From ownership to custodianship of tumor biopsy tissue in genomic testing: a mixed methods study of patient views.

Tumor mutation profiling (MP) is often conducted on tissue from biopsies conducted for clinical purposes (diagnostic tissue). We aimed to explore the views of patients with cancer on who should own tumor biopsy tissue, pay for its storage, and decide on its future use; and determine their attitudes to and predictors of undergoing additional biopsies if required for research purposes. In this mixed methods, cross-sectional study, patients with advanced solid cancers enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n = 397) completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing MP (n = 356/397). A subset (n = 23) also completed a qualitative interview. Fifty percent of participants believed they and/or relatives should own and control access to diagnostic tissue. Most (65.5%) believed the government should pay for tissue preparation. Qualitative themes included (1) custodianship of diagnostic tissue, (2) changing value of tissue across time and between cultures, (3) equity regarding payment, and (4) cost-benefit considerations in deciding on additional biopsies. Policy and regulation should consider patient perspectives. Extension of publicly funded health care to include tissue retrieval for clinical trials should be considered.

Cancer Risks Associated With TP53 Pathogenic Variants: Maximum Likelihood Analysis of Extended Pedigrees for Diagnosis of First Cancers Beyond the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Spectrum.

PURPOSE: Establishing accurate age-related penetrance figures for the broad range of cancer types that occur in individuals harboring a pathogenic germline variant in the TP53 gene is essential to determine the most effective clinical management strategies. These figures also permit optimal use of cosegregation data for classification of TP53 variants of unknown significance. Penetrance estimation can easily be affected by bias from ascertainment criteria, an issue not commonly addressed by previous studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a maximum likelihood penetrance estimation using full pedigree data from a multicenter study of 146 TP53-positive families, incorporating adjustment for the effect of ascertainment and population-specific background cancer risks. The analysis included pedigrees from Australia, Spain, and United States, with phenotypic information for 4,028 individuals. RESULTS: Core Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) cancers (breast cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, brain cancer, osteosarcoma, and soft tissue sarcoma) had the highest hazard ratios of all cancers analyzed in this study. The analysis also detected a significantly increased lifetime risk for a range of cancers not previously formally associated with TP53 pathogenic variant status, including colorectal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers. The cumulative risk of any cancer type by age 50 years was 92.4% (95% CI, 82.2 to 98.3) for females and 59.7% (95% CI, 39.9 to 81.3) for males. Females had a 63.3% (95% CI, 35.6 to 90.1) cumulative risk of developing breast cancer by age 50 years. CONCLUSION: The results from maximum likelihood analysis confirm the known high lifetime risk for the core LFS-associated cancer types providing new risk estimates and indicate significantly increased lifetime risks for several additional cancer types. Accurate cancer risk estimates will help refine clinical recommendations for TP53 pathogenic variant carriers and improve TP53 variant classification.

ASPiRATION: Australian observational cohort study of comprehensive genomic profiling in metastatic lung cancer tissue.

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in Australia and worldwide. This disease often happens due to alterations in specific genes that allow cancer cells to develop and spread. Scientists have designed targeted drugs that are better at attacking cancer cells that have specific 'actionable' gene alterations and have less effect on other cells in the body. The result is often more benefit from treatment and fewer side effects than other standard treatments (chemotherapy or immunotherapy). The targeted drugs are well established as the best initial treatments for some gene alterations, but more research is needed to know if this is true for some of the less common or recently identified gene alterations, and where the targeted drugs are very new. Comprehensive genomic profiling is a new way of testing lung cancer cells for all the gene alterations (the well-known ones as well as the rare ones) in a single test. It is expected that this test will find many more of these gene alterations, which will allow more people to have safer and more effective targeted treatments leading to potentially better outcomes, and will allow some people to join clinical trials testing newer targeted treatments. The ASPiRATION study will help work out whether comprehensive genomic profiling is better than the current way of testing for gene alterations in Australia, and if it is feasible to use in all people diagnosed with advanced lung cancer in Australia. Clinical Trial Registration: ACTRN12621000221853 (ANZCTR).

Genetically inferred birthweight, height, and puberty timing and risk of osteosarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have linked increased risk of osteosarcoma with tall stature, high birthweight, and early puberty, although evidence is inconsistent. We used genetic risk scores (GRS) based on established genetic loci for these traits and evaluated associations between genetically inferred birthweight, height, and puberty timing with osteosarcoma. METHODS: Using genotype data from two genome-wide association studies, totaling 1039 cases and 2923 controls of European ancestry, association analyses were conducted using logistic regression for each study and meta-analyzed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted by case diagnosis age, metastasis status, tumor location, tumor histology, and presence of a known pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. RESULTS: Genetically inferred higher birthweight was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma (OR =1.59, 95% CI 1.07-2.38, P = 0.02). This association was strongest in cases without metastatic disease (OR =2.46, 95% CI 1.44-4.19, P = 9.5 ×10-04). Although there was no overall association between osteosarcoma and genetically inferred taller stature (OR=1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17, P = 0.28), the GRS for taller stature was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma in 154 cases with a known pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant (OR=1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.63, P = 0.03). There were no significant associations between the GRS for puberty timing and osteosarcoma. CONCLUSION: A genetic propensity to higher birthweight was associated with increased osteosarcoma risk, suggesting that shared genetic factors or biological pathways that affect birthweight may contribute to osteosarcoma pathogenesis.

A signal-seeking Phase 2 study of olaparib and durvalumab in advanced solid cancers with homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of PARP plus PD-L1 inhibition (olaparib + durvalumab, O + D) in patients with advanced solid, predominantly rare cancers harbouring homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 48 patients were treated with O + D, 16 with BRCA1/2 alterations (group 1) and 32 with other select HRR alterations (group 2). Overall, 32 (66%) patients had rare or less common cancers. The primary objective of this single-arm Phase II trial was a progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted on archival tumour tissue and serial bloods. RESULTS: The PFS6 rate was 35% and 38% with durable objective tumour responses (OTR) in 3(19%) and 3(9%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Rare cancers achieving an OTR included cholangiocarcinoma, perivascular epithelioid cell (PEComa), neuroendocrine, gallbladder and endometrial cancer. O + D was safe, with five serious adverse events related to the study drug(s) in 3 (6%) patients. A higher proportion of CD38 high B cells in the blood and higher CD40 expression in tumour was prognostic of survival. CONCLUSIONS: O + D demonstrated no new toxicity concerns and yielded a clinically meaningful PFS6 rate and durable OTRs across several cancers with HRR defects, including rare cancers.

Family communication and results disclosure after germline sequencing: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Research on family communication of germline genome sequencing (GS) results (versus of genetic results after targeted genetic testing) is still emerging, yet potentially complex results increase the importance of communicating risk to relatives. Promoting equity by ensuring patients have sufficient health literacy to interpret results is important in this context. This study aimed to identify cancer patients' perceived importance of result disclosure, predictors of perceptions, and perspectives on family communication. METHODS: This explanatory-sequential, cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved participants (n = 246) completing a questionnaire and (n = 20) a semi-structured interview. Ordinal logistic regressions determined associations between potential predictors and perceived importance of result disclosure. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: More participants intended disclosing to nuclear (77.4%) than to extended family (42.7%). More than half (59.3%) felt results were family information; 62.7% believed it was important to disclose results to family members. Nuclear and extended family communication scores and education level were significantly positively associated with perceived importance of disclosure (p < 0.05). Six qualitative themes were identified: i) Responsibility to inform, ii) Choice, iii) Autonomy, iv) Family Communication, v) Significance of results, and vi) Health professional role. CONCLUSION: Low health literacy and family conflict can complicate communication of GS results. Patients seek clear, interpretable information in a format they can easily communicate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals can facilitate discussion of GS results by offering written information, encouraging disclosure, exploring existing family dynamics and communication patterns, and offering strategies to improve family communication. Centralised genetic communication offices and chatbots can also be helpful.

Heritable defects in telomere and mitotic function selectively predispose to sarcomas.

Cancer genetics has to date focused on epithelial malignancies, identifying multiple histotype-specific pathways underlying cancer susceptibility. Sarcomas are rare malignancies predominantly derived from embryonic mesoderm. To identify pathways specific to mesenchymal cancers, we performed whole-genome germline sequencing on 1644 sporadic cases and 3205 matched healthy elderly controls. Using an extreme phenotype design, a combined rare-variant burden and ontologic analysis identified two sarcoma-specific pathways involved in mitotic and telomere functions. Variants in centrosome genes are linked to malignant peripheral nerve sheath and gastrointestinal stromal tumors, whereas heritable defects in the shelterin complex link susceptibility to sarcoma, melanoma, and thyroid cancers. These studies indicate a specific role for heritable defects in mitotic and telomere biology in risk of sarcomas.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Psychological outcomes in advanced cancer patients after receiving genomic tumor profiling results.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CGP) offers hope for personalized treatment for cancer patients when other treatment options have been exhausted. However, receipt of nonactionable or ambiguous results could be an ongoing source of distress. We investigated patterns of hope, anxiety, depression, and CGP-specific anxiety in advanced cancer patients after receiving CGP results and 2-3 months later. METHOD: Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal psychosocial substudy, embedded in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program, and had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient and accessible tissue for CGP. At T0 (before receiving CGP results), 1,431 participants completed sociodemographic, disease and psychosocial measures. At T1 (1-4 weeks after receiving CGP results) and T2 (2-3 months post-T1), 374 participants completed psychological outcome measures. Predictors of outcomes at T2 were identified using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of participants did not experience significant hopelessness or distress at T1 and T2. Hope decreased by T2, yet general anxiety and CGP-specific anxiety also decreased. Receiving actionable results did not impact psychological outcomes at T2. At T2, lower hope, and higher anxiety, depression and CGP-specific anxiety were associated with lower self-efficacy. Psychological and demographic factors (age, socioeconomic status, language, medical occupation, urban living, family history of cancer) independently predicted one or more psychological trajectories. Worse health status and perceived susceptibility to cancer progression predicted hope and anxiety trajectories. CONCLUSION: Further research on interventions to best support patients undergoing CGP with high anxiety, hopelessness, fear of cancer progression, and poorer health is urgently needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results.

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. In conclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Validation of the multidimensional impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Questionnaire to assess impact of waiting for genome sequencing results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the existing Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale, which assesses impact of receiving genetic test results on individuals being assessed for cancer risk, can be successfully adapted to cancer patients experiencing prolonged waiting for results of germline genome sequencing (GS). METHODS: Patients previously diagnosed with likely hereditary cancer (n = 250) who were waiting for germline GS results completed questionnaires 3 months after baseline. We adapted the MICRA to measure anxiety associated with waiting for results, and assessed factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validation. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed four factors: distress, positive experience, family support and uncertainty. Internal consistency for each sub-scale was high with the values of Cronbach's alpha for the distress, positive experiences, family support and uncertainty sub-scales 0.92, 0.88, 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Test-retest reliability was poor, with intra-class correlations of 0.53, 0.13, 0.33 and 0.52 for the four factors, respectively. Construct validation showed large correlations between the MICRA distress and uncertainty sub-scale scores and the Impact of Events score intrusion (0.42 and 0.62, respectively) and IES avoidant thinking sub-scales (0.40 and 0.58, respectively) but not the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale sub-scales. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted MICRA identified test-related anxiety and uncertainty in a population of cancer patients waiting for germline GS results. Results suggest that the distress and uncertainty sub-scales of the adapted measure are most useful in this context.

Psychological impact of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results for advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results. METHODS: Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available. RESULTS: Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p < 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001-0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients.

Rare germline variants in childhood cancer patients suspected of genetic predisposition to cancer.

Identification of cancer-predisposing germline variants in childhood cancer patients is important for therapeutic decisions, disease surveillance and risk assessment for patients, and potentially, also for family members. We investigated the spectrum and prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in selected childhood cancer patients with features suggestive of genetic predisposition to cancer. Germline DNA was subjected to exome sequencing to filter variants in 1048 genes of interest including 176 known cancer predisposition genes (CPGs). An enrichment burden analysis compared rare deleterious germline CPG variants in the patient cohort with those in a healthy aged control population. A subset of predicted deleterious variants in novel candidate CPGs was investigated further by examining matched tumor samples, and the functional impact of AXIN1 variants was analyzed in cultured cells. Twenty-two pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants detected in 13 CPGs were identified in 19 of 76 patients (25.0%). Unclear association with the diagnosed cancer types was observed in 11 of 19 patients carrying P/LP CPG variants. The burden of rare deleterious germline variants in autosomal dominant CPGs was significantly higher in study patients versus healthy aged controls. A novel AXIN1 frameshift variant (Ser321fs) may impact the regulation of ß-catenin levels. Selection of childhood cancer patients for germline testing based on features suggestive of an underlying genetic predisposition could help to identify carriers of clinically relevant germline CPG variants, and streamline the integration of germline genomic testing in the pediatric oncology clinic.

My Research Results: a program to facilitate return of clinically actionable genomic research findings.

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

Cancer patient knowledge about and behavioral intentions after germline genome sequencing.

OBJECTIVES: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes. METHODS: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors. RESULTS: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

Value of whole-genome sequencing to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study.

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS.

Effectively communicating comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results: Mitigating uncertainty for advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To understand advanced cancer patients' experience of uncertainty when receiving comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their perceptions of how healthcare provider (HCP) communication impacts uncertainty. METHODS: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CTGP results. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. RESULTS: We identified three themes that illustrate patient experience of uncertainties when receiving CTGP results: 1. Type and degree of uncertainty fluctuates along with changing illness circumstances and the nature of the CTGP results; 2. HCPs' co-ordination of care and communication shapes uncertainty, with immediate, clearer and simpler information promoting certainty; and 3. Patients felt that communicating results to reduce relatives' uncertainty is important, with patients choosing the time and process for achieving this and desiring HCPs support. CONCLUSION: Oncology patients are confronted with an array of uncertainties. Clear, simple communication from HCPs about results and their implications, and support to manage uncertainty, will be of benefit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If CTGP is to become routine clinical practice, clear communication will be crucial in reducing uncertainty. Awareness of potential uncertainties experienced by patients when receiving results, will assist HCPs to address uncertainties, reduce uncertainty where possible, and offer targeted support to patients struggling with uncertainty.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling.

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.