Longitudinal follow-up after telephone disclosure in the randomized COGENT study.

PURPOSE: To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. METHODS: Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site (p < 0.0001), being female (p = 0.047), and not having a true negative result (p < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

Precision medicine integrating whole-genome sequencing, comprehensive metabolomics, and advanced imaging.

Genome sequencing has established clinical utility for rare disease diagnosis. While increasing numbers of individuals have undergone elective genome sequencing, a comprehensive study surveying genome-wide disease-associated genes in adults with deep phenotyping has not been reported. Here we report the results of a 3-y precision medicine study with a goal to integrate whole-genome sequencing with deep phenotyping. A cohort of 1,190 adult participants (402 female [33.8%]; mean age, 54 y [range 20 to 89+]; 70.6% European) had whole-genome sequencing, and were deeply phenotyped using metabolomics, advanced imaging, and clinical laboratory tests in addition to family/medical history. Of 1,190 adults, 206 (17.3%) had at least 1 genetic variant with pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) assessment that suggests a predisposition of genetic risk. A multidisciplinary clinical team reviewed all reportable findings for the assessment of genotype and phenotype associations, and 137 (11.5%) had genotype and phenotype associations. A high percentage of genotype and phenotype associations (>75%) was observed for dyslipidemia (n = 24), cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, and other cardiac diseases (n = 42), and diabetes and endocrine diseases (n = 17). A lack of genotype and phenotype associations, a potential burden for patient care, was observed in 69 (5.8%) individuals with P/LP variants. Genomics and metabolomics associations identified 61 (5.1%) heterozygotes with phenotype manifestations affecting serum metabolite levels in amino acid, lipid and cofactor, and vitamin pathways. Our descriptive analysis provides results on the integration of whole-genome sequencing and deep phenotyping for clinical assessments in adults.

Experience Gained from the Development and Execution of a Multidisciplinary Multi-syndrome Hereditary Colon Cancer Family Conference.

Genetic healthcare professionals provide genetic cancer risk assessment and follow-up care for patients facing hereditary cancers. To meet the needs of those affected by hereditary colorectal cancer, City of Hope and the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation collaborated to develop a "Family Day" conference. We describe the development of our conference based upon the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation's "Family Day" program model, with refinements completed using the Participatory Action Research theoretical framework, which incorporated input from conference participants and researchers. Thirty-one participants attended the conference, representing patients with, or families, friends, and caregivers of those with, multiple colorectal cancer predisposition syndromes, including Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, and juvenile polyposis. Participants who completed the feedback surveys (n = 22) were highly satisfied with the presentation content, ranking the keynote lecture on family communication the highest of the conference events. Participants also provided feedback regarding how to improve future conferences. In conclusion, we share our experience and provide guidance for developing a successful hereditary colon cancer predisposition patient and family conference.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Prospective Study of Cancer Genetic Variants: Variation in Rate of Reclassification by Ancestry.

Background: In germline genetic testing, variants from understudied ancestries have been disproportionately classified as being of uncertain significance. We hypothesized that the rate of variant reclassification likewise differs by ancestry. Methods: Nonbenign variants in actionable genes were collected from consenting subjects undergoing genetic testing at two Southern California sites from September 1996 through December 2016. Variant reclassifications were recorded as they were received, until February 2017 or reclassification to benign. Excluding duplicate variants (same ancestry, laboratory, classification), generalized linear models for the hereditary breast cancer genes (BRCA1/2) and other variants investigated whether rate of reclassification differed for seven categories of ancestry compared with non-Hispanic European. Models took into account laboratory, year, gene, sex, and current classification (handled as a time-dependent covariate) and were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing. Results: Among 1483 nonbenign variants, 693 (46.7%) involved BRCA1/2. Overall, 268 (18.1%) variants were reclassified at least once. Few (9.7%) reclassified variants underwent a net upgrade in pathogenicity. For BRCA1/2 variants, reclassification rates varied by ancestry and increased over time, more steeply for ancestries with lower initial rates (African, Ashkenazi, Chinese) than for ancestries whose initial rates were high (Middle Eastern) or similar to non-Hispanic European (non-Chinese Asian, Native American, Hispanic). In contrast, reclassification rates of non-BRCA1/2 variants did not vary over time but were elevated for most minority ancestries except non-Chinese Asian and Native American. Conclusions: For nonbenign variants in cancer-related genes, the rates at which reclassifications are issued vary by ancestry in ways that differ between BRCA1/2 and other genes.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.

Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown. Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided. Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02). Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

Somatic TP53 variants frequently confound germ-line testing results.

PURPOSE: Blood/saliva DNA is thought to represent the germ line in genetic cancer-risk assessment. Cases with pathogenic TP53 variants detected by multigene panel testing are often discordant with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, raising concern about misinterpretation of acquired aberrant clonal expansions (ACEs) with TP53 variants as germ-line results. METHODS: Pathogenic TP53 variants with abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics (e.g., decreased ratio (<25%) of mutant to wild-type allele, more than two detected alleles) were selected from a CLIA laboratory testing cohort. Alternate tissues and/or close relatives were tested to distinguish between ACE and germ-line status. Clinical data and Li-Fraumeni syndrome testing criteria were examined. RESULTS: Among 114,630 multigene panel tests and 1,454 TP53 gene-specific analyses, abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics were observed in 20% of 353 TP53-positive results, and ACE was confirmed for 91% of cases with ancillary materials, most of these due to clonal hematopoiesis. Only four met Chompret criteria. Individuals with ACE were older (50 years vs. 33.7; P = 0.02) and were identified more frequently in multigene panel tests (66/285; 23.2%) than in TP53 gene-specific tests (6/68; 8.8%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: ACE confounds germ-line diagnosis, may portend hematologic malignancy, and may provoke unwarranted clinical interventions. Ancillary testing to confirm germ-line status should precede Li-Fraumeni syndrome management.

The spectrum of genetic variants in hereditary pancreatic cancer includes Fanconi anemia genes.

Approximately 5-10% of all pancreatic cancer patients carry a predisposing mutation in a known susceptibility gene. Since >90% of patients present with late stage disease, it is crucial to identify high risk individuals who may be amenable to early detection or other prevention. To explore the spectrum of hereditary pancreatic cancer susceptibility, we evaluated germline DNA from pancreatic cancer participants (n = 53) from a large hereditary cancer registry. For those without a known predisposition mutation gene (n = 49), germline next generation sequencing was completed using targeted capture for 706 candidate genes. We identified 16 of 53 participants (30%) with a pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant that may be related to their hereditary pancreatic cancer predisposition; seven had mutations in genes associated with well-known cancer syndromes (13%) [ATM (2), BRCA2 (3), MSH2 (1), MSH6 (1)]. Many had mutations in Fanconi anemia complex genes [BRCA2 (3 participants), FANCF, FANCM]. Eight participants had rare protein truncating variants of uncertain significance with no other P or LP variants. Earlier age of pancreatic cancer diagnosis (57.5 vs 64.8 years) was indicative of possessing a P or LP variant, as was cancer family history (p values <0.0001). Our multigene panel approach for identifying known cancer predisposing genetic susceptibility in those at risk for hereditary pancreatic cancer may have direct applicability to clinical practice in cases with mutations in actionable genes. Future pancreatic cancer predisposition studies should include evaluation of the Fanconi anemia genes.

Genetic Gastric Cancer Susceptibility in the International Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network.

Few susceptibility genes for gastric cancer have been identified. We sought to identify germline susceptibility genes from participants with gastric cancer from an international hereditary cancer research network. Adults with gastric cancer of any histology, and with a germline DNA sample (n = 51), were retrospectively selected. For those without previously identified germline mutations (n = 43), sequencing was performed for 706 candidate genes. Twenty pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified among 18 participants. Eight of the 18 participants had previous positive clinical testing, including six with CDH1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and two with pathogenic MSH2 and TP53 variants. Of the remaining 10, six were in BRCA1 DNA damage response pathway genes (ATM, ATR, BRCA2, BRIP1, FANCC, TP53), other variants were identified in CTNNA1, FLCN, SBDS, and GNAS. Participants identified with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were younger at gastric cancer diagnosis than those without, 39.1 versus 48.0 years, and over 50% had a close family member with gastric cancer (p-values < 0.0001). In conclusion, many participants were identified with mutations in clinically-actionable genes. Age of onset and family history of gastric cancer were mutation status predictors. Our findings support multigene panels in identifying gastric cancer predisposition.

Corrigendum: Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

[This corrects the article on p. 208 in vol. 5, PMID: 26484312.].

Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panels can be a cost- and time-effective alternative to sequentially testing multiple genes, especially with a mixed family cancer phenotype. However, moving beyond our single-gene testing paradigm has unveiled many new challenges to the clinician. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with some of the challenges, as well as potential opportunities, of expanded hereditary cancer panel testing. METHODS: We include results from 348 commercial multigene panel tests ordered from January 1, 2014, through October 1, 2014, by clinicians associated with the City of Hope's Clinical Cancer Genetics Community of Practice. We also discuss specific challenging cases that arose during this period involving abnormalities in the genes: CDH1, TP53, PMS2, PALB2, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C. RESULTS: If historically high risk genes only were included in the panels (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, PMS2, TP53, APC, CDH1), the results would have been positive only 6.2% of the time, instead of 17%. Results returned with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) 42% of the time. CONCLUSION: These figures and cases stress the importance of adequate pre-test counseling in anticipation of higher percentages of positive, VUS, unexpected, and ambiguous test results. Test result ambiguity can be limited by the use of phenotype-specific panels; if found, multiple resources (the literature, reference laboratory, colleagues, national experts, and research efforts) can be accessed to better clarify counseling and management for the patient and family. For pathogenic variants in low and moderate risk genes, empiric risk modeling based on the patient's personal and family history of cancer may supersede gene-specific risk. Commercial laboratory and patient contributions to public databases and research efforts will be needed to better classify variants and reduce clinical ambiguity of multigene panels.

Bilateral granulosa cell tumors: a novel malignant manifestation of multiple endocrine neoplasia 1 syndrome found in a patient with a rare menin in-frame deletion.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple endocrine neoplasia 1 (MEN1) is a cancer syndrome resulting from mutations of the MEN1 gene. The syndrome is characterized by neoplasia of the parathyroid and pituitary glands, and malignant tumors of the endocrine pancreas. Other manifestations include benign lipomas, angiofibromas, and carcinoid tumors commonly originating in the colon, thymus, and lung. This is the first report of MEN1 syndrome manifesting as bilateral granulosa cell ovarian tumors, and which is associated with a rare intronic mutation of the MEN1 gene. CASE REPORT: A 41-year-old woman presented with abdominal pain, increasing abdominal girth, and dysmenorrhea. Ultrasound demonstrated enlarged ovaries and uterine fibroids. After an exploratory laparotomy, she subsequently underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with hysterectomy where the pathology revealed bilateral cystic granulosa cell tumors of the ovaries. Additional workup including computed tomography imaging discovered a thymic mass, which the pathology showed was malignant, along with a pancreatic mass suspicious for a neuroendocrine tumor. Hyperparathyroidism was also discovered and was found to be secondary to a parathyroid adenoma. Genetic testing revealed an exceedingly rare mutation in the MEN1 gene (c.654 + 1 G>A). DISCUSSION: Mutations of the menin gene leading to MEN1 syndrome are classically nonsense or missense mutations producing a dysfunctional protein product. Recently, researchers described a novel mutation of MEN1 (c.654 + 1 G>A) in a male proband meeting the criteria for clinical MEN1 syndrome. Functional analysis performed on the stable mutant protein showed selective disruption of the transforming growth factor beta signaling pathway, yet it maintained its wild-type ability to inhibit nuclear factor kappa B and to suppress JunD transcriptional activity. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report of MEN1 syndrome associated with bilateral granulosa cell malignancy. We postulate that this presentation may be due to the novel menin gene mutation recently described.

Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility.

PURPOSE: Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. METHODS: Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. RESULTS: In this model, tier 1 "indispensable" information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is "binned" into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. CONCLUSION: A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.Genet Med 17 6, 485-492.

Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of genetic testing for disease susceptibility, one application of "personalized medicine", holds the potential to empower patients and providers through informed risk reduction and prevention recommendations. Genetic testing has become a standard practice in cancer prevention for high-risk populations. Heightened consumer awareness of "cancer genes" and genes for other diseases (eg, cardiovascular and Alzheimer's disease), as well as the burgeoning availability of increasingly complex genomic tests (ie, multi-gene, whole-exome and -genome sequencing), has escalated interest in and demand for genetic risk assessment and the specialists who provide it. Increasing demand is expected to surpass access to genetic specialists. Thus, there is urgent need to develop effective and efficient models of delivery of genetic information that comparably balance the risks and benefits to the current standard of in-person communication. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a theoretically grounded and rigorously developed protocol for telephone communication of BRCA1/2 (breast cancer) test results that might be generalizable to genetic testing for other hereditary cancer and noncancer syndromes. METHODS: Stakeholder data, health communication literature, and our theoretical model grounded in Self-Regulation Theory of Health Behavior were used to develop a telephone communication protocol for the communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Framework analysis of selected audiotapes of disclosure sessions and stakeholders' feedback were utilized to evaluate the efficacy and inform refinements to this protocol. RESULTS: Stakeholder feedback (n=86) and audiotapes (38%, 33/86) of telephone disclosures revealed perceived disadvantages and challenges including environmental factors (eg, non-private environment), patient-related factors (eg, low health literacy), testing-related factors (eg, additional testing needed), and communication factors (eg, no visual cues). Resulting modifications to the communication protocol for BRCA1/2 test results included clarified patient instructions, scheduled appointments, refined visual aids, expanded disclosure checklist items, and enhanced provider training. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of stakeholders' experiences and audiotapes of telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results informed revisions to communication strategies and a protocol to enhance patient outcomes when utilizing telephone to disclose genetic test results.

Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing.

Increasing use of predictive genetic testing to gauge hereditary cancer risk has been paralleled by rising cost-sharing practices. Little is known about how demographic and psychosocial factors may influence individuals' willingness-to-pay for genetic testing. The Gastrointestinal Tumor Risk Assessment Program Registry includes individuals presenting for genetic risk assessment based on personal/family cancer history. Participants complete a baseline survey assessing cancer history and psychosocial items. Willingness-to-pay items include intention for: genetic testing only if paid by insurance; testing with self-pay; and amount willing-to-pay ($25-$2,000). Multivariable models examined predictors of willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket (versus only if paid by insurance) and willingness-to-pay a smaller versus larger sum (≤$200 vs. ≥$500). All statistical tests are two-sided (α = 0.05). Of 385 evaluable participants, a minority (42%) had a personal cancer history, while 56% had ≥1 first-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Overall, 21.3% were willing to have testing only if paid by insurance, and 78.7% were willing-to-pay. Predictors of willingness-to-pay were: 1) concern for positive result; 2) confidence to control cancer risk; 3) fewer perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening; 4) benefit of testing to guide screening (all p < 0.05). Subjects willing-to-pay a higher amount were male, more educated, had greater cancer worry, fewer relatives with colorectal cancer, and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing (all p < 0.05). Individuals seeking risk assessment are willing-to-pay out-of-pocket for genetic testing, and anticipate benefits to reducing cancer risk. Identifying factors associated with willingness-to-pay for genetic services is increasingly important as testing is integrated into routine cancer care.

Direct-to-patient disclosure of results of mismatch repair screening for Lynch syndrome via electronic personal health record: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: The adoption of universal mismatch repair screening of colorectal and endometrial cancers has the potential to improve detection of Lynch syndrome, as well as to improve health outcomes among cancer patients and their family members. Electronic patient health records represent an innovative, resource-efficient route of delivering results directly to patients that could be enhanced by multimedia interventions to improve critical downstream outcomes. The current study examines the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. METHODS: Patients hospitalized for resection of colorectal or endometrial cancer were recruited to receive their mismatch repair result via institutional electronic patient health record. Baseline and follow-up assessments were conducted. RESULTS: In all, 74% (49/66) of eligible patients consented, and 81% (29/36) of participants who had a result posted to their electronic patient health record completed follow-up, surpassing feasibility thresholds, with 14% (5/36) receiving an abnormal result. Ratings of the study approach surpassed the acceptability threshold--97% had a mean score of ≥ 4 on a 7-point scale--and were high, regardless of whether the results were normal or abnormal. Ineligibility was more common among non-white patients (P = 0.009) and patients ≥ 65 of age (P = 0.035) due to either low Internet use or access to the Internet. CONCLUSION: Electronic patient health record-based result disclosure for mismatch repair screening is feasible to study and is acceptable to patients, but minority and elderly patients may experience greater barriers to participation.Genet Med 16 11, 854-861.

Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results.

OBJECTIVES: With an increasing demand for genetic services, effective and efficient delivery models for genetic testing are needed. METHODS: In this prospective single-arm communication study, participants received clinical BRCA1/2 results by telephone with a genetic counselor and completed surveys at baseline, after telephone disclosure (TD) and after in-person clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty percent of women agreed to participate; 73% of decliners preferred in-person communication. Anxiety decreased from baseline to post-TD (p=0.03) and satisfaction increased (p<0.01). Knowledge did not change significantly from baseline to post-TD, but was higher post-clinical follow-up (p=0.04). Cancer patients had greater declines in state anxiety and African-American participants reported less increase in satisfaction. 28% of participants did not return for in-person clinical follow-up, particularly those with less formal education, and higher post-disclosure anxiety and depression (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results may not be associated with negative cognitive and affective responses among willing patients, although some subgroups may experience less favorable responses. Some patients do not return for in-person clinical follow-up and longitudinal outcomes are unknown. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further evaluation of longitudinal outcomes of telephone disclosure and differences among subgroups can inform how to best incorporate telephone communication into delivery of genetic services.

Interpretation of genetic testing for lynch syndrome in patients with putative familial colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk assessment involves the evaluation of an individual's personal and family history for characteristics of an inherited susceptibility to develop CRC. Lynch syndrome (LS), or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, is the most common cause of hereditary CRC, underlying 2% to 3% of patients with newly diagnosed (incident) CRC. Risk assessment for LS is complex, and the interpretation of the many available tests can be challenging even for the genetics specialist. A move toward universal (reflex) LS screening for mismatch repair in all patients with incident CRC supports the importance of improving the awareness and understanding of LS testing, teaching rational testing approaches, and honing interpretive skills among cancer care providers. This article reviews important clinical features of LS genetic evaluation using 3 pedigree-based case examples from the Fox Chase Cancer Center Gastrointestinal Risk Assessment Clinic.