A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

MyLynch: A Patient-Facing Clinical Decision Support Tool for Genetically-Guided Personalized Medicine in Lynch Syndrome.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer susceptibility condition associated with varying cancer risks depending on which of the five causative genes harbors a pathogenic variant; however, lifestyle and medical interventions provide options to lower those risks. We developed MyLynch, a patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) web application that applies genetically-guided personalized medicine (GPM) for individuals with LS. The tool was developed in R Shiny through a patient-focused iterative design process. The knowledge base used to estimate patient-specific risk leveraged a rigorously curated literature review. MyLynch informs LS patients of their personal cancer risks, educates patients on relevant interventions, and provides patients with adjusted risk estimates, depending on the interventions they choose to pursue. MyLynch can improve risk communication between patients and providers while also encouraging communication among relatives with the goal of increasing cascade testing. As genetic panel testing becomes more widely available, GPM will play an increasingly important role in patient care, and CDS tools offer patients and providers tailored information to inform decision-making. MyLynch provides personalized cancer risk estimates and interventions to lower these risks for patients with LS.

Clinical Impact of Pathogenic Variants in DNA Damage Repair Genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Breast and Ovarian Cancer Patients.

Consensus guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer include management recommendations for pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and other DNA damage repair (DDR) genes beyond BRCA1 or BRCA2. We report on clinical management decisions across three academic medical centers resulting from P/LP findings in DDR genes in breast/ovarian cancer patients. Among 2184 patients, 156 (7.1%) carried a P/LP variant in a DDR gene. Clinical follow-up information was available for 101/156 (64.7%) patients. Genetic test result-based management recommendations were made for 57.8% (n = 59) of patients and for 64.7% (n = 66) of patients' family members. Most recommendations were made for moderate-to-high risk genes and were consistent with guidelines. Sixty-six percent of patients (n = 39/59) implemented recommendations. This study suggests that P/LP variants in DDR genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 can change clinical management recommendations for patients and their family members, facilitate identification of new at-risk carriers, and impact treatment decisions. Additional efforts are needed to improve the implementation rates of genetic-testing-based management recommendations for patients and their family members.

Inherited TP53 Variants and Risk of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inherited germline TP53 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (gTP53) cause autosomal dominant multicancer predisposition including Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). However, there is no known association of prostate cancer with gTP53. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gTP53 predisposes to prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multi-institutional retrospective study characterizes prostate cancer incidence in a cohort of LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in a prostate cancer cohort. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated the spectrum of gTP53 variants and clinical features associated with prostate cancer. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 31 prostate cancer cases among 163 adult LFS males, including 26 of 54 aged ≥50 yr. Among 117 LFS males without prostate cancer at the time of genetic testing, six were diagnosed with prostate cancer over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 3.0 (1.3-7.2) yr of follow-up, a 25-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2-55; p < 0.0001). We identified gTP53 in 38 of 6850 males (0.6%) in the prostate cancer cohort, a relative risk 9.1-fold higher than that of population controls (95% CI 6.2-14; p < 0.0001; gnomAD). We observed hotspots at the sites of attenuated variants not associated with classic LFS. Two-thirds of available gTP53 prostate tumors had somatic inactivation of the second TP53 allele. Among gTP53 prostate cancer cases in this study, the median age at diagnosis was 56 (IQR: 51-62) yr, 44% had Gleason ≥8 tumors, and 29% had advanced disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary analyses of prostate cancer incidence in LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in prostate cancer cohorts suggest that gTP53 predisposes to aggressive prostate cancer. Prostate cancer should be considered as part of LFS screening protocols and TP53 considered in germline prostate cancer susceptibility testing. PATIENT SUMMARY: Inherited pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene are likely to predispose men to aggressive prostate cancer.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer.

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

Novel Models of Genetic Education and Testing for Pancreatic Cancer Interception: Preliminary Results from the GENERATE Study.

Up to 10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) carry underlying germline pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes. The GENetic Education Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study aimed to evaluate novel methods of genetic education and testing in relatives of patients with PDAC. Eligible individuals had a family history of PDAC and a relative with a germline pathogenic variant in APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, or TP53 genes. Participants were recruited at six academic cancer centers and through social media campaigns and patient advocacy efforts. Enrollment occurred via the study website (https://GENERATEstudy.org) and all participation, including collecting a saliva sample for genetic testing, could be done from home. Participants were randomized to one of two remote methods that delivered genetic education about the risks of inherited PDAC and strategies for surveillance. The primary outcome of the study was uptake of genetic testing. From 5/8/2019 to 5/6/2020, 49 participants were randomized to each of the intervention arms. Overall, 90 of 98 (92%) of randomized participants completed genetic testing. The most frequently detected pathogenic variants included those in BRCA2 (N = 15, 17%), ATM (N = 11, 12%), and CDKN2A (N = 4, 4%). Participation in the study remained steady throughout the onset of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives to traditional cascade testing, with genetic testing rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for PDAC interception approaches. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives for pancreatic cancer genetic testing and education, with genetic testing uptake rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for pancreatic cancer interception.

Informing models of cancer genetics care in the era of multigene panel testing with patient-led recommendations.

The study describes patient-reported experiences and recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing (MGPT) process. A descriptive mixed-method study with concurrently collected and integrated qualitative and quantitative data was conducted. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults with a breast or gynecologic cancer diagnosis who had received genetic counseling and testing with a MGPT from one Comprehensive Cancer Center. Satisfaction with the genetic counseling, genetic knowledge using a recently validated scale (KnowGene), the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA), family communication, and the association with demographic factors were evaluated. To supplement the large quantitative data set, qualitative focus group responses and open-ended text items were collected. Univariate and multivariable associations between each outcome of interest and personal characteristics were assessed. Qualitative data were content-analyzed. 603 participants completed the survey (48% response rate) and 10 individuals participated in the focus groups. Participants were mostly Caucasian, educated with a college degree or more, and female with median age 58 (24-91), and 78% of participants had a breast cancer diagnosis. Of all individuals undergoing genetic testing using a MGPT, 13% had a pathogenic variant identified, and 30% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, participants reported satisfaction with the genetic counseling and testing process (mean 36.9 [SD 4.7]). On average, participants had 7 incorrect answers out of 19 on the genetic knowledge scale (mean 12.3 [SD 3.4]). MICRA scores showed overall low levels of distress and uncertainty, as well as positive experiences, with wide variability (median 17 [0-84]). Age, marital status, education level, type of cancer diagnosis, and genetic testing results were significantly associated with outcomes. Most participants communicated genetic testing results to mainly female first-degree relatives. A wide range of individual preferences affecting overall satisfaction, or suggestions for improvement were shared. As new models of streamlined cancer genetic services are being clinically implemented, approaches should continue to assess and tailor the process based on patients' informational and emotional needs.

A Rare TP53 Mutation Predominant in Ashkenazi Jews Confers Risk of Multiple Cancers.

Germline mutations in TP53 cause a rare high penetrance cancer syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). Here, we identified a rare TP53 tetramerization domain missense mutation, c.1000G>C;p.G334R, in a family with multiple late-onset LFS-spectrum cancers. Twenty additional c.1000G>C probands and one c.1000G>A proband were identified, and available tumors showed biallelic somatic inactivation of TP53. The majority of families were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, and the TP53 c.1000G>C allele was found on a commonly inherited chromosome 17p13.1 haplotype. Transient transfection of the p.G334R allele conferred a mild defect in colony suppression assays. Lymphoblastoid cell lines from the index family in comparison with TP53 normal lines showed that although classical p53 target gene activation was maintained, a subset of p53 target genes (including PCLO, PLTP, PLXNB3, and LCN15) showed defective transactivation when treated with Nutlin-3a. Structural analysis demonstrated thermal instability of the G334R-mutant tetramer, and the G334R-mutant protein showed increased preponderance of mutant conformation. Clinical case review in comparison with classic LFS cohorts demonstrated similar rates of pediatric adrenocortical tumors and other LFS component cancers, but the latter at significantly later ages of onset. Our data show that TP53 c.1000G>C;p.G334R is found predominantly in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals, causes a mild defect in p53 function, and leads to low penetrance LFS. SIGNIFICANCE: TP53 c.1000C>G;p.G334R is a pathogenic, Ashkenazi Jewish-predominant mutation associated with a familial multiple cancer syndrome in which carriers should undergo screening and preventive measures to reduce cancer risk.

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.

Longitudinal outcomes with cancer multigene panel testing in previously tested BRCA1/2 negative patients.

Although multigene panel testing (MGPT) is increasingly utilized in clinical practice, there remain limited data on patient-reported outcomes. BRCA 1/2 negative patients were contacted and offered MGPT. Patients completed pre- and posttest counseling, and surveys assessing cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes at baseline, postdisclosure and 6 and 12 months. Of 317 eligible BRCA1/2 negative patients who discussed the study with research staff, 249 (79%) enrolled. Decliners were more likely to be older, non-White, and recruited by mail or email. Ninety-five percent of enrolled patients proceeded with MGPT. There were no significant changes in anxiety, depression, cancer specific distress or uncertainty postdisclosure. There were significant but small increases in knowledge, cancer-specific distress and depression at 6-12 months. Uncertainty declined over time. Those with a VUS had significant decreases in uncertainty but also small increases in cancer specific distress at 6 and 12 months. Among those with a positive result, medical management recommendations changed in 26% of cases and 2.6% of all tested. Most BRCA1/2 negative patients have favorable psychosocial outcomes after receipt of MGPT results, although small increases in depression and cancer-specific worry may exist and may vary by result. Medical management changed in few patients.

Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges.

Cancer genetic counseling practice is rapidly evolving, with services being provided in increasingly novel ways. Pretest counseling for cancer patients may be abbreviated from traditional models to cover the elements of informed consent in the broadest of strokes. Genetic testing may be ordered by a cancer genetics professional, oncology provider, or primary care provider. Increasingly, direct-to-consumer testing options are available and utilized by consumers anxious to take control of their genetic health. Finally, genetic information is being used to inform oncology care, from surgical decision-making to selection of chemotherapeutic agent. This review provides an overview of the current and evolving practice of cancer genetic counseling as well as opportunities and challenges for a wide variety of indications in both the adult and pediatric setting.

Research participants' experiences with return of genetic research results and preferences for web-based alternatives.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing interest in sharing genetic research results with participants, how best to communicate the risks, benefits and limitations of research results remains unclear. METHODS: Participants who received genetic research results answered open and closed-ended questions about their experiences receiving results and interest in and advantages and disadvantages of a web-based alternative to genetic counseling. RESULTS: 107 BRCA1/2 negative women with a personal or family history of breast cancer consented to receive genetic research results and 82% completed survey items about their experience. Most participants reported there was nothing they disliked (74%) or would change (85%) about their predisclosure or disclosure session (78% and 89%). They most frequently reported liking the genetic counselor and learning new information. Only 24% and 26% would not be willing to complete predisclosure counseling or disclosure of results by a web-based alternative, respectively. The most frequently reported advantages included convenience and reduced time. Disadvantages included not being able to ask questions, the risk of misunderstanding and the impersonal nature of the encounter. CONCLUSION: Most participants receiving genetic research results report high satisfaction with telephone genetic counseling, but some may be willing to consider self-directed web alternatives for both predisclosure genetic education and return of results.

Development and testing of the KnowGene scale to assess general cancer genetic knowledge related to multigene panel testing.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a measure of cancer genetics knowledge relevant to multigene panel testing. METHODS: The instrument was developed using systematic input from a national panel of genetics experts, acceptability evaluation by patient advocates, and cognitive testing. Twenty-four candidate items were completed by 591 breast or gynecological patients who had undergone genetic counseling and multigene panel testing in the past 18 months. A unidimensional item response theory model was fit with a mix of 2-parameter logistic nested response (2 plnrm) and 2-parameter logistic (2 pl) items. RESULTS: Key domains addressing cancer genetics knowledge were found to be overlapping. Of the 24 candidate items, 8 items were removed due to poor discrimination or local dependence. The remaining 16 items had good fit (RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.946) and discrimination parameters ranging from 0.49 to 1.60. The items specified as 2 plnrm distinguish between those answering incorrect versus don't know, with discrimination ranging from 0.51 to 1.02. Information curves were highest among those with lower knowledge. CONCLUSION: KnowGene is a rigorously developed and effective measure of knowledge after cancer genetic counseling and multigene panel testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Measuring knowledge in a systematic way will inform practice and research initiatives in cancer genetics.

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.

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.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing. RESULTS: Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene. CONCLUSION: Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Exercise-Induced Dose-Response Alterations in Adiponectin and Leptin Levels Are Dependent on Body Fat Changes in Women at Risk for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of adipokines, such as adiponectin and leptin, is associated with a variety of chronic diseases, including cancer. Physical activity protects against breast cancer and one of the mechanisms which may underlie this association is exercise-induced changes in adipokine levels. The WISER Sister Trial was a three-armed randomized controlled trial in premenopausal women (n = 137) with an elevated risk for breast cancer. METHODS: A 5-menstrual-cycle-long dosed aerobic exercise intervention compared low-dose exercise (150 min/wk; n = 44) or high-dose exercise (300 min/wk; n = 48) with a control group asked to maintain usual activity levels (n = 45). Exercise intensity progressed to and was maintained at 70% to 80% of age predicted heart rate max. Body composition and adipokine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: We observed significant linear trends for increased fitness capacity (Δ%: -2.0% control, 10.1% low dose, 13.1% high dose), decreased fat tissue-to-total tissue mass (Δ%: 0.7% control, -2.9% low dose, -3.7% high dose), increased body fat adjusted adiponectin (Δ%: -0.6% control, 0.6% low dose, 0.9% high dose), and decreased body fat adjusted leptin (Δ%: 0.7% control, -8.2% low dose, -10.2% high dose). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial of premenopausal women at risk for breast cancer, we demonstrate a dose-response effect of exercise on adiponectin and leptin and that dose response is dependent on changes in body fat. IMPACT: Improved adipokine levels, achieved by aerobic exercise training-induced decreases in body fat, may decrease breast cancer risk for high-risk premenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(8); 1195-200. ©2016 AACR.

Utilizing Remote Real-Time Videoconferencing to Expand Access to Cancer Genetic Services in Community Practices: A Multicenter Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Videoconferencing has been used to expand medical services to low-access populations and could increase access to genetic services at community sites where in-person visits with genetic providers are not available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of, patient feedback of, and cognitive and affective responses to remote two-way videoconferencing (RVC) telegenetic services at multiple sociodemographically diverse community practices without access to genetic providers. METHODS: Patients at 3 community sites in 2 US states outside the host center completed RVC pretest (visit 1, V1) and post-test (visit 2, V2) genetic counseling for cancer susceptibility. Surveys evaluated patient experiences, knowledge, satisfaction with telegenetic and cancer genetics services, anxiety, depression, and cancer worry. RESULTS: A total of 82 out of 100 (82.0%) approached patients consented to RVC services. A total of 61 out of 82 patients (74%) completed pretest counseling and 41 out of 61 (67%) proceeded with testing and post-test counseling. A total of 4 out of 41 (10%) mutation carriers were identified: BRCA2, MSH2, and PMS2. Patients reported many advantages (eg, lower travel burden and convenience) and few disadvantages to RVC telegenetic services. Most patients reported feeling comfortable with the video camera--post-V1: 52/57 (91%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--and that their privacy was respected--post-V1: 56/57 (98%); post-V2: 40/41 (98%); however, some reported concerns that RVC might increase the risk of a confidentiality breach of their health information--post-V1: 14/57 (25%); post-V2: 12/41 (29%). While the majority of patients reported having no trouble seeing or hearing the genetic counselor--post-V1: 47/57 (82%); post-V2: 39/41 (95%)--51 out of 98 (52%) patients reported technical difficulties. Nonetheless, all patients reported being satisfied with genetic services. Compared to baseline, knowledge increased significantly after pretest counseling (+1.11 mean score, P=.005); satisfaction with telegenetic (+1.74 mean score, P=.02) and genetic services (+2.22 mean score, P=.001) increased after post-test counseling. General anxiety and depression decreased after pretest (-0.97 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.37 mean depression score, P=.046) and post-test counseling (-1.13 mean anxiety score, P=.003; -0.75 mean depression score, P=.01); state anxiety and cancer-specific worry did not significantly increase. CONCLUSIONS: Remote videoconferencing telegenetic services are feasible, identify genetic carriers in community practices, and are associated with high patient satisfaction and favorable cognitive and affective outcomes, suggesting an innovative delivery model for further study to improve access to genetic providers and services. Potential barriers to dissemination include technology costs, unclear billing and reimbursement, and state requirements for provider licensure.