Update on cancer predisposition syndromes and surveillance guidelines for childhood brain tumors.

Tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) comprise the second most common group of neoplasms in childhood. The incidence of germline predisposition among children with brain tumors continues to grow as our knowledge on disease aetiology increases. Some children with brain tumors may present with non-malignant phenotypic features of specific syndromes (e.g. nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, neurofibromatosis type 1 and type 2, DICER1 syndrome, and constitutional mismatch repair deficiency), while others may present with a strong family history of cancer (e.g. Li-Fraumeni syndrome), or with a rare tumor commonly found in the context of germline predisposition (e.g. rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome). Approximately 50% of patients with a brain tumor may be the first in a family identified to have a predisposition. The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion in our molecular understanding of CNS tumors. A significant proportion of CNS tumors are now well characterized and known to harbor specific genetic changes that can be found in the germline. Additional novel predisposition syndromes are also being described. Identification of these germline syndromes in individual patients has not only enabled cascade testing of family members and early tumor surveillance but increasingly has also impacted cancer management in those patients. Therefore, the AACR Cancer Predisposition Working Group chose to highlight these advances in CNS tumor predisposition and summarize and/or generate surveillance recommendations for established and more recently emerging pediatric brain tumor predisposition syndromes.

Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle".

Access to genomic sequencing (GS) and resulting recommendations have not been well described in pediatric oncology. GS results may provide a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) diagnosis that warrants screening and specialist visits beyond cancer treatment, including testing or surveillance for family members. The Texas KidsCanSeq (KCS) Study evaluated implementation of GS in a diverse pediatric oncology population. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 20) to explore experiences of KCS patients' families around learning about a CPS diagnosis and following up on recommended care. We used qualitative content analysis to develop themes and subthemes across families' descriptions of their experiences accessing care and to understand which factors presented barriers and/or facilitators. We found participants had difficulty differentiating which follow-up care recommendations were made for their child's current cancer treatment versus the CPS. In families' access to follow-up care for CPS, organizational factors were crucial: travel time and distance were common hardships, while coordination of care to streamline multiple appointments with different providers helped facilitate CPS care. Financial factors also impacted families' access to CPS-related follow-up care: having financial assistance and insurance were facilitators for families, while costs and lack of insurance posed as barriers for patients who lost coverage during transitions from pediatric to adult care, and for adult family members who had no coverage. Factors related to beliefs and perceptions, specifically perceiving the risk as less salient to them and feeling overwhelmed with the patient's cancer care, presented barriers to follow-up care primarily for family members. Regarding social factors, competing life priorities made it difficult for families to access follow-up care, though having community support alleviated these barriers. We suggest interventions to improve coordination of cancer treatment and CPS-related care and adherence to surveillance protocols for families as children age, such as care navigators and integrating longitudinal genetic counseling into hereditary cancer centers.

Information-seeking preferences in diverse patients receiving a genetic testing result in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) study.

PURPOSE: Accurate and understandable information after genetic testing is critical for patients, family members, and professionals alike. METHODS: As part of a cross-site study from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium, we investigated the information-seeking practices among patients and family members at 5 to 7 months after genetic testing results disclosure, assessing the perceived utility of a variety of information sources, such as family and friends, health care providers, support groups, and the internet. RESULTS: We found that individuals placed a high value on information obtained from genetics professionals and health care workers, independent of genetic testing result case classifications as positive, inconclusive, or negative. The internet was also highly utilized and ranked. Study participants rated some information sources as more useful for positive results compared with inconclusive or negative outcomes, emphasizing that it may be difficult to identify helpful information for individuals receiving an uncertain or negative result. There were few data from non-English speakers, highlighting the need to develop strategies to reach this population. CONCLUSION: Our study emphasizes the need for clinicians to provide accurate and comprehensible information to individuals from diverse populations after genetic testing.

Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research.

Purpose: With increased use of genomic testing in cancer research and clinical care, it is important to understand the perspectives and decision-making preferences of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer and their treating oncologists. Methods: We conducted an interview substudy of the BASIC3 Study, which enrolled newly diagnosed cancer patients <18 years of age with assent. Of 32 young adults (YAs) with cancer who reached the age of majority (AOM; 18 years) while on study, 12 were successfully approached and all consented to study continuation at AOM. Of those, seven completed an interview. Patients' oncologists, who enrolled and participated in return of clinical genomic results, were also interviewed (n = 12). Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: YAs cited the possibility of helping others and advancing science as major reasons for their assent to initial study enrollment and their willingness to consent at AOM. YAs thought obtaining informed consent from research participants for study continuation at AOM was a good idea in case they changed their minds or wanted to make their own decisions, and to keep them aware of study activities. There was diversity in what YAs understood and learned from genomic testing: some recalled specific findings, while some remembered minimal information about their results. Oncologists varied in their assessment of adolescents' engagement with the study and understanding of their results. Conclusion: Given the different ways AYAs engage with genomic information, careful assessment of AYAs' diverse communication and decision-making preferences is needed to tailor interactions accordingly.

Return of non-ACMG recommended incidental genetic findings to pediatric patients: considerations and opportunities from experiences in genomic sequencing.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of exome/genome sequencing has introduced unexpected testing results (incidental findings) that have become a major challenge for both testing laboratories and providers. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has outlined guidelines for laboratory management of clinically actionable secondary findings, debate remains as to whether incidental findings should be returned to patients, especially those representing pediatric populations. METHODS: The Sequencing Analysis and Diagnostic Yield working group in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium has collected a cohort of pediatric patients found to harbor a genomic sequencing-identified non-ACMG-recommended incidental finding. The incidental variants were not thought to be associated with the indication for testing and were disclosed to patients and families. RESULTS: In total, 23 "non-ACMG-recommended incidental findings were identified in 21 pediatric patients included in the study. These findings span four different research studies/laboratories and demonstrate differences in incidental finding return rate across study sites. We summarize specific cases to highlight core considerations that surround identification and return of incidental findings (uncertainty of disease onset, disease severity, age of onset, clinical actionability, and personal utility), and suggest that interpretation of incidental findings in pediatric patients can be difficult given evolving phenotypes. Furthermore, return of incidental findings can benefit patients and providers, but do present challenges. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be considerable benefit to return of incidental genetic findings, these findings can be burdensome to providers and present risk to patients. It is important that laboratories conducting genomic testing establish internal guidelines in anticipation of detection. Moreover, cross-laboratory guidelines may aid in reducing the potential for policy heterogeneity across laboratories as it relates to incidental finding detection and return. However, future discussion is required to determine whether cohesive guidelines or policy statements are warranted.

Clinical and molecular features of pediatric cancer patients with Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The association of childhood cancer with Lynch syndrome is not established compared with the significant pediatric cancer risk in recessive constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome (CMMRD). PROCEDURE: We describe the clinical features, germline analysis, and tumor genomic profiling of patients with Lynch syndrome among patients enrolled in pediatric cancer genomic studies. RESULTS: There were six of 773 (0.8%) pediatric patients with solid tumors identified with Lynch syndrome, defined as a germline heterozygous pathogenic variant in one of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (three with MSH6, two with MLH1, and one with MSH2). Tumor analysis demonstrated evidence for somatic second hits and/or increased tumor mutation burden in three of four patients with available tumor with potential implications for therapy and identification of at-risk family members. Only one patient met current guidelines for pediatric cancer genetics evaluation at the time of tumor diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1% of children with cancer have Lynch syndrome, which is missed with current referral guidelines, suggesting the importance of adding MMR genes to tumor and hereditary pediatric cancer panels. Tumor analysis may provide the first suggestion of an underlying cancer predisposition syndrome and is useful in distinguishing between Lynch syndrome and CMMRD.

FOCAD Indel in a Family With Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS) is a childhood polyposis syndrome with up to a 50% lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Germline pathogenic variants in BMPR1A and SMAD4 are responsible for around 40% of cases of JPS, but for the majority of individuals, the underlying genetic cause is unknown. We identified a family for which polyposis spanned four generations, and the proband had a clinical diagnosis of JPS. Next-generation sequencing was conducted, followed by Sanger sequencing confirmation. We identified an internal deletion of the FOCAD gene in all family members tested that altered the reading frame and is predicted to be pathogenic. We conclude that inactivation of the FOCAD gene is likely to cause JPS in this family.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care.

Pediatric oncologists' perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists' experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients' families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients' reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families' questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists' genetics expertise, and navigating families' emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs' and geneticists' support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

Genomic analysis and preclinical xenograft model development identify potential therapeutic targets for MYOD1-mutant soft-tissue sarcoma of childhood.

The myogenic differentiation 1 gene (MYOD1) p.L122R somatic mutation was first discovered in a subset of clinically aggressive embryonal rhabdomyosarcomas and has since been described in both pediatric and adult spindle cell/sclerosing rhabdomyosarcomas. Relatively little is known about the clinical, molecular, and histopathological features of these tumors in children. In order to further characterize the genomic and clinical features of pediatric MYOD1-mutant sarcomas, we evaluated a cohort of soft-tissue sarcoma patients treated at Texas Children's Hospital. Tumor DNA was subjected to next-generation panel sequencing and/or Sanger sequencing of the MYOD1 hotspot mutation. The MYOD1 p.L122R mutation was identified in six tumors, with a variant allele fraction greater than 0.8 in three cases, suggestive of loss of heterozygosity. One sclerosing rhabdomyosarcoma lacking the MYOD1 hotspot mutation was observed to have a MYOD1 copy number gain, also with evidence of loss of heterozygosity. Cancer gene panel sequencing revealed potentially targetable alterations in six of seven (86%) patients with MYOD1 alterations, including four patients with an alteration in the PI3K-AKT pathway: two hotspot PIK3CA mutations and deletions in PTEN and TSC2. On histopathologic review, MYOD1-altered tumors exhibited spindle and/or round cells and varying degrees of hyaline sclerosis. At last follow-up, six patients had died of disease and the seventh progressed early and was subsequently lost to follow-up. Both pre- and post-therapy patient-derived xenograft models were generated from one patient's tumor. These models were confirmed to harbor the MYOD1 and PIK3CA mutations seen in the primary tumor and were shown to be sensitive to PI3K/mTOR inhibition in vitro and in vivo. In conclusion, this study adds to recent reports describing the clinicopathologic and genomic features of MYOD1-altered soft-tissue sarcomas in children, including dismal prognosis and potential molecular targets for therapy. The novel preclinical models developed will facilitate further biological and preclinical study of this rare and aggressive tumor. © 2021 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Genomic Sequencing Results Disclosure in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations: Themes, Challenges, and Strategies from the CSER Consortium.

Genomic sequencing results need to be effectively communicated across all populations and practice settings. Projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium enroll diverse racial/ethnic and medically underserved participants across various clinical contexts. This article explores a set of CSER results disclosure cases to expand the evidence base on experiences returning genomic results. Case details were collected using a structured set of questions. We identified common themes in the case set, and assessed challenges and strategies in achieving six relevant results disclosure objectives. CSER-affiliated patient/community stakeholder impressions of the findings were solicited via video conference calls. Seventeen cases across six CSER projects were included. Case themes sorted into four categories: (1) factors influencing participant understanding, (2) participant emotional response, (3) disease burden, and (4) logistical challenges. Challenges meeting results disclosure objectives included a lack of dialogue, health literacy level, unexpected findings, and complex concepts. Strategies were consistent with traditional genetic counseling practice, but also highlighted approaches being evaluated in CSER projects. Patient/community stakeholders supported the identified themes and provided additional suggestions to improve patient understanding and engagement. These experiences add valuable insights into adapting genomic results disclosure practices to best serve all patient populations.

Scaling Genetic Counseling in the Genomics Era.

The development of massively parallel sequencing-based genomic sequencing tests has increased genetic test availability and access. The field and practice of genetic counseling have adapted in response to this paradigm-shifting technology and the subsequent transition to practicing genomic medicine. While the key elements defining genetic counseling remain relevant, genetic counseling service delivery models and practice settings have evolved. Genetic counselors are addressing the challenges of direct-to-consumer and consumer-driven genetic testing, and genetic counseling training programs are responding to the ongoing increased demand for genetic counseling services across a broadening range of contexts. The need to diversify both the patient and participant groups with access to genetic information, as well as the field of genetic counseling, is at the forefront of research and training program initiatives. Genetic counselors are key stakeholders in the genomics era, and their contributions are essential to effectively and equitably deliver precision medicine.

Phenotypic Differences in Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome With or Without a Disease-causing SMAD4/BMPR1A Variant.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS) is a clinically diagnosed hamartomatous polyposis syndrome that increases the risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Approximately 40%-50% of JPS is caused by a germline disease-causing variant (DCV) in the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes. The aim of this study was to characterize the phenotype of DCV-negative JPS and compare it with DCV-positive JPS. Herein, we analyzed a cohort of 145 individuals with JPS from nine institutions, including both pediatric and adult centers. Data analyzed included age at diagnosis, family history, cancer history, need for colectomy/gastrectomy, and polyp number and location. Compared with DCV-positive JPS, DCV-negative JPS was associated with younger age at diagnosis (P < 0.001), lower likelihood of having a family history of JPS (P < 0.001), and a lower risk of colectomy (P = 0.032). None of the DCV-negative individuals had gastric or duodenal polyps, and polyp burden decreased after the first decade compared with DCV-positive JPS. Subgroup analysis between SMAD4 and BMPR1A carriers showed that SMAD4 carriers were more likely to have a family history of JPS and required gastrectomy. Taken together, these data provide the largest phenotypic characterization of individuals with DCV-negative JPS to date, showing that this group has distinct differences compared with JPS due to a SMAD4 or BMPR1A variant. Better understanding of phenotype and cancer risk associated with JPS both with and without a DCV may ultimately allow for individualized management of polyposis and cancer risk.Prevention Relevance: Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome (JPS) is a gastrointestinal cancer predisposition syndrome requiring lifelong surveillance, however there is limited data comparing individuals with and without a germline disease-causing variant in SMAD4 or BMPR1A Herein we show that individuals with JPS without an underlying disease-causing variant have distinct phenotypic differences including lack of upper gastrointestinal polyps and lower rates of a family history of JPS, suggesting that a different approach to management may be appropriate in this population.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

Germline POLE mutation in a child with hypermutated medulloblastoma and features of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency.

Ultra-hypermutation (>100 mutations/Mb) is rare in childhood cancer genomes and has been primarily reported in patients with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD) caused by biallelic germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. We report a 5-yr-old child with classic clinical features of CMMRD and an ultra-hypermutated medulloblastoma with retained MMR protein expression and absence of germline MMR mutations. Mutational signature analysis of tumor panel sequencing data revealed a canonical DNA polymerase-deficiency-associated signature, prompting further genetic testing that uncovered a germline POLE p.A456P missense variant, which has previously been reported as a recurrent somatic driver mutation in cancers. This represents the earliest known onset of malignancy in a patient with a germline mutation in the POLE proofreading polymerase. The clinical features in this child, virtually indistinguishable from those of CMMRD, suggest that polymerase-proofreading deficiency should be considered in the differential diagnosis of CMMRD patients with retained MMR function.

Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Implementing genome and exome sequencing in clinical practice presents challenges, including obtaining meaningful informed consent. Consent may be challenging due to test limitations such as uncertainties associated with test results and interpretation, complexity created by the potential for additional findings and high patient expectations. We drew on the experiences of research teams within the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) Consortium on informed consent for clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) to negotiate consensus considerations. We present six considerations for clinicians and 12 key points to communicate as they support patients in deciding whether to undergo CGES. These considerations and key points provide a helpful starting point for informed consent to CGES, grounded in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) experience.

Exome sequencing disclosures in pediatric cancer care: Patterns of communication among oncologists, genetic counselors, and parents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine communication patterns and behaviors during disclosure of exome sequencing (ES) results to parents of pediatric cancer patients, and describe common themes in parental communication. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we analyzed transcripts of sessions where parents of pediatric cancer patients received ES results from an oncologist and genetic counselor. Seventy-six transcripts were analyzed for frequency of clinician information-giving, partnering-supportive talk, and active parent participation. A subset of 40 transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Disclosures consisted mostly of clinician talk (84% of total talk), which was focused on providing information (62% of clinicians' utterances) with occasional partnering-supportive talk (7% of clinicians' utterances). Most parents assumed a passive, listening role (16% of total talk). Themes in parental communication included expressing relief and the significance of an answer, concern about sharing results and responsibility for inheritance, and seeking clarification of health implications of results. CONCLUSION: Our finding of low levels of active parent participation during ES disclosures highlights the need to improve patient/parent engagement and understanding in a genetic setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinician communication strategies that could encourage parent participation and understanding include checking for parent understanding, partnership-building, and tailoring ES discussions to address parent concerns and preferences.

Agents of empathy: How medical interpreters bridge sociocultural gaps in genomic sequencing disclosures with Spanish-speaking families.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how linguistic tools used by interpreters during return of genomic sequencing results may have impacted communication with Spanish-speaking families, and to discuss the implications for the role of medical interpreters. METHODS: Using discourse analysis, we identified and categorized the various ways hospital-based interpreters adapted clinicians' language in 37 audio-recorded sessions in which Spanish-speaking parents participating in a clinical trial received their child's genomic sequencing results from English-speaking clinicians. RESULTS: We found that interpreters adapted clinicians' statements using five empathic linguistic tools: contextualization, encouragement, checking comprehension, endearment, and softening. Interpreters used an average of four linguistic tools per session, with contextualization and encouragement being the most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreters used empathic linguistic tools to alter clinicians' statements when communicating genomic information to Spanish-speaking families. Our findings demonstrate the critical role of interpreters as cultural mediators and facilitators of understanding for Spanish-speaking families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study expands upon the definition of clinical empathy in interpreter-mediated sessions. Our findings suggest that revisions of standards of medical interpretation practice may be warranted regarding interpreters' ability to adapt clinicians' language in a culturally sensitive manner during interpretation.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, now in its second funding cycle, is investigating the effectiveness of integrating genomic (exome or genome) sequencing into the clinical care of diverse and medically underserved individuals in a variety of healthcare settings and disease states. The consortium comprises a coordinating center, six funded extramural clinical projects, and an ongoing National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project. Collectively, these projects aim to enroll and sequence over 6,100 participants in four years. At least 60% of participants will be of non-European ancestry or from underserved settings, with the goal of diversifying the populations that are providing an evidence base for genomic medicine. Five of the six clinical projects are enrolling pediatric patients with various phenotypes. One of these five projects is also enrolling couples whose fetus has a structural anomaly, and the sixth project is enrolling adults at risk for hereditary cancer. The ongoing NHGRI intramural project has enrolled primarily healthy adults. Goals of the consortium include assessing the clinical utility of genomic sequencing, exploring medical follow up and cascade testing of relatives, and evaluating patient-provider-laboratory level interactions that influence the use of this technology. The findings from the CSER consortium will offer patients, healthcare systems, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges of providing genomic medicine in diverse populations and settings, and contribute evidence toward developing best practices for the delivery of clinically useful and cost-effective genomic sequencing in diverse healthcare settings.

Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. RESULTS: The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.