Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance.

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Australasian genetic counselors' attitudes toward disability and prenatal testing: Findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Diagnostic genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for conditions associated with disability are becoming increasingly available to consumers. This genetic information can be used in the disability setting to inform factors such as prognosis, management, and reproductive decision-making. Genetic counselors (GCs) play an important role in the provision of genetic testing and NIPT, and their attitudes toward disability can influence how genetic information is communicated and shape patients' responses. This study aimed to evaluate and describe Australasian GCs' experience with and attitudes toward disabilities to identify potential biases and training needs. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 400 GCs registered with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Of the 106 respondents (participation rate: 26%), a significantly greater proportion were more comfortable interacting with individuals with physical disability as compared to intellectual disability (p < 0.001). GCs with personal experiences with disabilities reported significantly greater comfort interacting with people with intellectual disability than those without experience (p = 0.012). Qualitative analysis revealed discomfort was less reflective of bias than inexperience and apprehension about communicating disrespectfully. GCs believed people with disabilities experience discrimination and that having a disability could make a person stronger, wiser, and more motivated. Most GCs viewed prenatal testing for disabilities positively as it allowed for decisions regarding continuing the pregnancy and/or provided opportunity to prepare. Challenges identified for prenatal counseling included negative societal attitudes and the low visibility of disability. GCs felt that 'personal beliefs' was the primary factor influencing the decision to terminate a pregnancy affected by disability. These findings highlight important education and training needs for GCs to improve preparedness and comfort when communicating with people with a disability.

Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop an online educational program for using polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast and ovarian cancer risk assessments and to evaluate the impact on the attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness of genetic health care providers (GHPs). METHODS: The educational program comprises an online module that covers the theoretical aspects of PRS and a facilitated virtual workshop with prerecorded role-plays and case discussions. Data were collected in pre- and posteducation surveys. Eligible participants were GHPs working in Australian familial cancer clinics registered to recruit patients for a breast and ovarian cancer PRS clinical trial (n = 12). RESULTS: A total of 124 GHPs completed the PRS education, of whom 80 (64%) and 67 (41%) completed the pre- and posteducation surveys, respectively. Before education, GHPs reported limited experience, confidence, and preparedness using PRS, but they recognized its potential benefits. After education, GHPs indicated improved attitudes (P ≤ .001), confidence (P ≤ .001), knowledge (P ≤ .001), and preparedness (P ≤ .001) to use PRS. Most GHPs thought that the program entirely met their learning needs (73%) and was completely relevant to their clinical practice (88%). GHPs identified PRS implementation barriers, including limited funding models, diversity issues, and need for clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our education program improved GHP attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness for using PRS/personalized risk and provides a framework for the development of future programs.

The MC1R r allele does not increase melanoma risk in MITF E318K carriers.

BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for melanoma is not cost-effective, but genetic characterization could facilitate risk stratification and targeted screening. Common Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) red hair colour (RHC) variants and Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) E318K separately confer moderate melanoma susceptibility, but their interactive effects are relatively unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether MC1R genotypes differentially affect melanoma risk in MITF E318K+ vs. E318K- individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Melanoma status (affected or unaffected) and genotype data (MC1R and MITF E318K) were collated from research cohorts (five Australian and two European). In addition, RHC genotypes from E318K+ individuals with and without melanoma were extracted from databases (The Cancer Genome Atlas and Medical Genome Research Bank, respectively). χ2 and logistic regression were used to evaluate RHC allele and genotype frequencies within E318K+/- cohorts depending on melanoma status. Replication analysis was conducted on 200 000 general-population exomes (UK Biobank). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 1165 MITF E318K- and 322 E318K+ individuals. In E318K- cases MC1R R and r alleles increased melanoma risk relative to wild type (wt), P < 0.001 for both. Similarly, each MC1R RHC genotype (R/R, R/r, R/wt, r/r and r/wt) increased melanoma risk relative to wt/wt (P < 0.001 for all). In E318K+ cases, R alleles increased melanoma risk relative to the wt allele [odds ratio (OR) 2.04 (95% confidence interval 1.67-2.49); P = 0.01], while the r allele risk was comparable with the wt allele [OR 0.78 (0.54-1.14) vs. 1.00, respectively]. E318K+ cases with the r/r genotype had a lower but not significant melanoma risk relative to wt/wt [OR 0.52 (0.20-1.38)]. Within the E318K+ cohort, R genotypes (R/R, R/r and R/wt) conferred a significantly higher risk compared with non-R genotypes (r/r, r/wt and wt/wt) (P < 0.001). UK Biobank data supported our findings that r did not increase melanoma risk in E318K+ individuals. CONCLUSIONS: RHC alleles/genotypes modify melanoma risk differently in MITF E318K- and E318K+ individuals. Specifically, although all RHC alleles increase risk relative to wt in E318K- individuals, only MC1R R increases melanoma risk in E318K+ individuals. Importantly, in the E318K+ cohort the MC1R r allele risk is comparable with wt. These findings could inform counselling and management for MITF E318K+ individuals.

Evaluation and pilot testing of a multidisciplinary model of care to mainstream genomic testing for paediatric inborn errors of immunity.

Molecular diagnosis of paediatric inborn errors of immunity (IEI) influences management decisions and alters clinical outcomes, through early use of targeted and curative therapies. The increasing demand for genetic services has resulted in growing waitlists and delayed access to vital genomic testing. To address this issue, the Queensland Paediatric Immunology and Allergy Service, Australia, developed and evaluated a mainstreaming model of care to support point-of-care genomic testing for paediatric IEI. Key features of the model of care included a genetic counsellor embedded in the department, state-wide multidisciplinary team meetings, and variant prioritisation meetings to review whole exome sequencing (WES) data. Of the 62 children presented at the MDT, 43 proceeded to WES, of which nine (21%) received a confirmed molecular diagnosis. Changes to treatment and management were reported for all children with a positive result, including curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n = 4). Four children were also referred for further investigations of variants of uncertain significance or additional testing due to ongoing suspicion of genetic cause after negative result. Demonstrating engagement with the model of care, 45% of the patients were from regional areas and on average, 14 healthcare providers attended the state-wide multidisciplinary team meetings. Parents demonstrated understanding of the implications of testing, reported minimal decisional regret post-test, and identified benefits to genomic testing. Overall, our program demonstrated the feasibility of a mainstreaming model of care for paediatric IEI, improved access to genomic testing, facilitated treatment decision-making, and was acceptable to parents and clinicians alike.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health.

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS: Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS: In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION: PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type. METHODS: An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma.

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk.

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). METHODS: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Knowledge, views and expectations for cancer polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of health professionals.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

Genomic Risk Score for Melanoma in a Prospective Study of Older Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Recent genome-wide association meta-analysis for melanoma doubled the number of previously identified variants. We assessed the performance of an updated polygenic risk score (PRS) in a population of older individuals, where melanoma incidence and cumulative ultraviolet radiation exposure is greatest. METHODS: We assessed a PRS for cutaneous melanoma comprising 55 variants in a prospective study of 12 712 individuals in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly Trial. We evaluated incident melanomas diagnosed during the trial and prevalent melanomas diagnosed preenrolment (self-reported). Multivariable models examined associations between PRS as a continuous variable (per SD) and categorical (low-risk [0%-20%], medium-risk [21%-80%], high-risk [81%-100%] groups) with incident melanoma. Logistic regression examined the association between PRS and prevalent melanoma. RESULTS: At baseline, mean participant age was 75 years; 55.0% were female, and 528 (4.2%) had prevalent melanomas. During follow-up (median = 4.7 years), 120 (1.0%) incident cutaneous melanomas occurred, 98 of which were in participants with no history. PRS was associated with incident melanoma (hazard ratio = 1.46 per SD, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 1.77) and prevalent melanoma (odds ratio [OR] = 1.55 per SD, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.69). Participants in the highest-risk PRS group had increased risk compared with the low-risk group for incident melanoma (OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.92) and prevalent melanoma (OR = 3.66, 95% CI = 2.69 to 5.05). When stratifying by sex, only males had an association between the PRS and incident melanoma, whereas both sexes had an association between the PRS and prevalent melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: A genomic risk score is associated with melanoma risk in older individuals and may contribute to targeted surveillance.

Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting. METHODS: Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5). RESULTS: Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma I: Primary and Secondary Preventative Behaviours.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification. METHODS: Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility. RESULTS: Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma II: Psychosocial Outcomes and Attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Although genetic testing for known familial melanoma genes is commercially available, clinical implementation has been restrained as utility is unclear, concerns of causing psychological distress are often cited, and consumer interest and perceptions are not well understood. A review of studies exploring participant-reported psychosocial outcomes and attitudes towards genetic testing for familial melanoma will provide insight into common emotional and cognitive responses. METHODS: Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted using a date range of January 1995 to June 2020. Studies examining any psychosocial outcomes alongside genetic testing (real or hypothetical), in participants described as having a high risk of melanoma, were eligible. A narrative synthesis of results was used to describe psychosocial outcomes and summarise participant beliefs and attitudes towards genetic testing. RESULTS: Limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes was found. No impacts on perceived risk or control were reported, and minimal decisional regret was recorded. Generalised distress was comparable between both genetic mutation carriers and non-carriers, often decreasing over time from pretesting levels. Melanoma-specific distress was frequently higher in carriers than non-carriers; however, this difference was present prior to testing and often associated with personal melanoma history. Overall, participants' attitudes towards testing were largely positive, with benefits more frequently described than limitations, and support for testing minors was strong. CONCLUSIONS: This review has found evidence of few adverse psychological outcomes following genetic testing. There was no indication of increased distress after genetic test results had been disclosed. If these findings were replicated in additional, larger, diverse populations over a longer follow-up period, this would be compelling evidence to guide clinical recommendations.

Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: 'Another piece of the pie'.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are personalized assessments of disease risk based on the cumulative effect of common low-risk genetic variants. PRS have been shown to accurately predict women's breast cancer risk and are likely to be incorporated into personalized breast cancer risk management programs. However, there are few studies investigating the individual impact of receiving a breast cancer PRS. Existing studies have not demonstrated significant changes in perceived risk or risk management behaviors after receipt of polygenic risk information. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women with a family history of breast cancer construct breast cancer risk perceptions after receipt of a breast cancer PRS. Unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer who had not previously received genetic counseling regarding their breast cancer risk were invited to participate in this study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who attended a familial cancer clinic in the Australian states of Victoria and Tasmania. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Women's lived experience played a significant role in the construction and maintenance of their breast cancer risk perception. Women's pre-existing risk perceptions were informed by their family history and their knowledge that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease. Knowing that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease enabled most women to integrate genetic information with their pre-existing notions of risk. Women reported that the information they received was consistent with their existing notions of personal risk and screening advice. Therefore, the PRS did not lead to a change in perceived risk or risk management behaviors for most women. The results of this study provide insight into how polygenic risk information is integrated with pre-existing notions of risk, which will inform its implementation into clinical practice.

The Future of Precision Prevention for Advanced Melanoma.

Precision prevention of advanced melanoma is fast becoming a realistic prospect, with personalized, holistic risk stratification allowing patients to be directed to an appropriate level of surveillance, ranging from skin self-examinations to regular total body photography with sequential digital dermoscopic imaging. This approach aims to address both underdiagnosis (a missed or delayed melanoma diagnosis) and overdiagnosis (the diagnosis and treatment of indolent lesions that would not have caused a problem). Holistic risk stratification considers several types of melanoma risk factors: clinical phenotype, comprehensive imaging-based phenotype, familial and polygenic risks. Artificial intelligence computer-aided diagnostics combines these risk factors to produce a personalized risk score, and can also assist in assessing the digital and molecular markers of individual lesions. However, to ensure uptake and efficient use of AI systems, researchers will need to carefully consider how best to incorporate privacy and standardization requirements, and above all address consumer trust concerns.