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.

A pan-sarcoma landscape of telomeric content shows that alterations in RAD51B and GID4 are associated with higher telomeric content.

Tumor cells need to activate a telomere maintenance mechanism, enabling limitless replication. The bulk of evidence supports that sarcomas predominantly use alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT) mechanism, commonly associated with alterations in ATRX and DAXX. In our dataset, only 12.3% of sarcomas harbored alterations in these genes. Thus, we checked for the presence of other genomic determinants of high telomeric content in sarcomas. Our dataset consisted of 13555 sarcoma samples, sequenced as a part of routine clinical care on the FoundationOne®Heme platform. We observed a median telomeric content of 622.3 telomeric reads per GC-matched million reads (TRPM) across all samples. In agreement with previous studies, telomeric content was significantly higher in ATRX altered and POT1 altered sarcomas. We further observed that sarcomas with alterations in RAD51B or GID4 were enriched in samples with high telomeric content, specifically within uterus leiomyosarcoma for RAD51B and soft tissue sarcoma (not otherwise specified, nos) for GID4, Furthermore, RAD51B and POT1 alterations were mutually exclusive with ATRX and DAXX alterations, suggestive of functional redundancy. Our results propose a role played by RAD51B and GID4 in telomere elongation in sarcomas and open research opportunities for agents aimed at targeting this critical pathway in tumorigenesis.

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.

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 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.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The experiences and needs of Australian medical oncologists in integrating comprehensive genomic profiling into clinical care: a nation-wide survey.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly used to guide cancer therapy. This study aimed to characterise oncologists' experiences and needs when utilising genomic results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic survey distributed nation-wide to practising medical oncologists in Australia explored oncologists' experiences with consenting, interpreting and communicating CGP results to patients. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 108 of 333 oncologists (32%) and most respondents (n = 97, 90%) had referred patients for CGP. Using a 100-point visual analogue scale score [VAS], where higher values indicate greater confidence, most oncologists were confident consenting patients for referral [median 75 (Interquartile range, IQR: 53-85), discussing CGP results (median VAS: 70, IQR: 51-80), but significantly less confident discussing secondary germline findings (median VAS: 56, IQR 30-70, p < 0.001). Confidence with pursuing therapies based on CGP results increased with clinical experience (mean VAS increases by 4.8 per 5 years of experience, p < 0.001). Most oncologists (N = 68, 63%) reported wanting assistance with interpretation of CGP and patient-centric resources to aid communication with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists are integrating genomics into clinical care, but only display moderate confidence in communication and changing management accordingly. The development of patient- and clinician- targeted resources may assist with routine utilisation of CGP results in cancer care.

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 Patient Experience of Uncertainty While Waiting for Genome Sequencing Results.

There is limited knowledge about cancer patients' experiences of uncertainty while waiting for genome sequencing results, and whether prolonged uncertainty contributes to psychological factors in this context. To investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely hereditary origin while waiting for genome sequencing results, we collected questionnaire and interview data at baseline, and at three and 12 months follow up (prior to receiving results). Participants (N = 353) had negative attitudes towards uncertainty (M = 4.03, SD 0.68) at baseline, and low levels of uncertainty at three (M = 8.23, SD 7.37) and 12 months (M = 7.95, SD 7.64). Uncertainty about genome sequencing did not change significantly over time [t(210) = 0.660, p = 0.510]. Greater perceived susceptibility for cancer [r(348) = 0.14, p < 0.01], fear of cancer recurrence [r(348) = 0.19, p < 0.01], perceived importance of genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.24, p < 0.01], intention to change behavior if a gene variant indicating risk is found [r(349) = 0.29, p < 0.01], perceived ability to cope with results [r(349) = 0.36, p < 0.01], and satisfaction with decision to have genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.52, p < 0.01] were significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards uncertainty at baseline. Multiple primary cancer diagnoses [B = -2.364 [-4.238, -0.491], p = 0.014], lower perceived ability to cope with results [B = -0.1.881 [-3.403, -0.359], p = 0.016] at baseline, greater anxiety about genome sequencing (avoidance) [B = 0.347 [0.148, 0.546], p = 0.0012] at 3 months, and greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing [B = 0.494 [0.267, 0.721] p = 0.000] at 3 months significantly predicted greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 12 months. Greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 3 months significantly predicted greater anxiety (avoidance) about genome sequencing at 12 months [B = 0.291 [0.072, 0.509], p = 0.009]. Semi-structured interviews revealed that while participants were motivated to pursue genome sequencing as a strategy to reduce their illness and risk uncertainty, genome sequencing generated additional practical, scientific and personal uncertainties. Some uncertainties were consistently discussed over the 12 months, while others emerged over time. Similarly, some uncertainty coping strategies were consistent over time, while others emerged while patients waited for their genome sequencing results. This study demonstrates the complexity of uncertainty generated by genome sequencing for cancer patients and provides further support for the inter-relationship between uncertainty and anxiety. Helping patients manage their uncertainty may ameliorate psychological morbidity.

Family communication about genomic sequencing: A qualitative study with cancer patients and relatives.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored family communication about undertaking genomic sequencing, and intentions to communicate pertinent heritable results to family members. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 53) and their relatives (n = 20) who underwent germline genome sequencing or molecular tumor testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Key themes relevant to family communication about undertaking sequencing included: perceiving family member interest, delaying discussion until results were received, having shared capacity to understand and cope, and having open communication in the family. Intended communication subsequent to receiving results was affected by: disease severity, risk management options, degree of closeness in the family, sense of responsibility, and potential adverse impacts on family. Resource and support needs varied based on the complexity of test results, health professionals' availability, and disease severity. Unique subthemes were identified for specific subgroups. CONCLUSION: Current findings support the need to assess the impact and resource needs specific to each clinical application of genomic sequencing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Increasingly sophisticated and complex clinical genomic sequencing warrants development of family-centered interventions and resources to facilitate preference-sensitive communication about genomic sequencing, including disseminating relevant information to family members.

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.

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.

Assessment of the Value of Tumor Variation Profiling Perceived by Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Use of tumor molecular profiling (MP) is entering routine clinical practice; however, little is known about how much and why patients value MP. Objective: To examine the perceived value of MP to patients with advanced cancer and factors associated with perceived value. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey that included willingness-to-pay trade-off scenarios was administered to participants after consent and before MP. A total of 777 participants (94% response rate) were recruited from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Eligible patients had advanced solid cancers of any histologic type, were receiving or had completed their last line of effective therapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 to 3, and had sufficient accessible tissue for MP. The participants were recruited between October 24, 2017, and March 12, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from March 13 to April 14, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Willingness to pay for MP was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios varying in the actionable return rate (1%, 20%, or 40%) and cost (A$0, A$300 [US$210], A$1000 [US $700], A$3000 [US $2100], or A$10 000 [US $7000]). Ordinal regressions were used to explore factors associated with willingness to have and pay for MP. Results: Of 777 participants (405 women [52%]; mean [SD] age, 55.47 [14.26] years), 689 patients (89%) would have MP for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Fifty-six patients (7%) would require at least a 20% return rate and 11 patients (1%) would require at least a 40% return rate. Fifteen patients (2%) consistently chose not to have the test; 6 participants (0.8%) had missing values on this item. Participants were willing to pay a median of A$1000 if the actionable return rate was 1% and A$3000 for an actionable return rate of 20% to 40%. Of 762 individuals who agreed to testing, 482 patients (64%) were consistently unwilling to pay A$10 000, regardless of the actionable return rate. Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were more likely to want MP (eg, participants born in South Asia had an ordered odds for the tipping point of 7.74 [95% CI, 1.67-36.05; P = .009] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were also more willing to pay A$1000 or A$3000 (eg, participants born in Western Europe had an ordered odds for the tipping point for paying A$1000 of 1.74 [95% CI, 1.01-3.00; P = .048] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). People with a medical- or science-related occupation and with more negative attitudes toward uncertainty were more likely to pay A$10 000 (eg, A$10 000 tipping point-ordered odds of participants with a medical- or science-related occupation was 0.49 [95% CI, 0.7-0.87; P = .02] times that of participants without a medical- or science-related occupation). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found apparent high interest in but lower willingness to pay for MP among patients with advanced cancer. Ability to pay may limit access to MP. Ongoing societal debate is required to establish the value of MP and whether subsidization is needed to ensure equity of access.