited from the Variants in Practice study from which breast cancer PRS had been calculated. Four hundred women were notified by letter of the availability of their PRS and invited to complete a self-administered survey comprising several validated scales. Considering non-participants, uptake of PRS was between 61.8% and 42.1%. Multivariate logistic regression identified that women were more likely to receive their PRS if they reported greater benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, P = .011) and fewer barriers to receiving their PRS (OR = 0.80, P = .007), had completed higher level education (OR = 3.32, P = .004), and did not have daughters (0.29, P = .006). Uptake of breast cancer PRS varied according to several testing- and patient-related factors. Knowledge of these factors will facilitate the implementation of polygenic testing in clinical practice and support informed decision making by patients.

Psychosocial implications of living with familial risk of a psychiatric disorder and attitudes to psychiatric genetic testing: A systematic review of the literature.

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence documenting the psychosocial implications of living with a familial risk of an adult-onset psychiatric disorder. Six databases were searched systematically to identify qualitative and quantitative studies, which explored perspectives of those at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, as well as the general public. Thematic analysis was used to identify major themes. Thirty-five articles met the eligibility criteria and reported on the views of 4,896 participants. The literature demonstrates strong interest in psychiatric genetic testing of adults as well as children, whereas attitudes toward prenatal testing were much less positive. Predictors of interest in testing, as well as perceived advantages and disadvantages were identified. Very few studies are available on anticipated and actual reactions to receiving results. Studies show that the majority of participants feel that having a genetic explanation would alleviate some of the stigma associated with mental illness. This review shows that interest in, and predictors of attitudes toward, psychiatric genetic testing are well researched, but the extent to which attitudes will translate into actual testing uptake is unknown. Future research also needs to assess the actual behavioral and psychological impact of genetic testing.

Improving women's knowledge about prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome - development and acceptability of a low literacy decision aid.

BACKGROUND: Access to information about prenatal screening is important particularly in light of new techniques such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). This study aimed to develop and examine the acceptability of a low literacy decision aid (DA) about Down syndrome screening among pregnant women with varying education levels and GPs. METHODS: We developed a DA booklet providing information about first-trimester combined testing, maternal serum screening, and NIPT. GPs and women participated in a telephone interview to examine the acceptability of the DA and measure screening knowledge before and after reading the DA. The knowledge measure was designed to assess whether women had understood the gist of the information presented in the decision aid. It comprised conceptual questions (e.g. screening tells you the chance of having a baby with Down syndrome) and numeric questions (e.g. the accuracy of different screening tests). RESULTS: Twenty-nine women and 18 GPs participated. Regardless of education level, most women found the booklet 'very' clearly presented (n = 22, 76%), and 'very' informative (n = 23, 80%). Overall, women's conceptual and numeric knowledge improved after exposure to the DA, from 4% having adequate knowledge to 69%. Women's knowledge of NIPT also improved after receiving the decision aid, irrespective of education. Most GPs found it 'very' clearly presented (n = 13, 72%), and that it would 'very much' facilitate decision-making (n = 16, 89%). CONCLUSIONS: The DA was found to be acceptable to women as well as GPs. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of the decision aid compared to standard information is an important next step. Strategies are needed on how to implement the tool in practice.

Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The 'common variant, common disease' model predicts that a significant component of hereditary breast cancer unexplained by pathogenic variants in moderate or high-penetrance genes is due to the cumulative effect of common risk variants in DNA (polygenic risk). Assessing a woman's breast cancer risk by testing for common risk variants can provide useful information for women who would otherwise receive uninformative results by traditional monogenic testing. Despite increasing support for the utility of common risk variants in hereditary breast cancer, research findings have not yet been integrated into clinical practice. Translational research is therefore critical to ensure results are effectively communicated, and that women do not experience undue adverse psychological outcomes. METHODS: In this prospective study, 400 women with a personal and/or high risk family history of breast cancer will be recruited from six familial cancer centers (FCCs) in Australia. Eligible women will be invited to attend a FCC and receive their personal polygenic risk result for breast cancer. Genetic health professionals participating in the study will receive training on the return of polygenic risk information and a training manual and visual aids will be developed to facilitate patient communication. Participants will complete up to three self-administered questionnaires over a 12-months period to assess the short-and long-term psychological and behavioral outcomes of receiving or not receiving their personal polygenic risk result. DISCUSSION: This is the world's first study to assess the psychological and behavioral impact of offering polygenic risk information to women from families at high risk of breast cancer. Findings from this research will provide the basis for the development of a new service model to provide polygenic risk information in familial cancer clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on 27th April 2017 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Group (Registration no: ACTRN12617000594325; clinical trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372743 ).