A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: A multimethod study.

PURPOSE: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care. METHODS: PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out. RESULTS: In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies. CONCLUSION: eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings.

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

Challenges and practical solutions for managing secondary genomic findings in primary care.

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings.

A Master Class in Family Doctor Leadership: Evaluating an Innovative Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In family medicine, leadership is critical for health care delivery, advancing curricula, research, and quality improvement. Systematic reviews of leadership development programs in health care identify limitations, calling for innovative designs and rigorous assessment. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of applying master class principles to leadership development in academic family medicine. METHODS: We used mixed methods to assess the impact of an innovative master class program on 15 emerging leaders in a large academic department of family medicine. The program consisted of five sessions where family physician masters shared their wisdom, techniques, and feedback with promising leaders. Quantitative evaluation involved participants' ratings of each session's content and delivery using a 5-point Likert scale. We assessed postcourse semistructured interviews with participants qualitatively using descriptive thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Individual sessions were highly evaluated, with a combined mean of 4.82/5. Qualitative thematic analysis identified self-perceived increased effectiveness in leadership activities; increased confidence as a leader; increased motivation to be a leader; and perceptions of value from the program, contributing to what participants described as unexpected potential change within themselves. Themes related to effectiveness of the program were practical advice; networking; diverse topics; accessible speakers sharing personal stories; and small-group, informal, early-evening format. CONCLUSIONS: Master class concepts can be adapted to leadership development in academic family medicine, with evidence of early positive impact on participants' self-perception of leadership skills and confidence. Further research is warranted to assess organizational impact and applicability to other settings.

Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals.

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs.

Experiences of patients with a disability in receiving primary health care: Using experience-based design for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To use patient-guided tours to gain insight into the experiences of patients with disabilities receiving primary care, with the goal of suggesting improvements. DESIGN: A qualitative experience-based design study, using patient-guided tours. SETTING: Multidisciplinary academic urban primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with disabilities identified by their health care providers. METHODS: Patients walked through the clinic as they would on a "typical visit" describing their feelings and experiences. The investigator used a semistructured interview guide to prompt the patient. The tour was audiorecorded and transcribed. Thematic content analysis was used. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants included 18 patients with various disabilities (physical disability, sensory disability, chronic illness, mental illness, learning disability, developmental disability). Strong positive relationships, particularly with the team and administrative staff, profoundly affected perceived access and experience of care. Multidirectional, clear, and respectful communication independently improved patients' experiences dramatically. Participants said that many access, coordination, and physical barriers were eased by team relationships and communication. Physical space and building issues were troublesome for those with physical and mental disabilities alike. Each participant's disability itself played a role in their experience but was not described as prominently as their relationship, communication, and spatial challenges. Participants described the patient-guided tour method as valuable to elicit experiences and feelings. CONCLUSION: Some health care teams are unaware of how relationships and communication affect every aspect of health care for people with disabilities. Highlighting these findings with providers and organizations might prompt a more patient-centred model of care. Our experience-based design consisting of patient-guided tours was effective in assessing how those with disabilities experienced care.

Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') role in result notification for newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF), given that expanded NBS has increased the number of positive screening test results, drawing attention to the role of PCPs in supporting families. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers (FPs, pediatricians, and midwives) who received a positive CF NBS result for an infant in their practice in the 6 months before the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the PCP notified the family of the initial positive CF screening result. RESULTS: Data from 321 PCP surveys (response rate of 51%) are reported, including 208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, and 45 midwives. Interviews were completed with 34 PCPs. Most (65%) surveyed PCPs reported notifying the infant's family of the initial positive screening result; 81% agreed that they have an important role to play in NBS; and 88% said it was important for PCPs, rather than the NBS centre, to notify families of initial positive results. With support and information from NBS centres, 68% would be extremely or very confident in doing so; this dropped to 54% when reflecting on their recent reporting experience. More than half (58%) of all PCPs said written point-of-care information from the NBS centre was the most helpful format. Adjusted for relevant factors, written educational information was associated with a lower rate of notifying families than written plus verbal information (risk ratio of 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). In the interviews, PCPs emphasized the challenge of balancing required content knowledge with the desire for the news to come from a familiar provider. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs notify families of NBS results and value this role. These data are relevant as NBS programs and other genomic services expand and consider ways of keeping PCPs confident and actively involved.

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') preferred roles and confidence in caring for infants receiving a positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) result, as well as management of CF family planning issues, given that expanded NBS has resulted in an increase in positive results. DESIGN: Mailed questionnaire. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Ontario FPs, pediatricians, and midwives identified by Newborn Screening Ontario as having had an infant with a positive CF NBS result in their practice in the previous 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary care providers' preferred roles in providing well-baby care for infants with positive CF screening results. RESULTS: Overall, 321 of 628 (51%) completed surveys (208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, 45 midwives). For well-baby care for infants confirmed to have CF, 77% of PCPs indicated they would not provide total care (ie, 68% would share care with other specialists and 9% would refer to specialists completely); for infants with an inconclusive CF diagnosis, 50% of PCPs would provide total care, 45% would provide shared care, and 5% would refer to a specialist; for CF carriers, 89% of PCPs would provide total care, 9% would provide shared care, and 2% would refer. Half (54%) of PCPs were extremely or very confident in providing reassurance about CF carriers' health. Only 25% knew how to order parents' CF carrier testing; 67% knew how to refer for prenatal diagnosis. Confidence in reassuring parents about the health of CF carrier children was associated with providing total well-baby care for CF carriers (risk ratio of 1.50; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.97) and infants with an inconclusive diagnosis (risk ratio of 3.30; 95% CI 1.34 to 8.16). CONCLUSION: Most PCPs indicated willingness to treat infants with a range of CF NBS results in some capacity. It is concerning that some indicated CF carriers should have specialist involvement and only half were extremely or very confident about reassuring families about carrier status. This raises issues about possible medicalization of those with carrier status, prompting the need for PCP education about genetic disorders and the meaning of genetic test results.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics).

PURPOSE: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions. METHODS: Draft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design. RESULTS: The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSION: These Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.

The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care.

PURPOSE: Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. RESULTS: In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Effect of genetics clinical decision support tools on health-care providers' decision making: a mixed-methods systematic review.

PURPOSE: Patient care involving genetics is challenging for nongenetics health-care providers. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or management recommendations. This systematic review synthesized evidence on whether using CDS tools resulted in appropriate changes in genetics-related patient management made by nongenetics health-care providers. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL yielded 2,239 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles on management changes by nongenetics clinicians using a CDS tool as part of patient care. Effect sizes were calculated for quantitative studies and all articles were analyzed together using narrative synthesis. Twenty articles were included. RESULTS: In 12/16 quantitative studies, CDS tools slightly increased appropriate changes in management, but study design appeared to affect the statistical significance of the effect. The qualitative data in the four remaining studies reaffirmed that CDS tools facilitated management decisions but raised questions about their effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review assessed clinical utility of CDS tools, finding that they slightly increase appropriate management changes by nongenetics providers. Future studies on CDS tools should explicitly evaluate decision making and patient outcomes.

Pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploration of patients' lived experiences.

BACKGROUND: Infectious outbreaks are known to cause fear and panic. Exploration of pregnant individuals' psychosocial condition using a qualitative lens during an infectious outbreak is limited. In this study we explore pregnant individuals' lived experiences as well as their psychological and behavioural responses during COVID-19 with the goal of providing useful strategies from the patient's perspective to enable health care providers to help pregnant patients navigate this and future pandemics. METHODS: Pregnant individuals between 20-weeks gestation and 3 months postpartum who received maternity care from an urban academic interprofessional teaching unit in Toronto, Canada were invited to participate. Semi-structured 60 min interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis. Interview questions probed psychological responses to the pandemic, behavioural and lifestyle changes, strategies to mitigate distress while pregnant during COVID-19 and advice for other patients and the healthcare team. RESULTS: There were 12 participants, mean age 35 years (range 30-43 years), all 1 to 6 months postpartum. Six main themes emerged: 1) Childbearing-related challenges to everyday life; 2) Increased worry, uncertainty and fear; 3) Pervasive sense of loss; 4) Challenges accessing care; 5) Strategies for coping with pandemic stress; 6) Reflections and advice to other pregnant people and health care professionals. Pregnant individuals described lack of social support due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and a profound sense of loss of what they thought their pregnancy and postpartum period should have been. Advice to healthcare providers included providing mental health support, clear and up to date communication as well as more postpartum and breastfeeding support. CONCLUSIONS: These participants described experiencing psychosocial distress during their pregnancies and postpartum. In a stressful situation such as a global pandemic, health care providers need to play a pivotal role to ensure pregnant individuals feel supported and receive consistent care throughout the pregnancy and postpartum period. The health care provider should ensure that mental health concerns are addressed and provide postpartum and breastfeeding support. Without addressing this need for support, parental mental health, relationships, parent-infant bonding, and infant development may be negatively impacted.

Hereditary colorectal cancer screening: A 10-year longitudinal cohort study following an educational intervention.

Family history (FH) of a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with two to fourfold increased risk, yet screening uptake is suboptimal despite proven mortality reduction. We developed a FH-based CRC Risk Triage/Management tool for family physicians (FPs), and educational booklet for patients with CRC FH. This report describes physician referral and patient screening behavior 5 and 10 years post-educational intervention, and factors associated with screening. Longitudinal cohort study. FPs/patients in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada were sent questionnaires at baseline (2005), 5 and 10 years (2015) following tool/booklet receipt. FPs were asked about CRC screening, patients about FH, screening type and timing. "Correct" screening was concordance with tool recommendations. Results reported for 29/121 (24%) FPs and 98/297 (33%) patients who completed all 3 questionnaires. Over 10 years 2/3 patients received the correct CRC screening test at appropriate timing (baseline 75%, 5-year 62%, 10-year 65%). About half reported their FP recommended CRC screening (5-year 51%, 10-year 63%). Fewer than half the patients correctly assessed their CRC risk (44%, 40%, 41%). Patients were less likely to have correct screening timing if female (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 0.99; p = 0.045). Patients were less likely to have both correct test and timing if moderate/high CRC risk (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.93; p = 0.017) and more likely if their physician recommended screening (RR1.69; 95% CI 1.15, 2.49; p = 0.007). Physician discussion of CRC risk and screening can positively impact patient screening behavior. Efforts are particularly needed for women and patients at moderate/high CRC risk.

Nicotine dependence as a risk factor for upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancers: A mediation analysis.

PURPOSE: This study investigated nicotine dependence as an independent risk factor for upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancers, including lung and head and neck cancers (HNC). The study aimed to isolate the direct effect of nicotine dependence, independent of tobacco smoking. METHODS: A case-control study with a total of 4957 participants was conducted in Ontario, Canada, of which 2964 categorized as either current or former smokers were used in the analysis. Nicotine dependence of ever-smokers (2360 UADT cases and 604 controls) was measured using the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence. Using mediation analyses and adjusted logistic regression models, we decomposed the direct effect of nicotine dependence and the mediated effect of smoking duration to quantify the risks of lung and HNC. The role of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cancer subtypes were assessed. RESULTS: Most individual nicotine dependence behaviours showed positive associations with lung cancer with approximately 1.8 to 3.5-fold risk increase, and to lesser extent with 1.4 to 2.3-fold risk for HNC. Nicotine dependence is partially accountable for increased risks of lung cancer (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 1.13-1.28) and HNC (1.12, 95%CI = 1.04-1.19). Nicotine dependence had a greater effect on the risk of HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer (OR = 3.06, 95%CI = 1.65-5.66) in comparison to HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.67-1.65). The direct effects of nicotine dependence remained significant after accounting for cumulative tobacco exposures. CONCLUSION: Nicotine dependence increases the risks of lung and HNC cancers after accounting for tobacco smoking, suggesting potential toxic effects of nicotine. These results are informative for the safety consideration of nicotine exposures.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions in Average-Risk Pregnancies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The cost effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been established for high-risk pregnancies but remains unclear for pregnancies at other risk levels. The aim was to assess the cost effectiveness of NIPT in average-risk pregnancies from the perspective of a provincial public payer in Canada. METHODS: A model was developed to compare traditional prenatal screening (TPS), NIPT as a second-tier test (performed only after a positive TPS result), and NIPT as a first-tier test (performed instead of TPS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13; sex chromosome aneuploidies; and microdeletions in a hypothetical annual population cohort of average-risk pregnancies (142 000 to 148,000) in Ontario, Canada. A probabilistic analysis was conducted with 5000 repetitions. RESULTS: Compared with TPS, NIPT as a second-tier test detected more affected fetuses with trisomies 21, 18, and 13 (188 vs. 158), substantially reduced the number of diagnostic tests (i.e., chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis) performed (660 vs. 3107), and reduced the cost of prenatal screening ($26.7 million vs. $27.6 million) annually. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detected an additional 80 cases of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 at an additional cost of $33 million. The incremental cost per additional affected fetus detected was $412 411. Extending first-tier NIPT to include testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies and 22q11.2 deletion would increase the total screening cost. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT as a second-tier test is cost-saving compared with TPS alone. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detects more cases of chromosomal anomalies but at a substantially higher cost.