Shared decision making: Implications for return of results from whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing

"I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Renal genetics in Australia: Kidney medicine in the genomic age

There have been few new therapies for patients with chronic kidney disease in the last decade. However, the management of patients affected by genetic kidney disease is rapidly evolving. Inherited or genetic kidney disease affects around 10% of adults with end‐stage kidney disease and up to 70% of children with early onset kidney disease. Advances in next‐generation sequencing have enabled rapid and cost‐effective sequencing of large amounts of DNA. Next‐generation sequencing‐based diagnostic tests now enable identification of a monogenic cause in around 20% of patients with early‐onset chronic kidney disease. A definitive diagnosis through genomic testing may negate the need for prolonged diagnostic investigations and surveillance, facilitate reproductive planning and provide accurate counselling for at‐risk relatives. Genomics has allowed the better understanding of disease pathogenesis, providing prognostic information and facilitating development of targeted treatments for patients with inherited or genetic kidney disease. Although genomic testing is becoming more readily available, there are many challenges to implementation in clinical practice. Multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics serve as a model of how some of these challenges may be overcome. Such clinics are already well established in most parts of Australia, with more to follow in future. With the rapid pace of new technology and gene discovery, collaboration between expert clinicians, laboratory and research scientists is of increasing importance to maximize benefits to patients and health‐care systems.

The authors reckoned the importance of genomic testing as it allows better understanding of disease pathogenesis, provides prognostic information and facilitates development of targeted treatment, particularly for patients with inherited or genetic kidney disease.