Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge

Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

PURPOSE

Genetic testing for gene mutations which elevate risk for breast cancer is particularly important for women diagnosed at a young age. Differences remain in access and utilization to testing across social groups, and research on the predictors of interest in genetic testing for women diagnosed at a young age is limited.

METHODS

We examined the relationships between subjective social status (SSS) and variables previously identified as possible predictors of genetic testing, including genome sequencing knowledge, genetic worry, cancer worry, health consciousness, decision-making preferences, genetic self-efficacy, genetic-related beliefs, and subjective numeracy, among a cohort of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

RESULTS

In this sample (n = 1,076), those who had higher SSS had significantly higher knowledge about the limitations of genome sequencing (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01-1.21) and significantly higher informational norms (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.19-3.14) than those with lower SSS. Similarly, education (OR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.79-4.22), health status (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 1.44-3.31) were significant predictors among higher SSS women compared to lower SSS women in our multivariate analysis. Lower SSS women with low self-reported income (OR = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.08-0.20) had lower odds of genetic testing interest. Our results are consistent with some prior research utilizing proxy indicators for socioeconomic status, but our research adds the importance of using a multidimensional indicator such as SSS to examine cancer and genetic testing predictor outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To develop interventions to improve genetic knowledge, researchers should consider the social status and contexts of women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age (or before 40 years old) to ensure equity in the distribution of genetic testing benefits.

Genetic Testing and Other Healthcare Use by Black and White Individuals in a Genomic Sequencing Study

INTRODUCTION

Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context.

METHODS

We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals.

RESULTS

Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p < 0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on self-reported personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption.

CONCLUSION

Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially-entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants

As genomic and personalized medicine becomes mainstream, assessing and understanding the public's genetic literacy is paramount. Because genetic research drives innovation and involves much of the public, it is equally important to assess its impact on genetic literacy. We designed a survey to assess genetic literacy in three ways (familiarity, knowledge, and skills) and distributed it to two distinct samples: 2,050 members of the general population and 2,023 individuals currently enrolled in a large-scale genetic research study. We compared these data to a similar survey implemented in 2013. The results indicate that familiarity with basic genetic terms in 2021 (M = 5.36 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and knowledge of genetic concepts in 2021 (M = 9.06 [56.6% correct], p = 0.002) are significantly higher compared to 2013 (familiarity: M = 5.08 [range 1-7]; knowledge: M = 8.72 [54.5% correct]). Those currently enrolled in a genetic study were also significantly more familiar with genetic terms (M = 5.79 [range 1-7], p < 0.001) and more knowledgeable of genetic concepts (M = 10.57 [66.1% correct], p < 0.001), and they scored higher in skills (M = 3.57 [59.5% correct], p < 0.001) than the general population (M = 5.36 [range 1-7]; M = 9.06 [56.6% correct]; M = 2.65 [44.2% correct]). The results suggest that genetic literacy is improving over time, with room for improvement. We conclude that educational interventions are needed to ensure familiarity with and comprehension of basic genetic concepts and suggest further exploration of the impact of genetic research participation on genetic literacy to determine mechanisms for potential interventions.

Parents' understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review

Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) are increasingly being used in pediatric contexts. We summarize evidence regarding the actual and perceived understanding of GS/ES of parents of a child offered testing for diagnosis and/or management of a symptomatic health condition. We searched four databases (2008-2021) and identified 1264 unique articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria. We synthesized data from qualitative and quantitative studies and organized results using Ayuso et al. (2013)'s framework of key elements of information for informed consent to GS/ES. Many of the parents represented had prior experience with genetic testing and accessed a form of genetic counseling. Parents' understanding was varied across the domains evaluated. Parents demonstrated understanding of the various potential direct clinical benefits to their child undergoing GS/ES, including in relation to other genetic tests. We found parents had mixed understanding of the nature of potential secondary findings, and of issues related to data privacy, confidentiality, and usage of sequencing results beyond their child's clinical care. Genetic counseling consultations improved understanding. Our synthesis indicates that ES/GS can be challenging for families to understand and underscores the importance of equipping healthcare professionals to explore parents' understanding of ES/GS and the implications of testing for their child.

Validation of the Knowledge of Genome Sequencing (KOGS) scale in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The Knowledge of Genome Sequencing (KOGS) questionnaire was recently developed to measure knowledge of genomic sequencing (GS), with preliminary psychometric data supporting its reliability and validity. The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the KOGS in a larger sample, and to confirm its utility in a cancer setting.

METHODS

The Genetic Cancer Risk in the Young (RisC) study recruits participants with a personal history of cancer, to investigate heritable cancer causes and future cancer risk using germline GS. Participants (n = 261) in a psychosocial substudy of RisC completed a questionnaire after consent to RisC but before GS, including the KOGS, the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, the Chew health literacy scale and items assessing demographic and disease variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach alpha and correlational analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

The CFA testing a single-factor model yielded a good model fit, χ2/df = 2.43, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07 and weighted mean root square (WRMR) = 1.03. Factor loadings of all items were above 0.60 and ranged between.66 and.93. The single factor score demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.82). KOGS scores were significantly associated with health literacy (r = 0.23, p < .001), having a university education [t(258) = -4.53, p < .001] and having a medical or science background [t(259) = -3.52, p < .001] but not with speaking a language other than English at home, time since diagnosis, previous genetic counselling/testing or intolerance of uncertainty.

DISCUSSION

This study confirmed a single-factor structure for the KOGS, and its reliability and validity in a cancer population. Associations with measures of health literacy and education were significant and positive as expected, supporting the KOG's construct validity. Previous genetic counselling may not be sufficient to provide specific knowledge of GS.

Patient perspectives on testing for clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), an emerging biomarker for personalized risk-directed interventions, is increased in cancer survivors. However, little is known about patient preferences for CHIP testing. We surveyed participants in a prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer (BC). The emailed survey included an introduction to CHIP and a vignette eliciting participants' preferences for CHIP testing, considering sequentially: population-based 10-year risk of BC recurrence, hematologic malignancy, and heart disease; increased CHIP-associated risks; current CHIP management; dedicated CHIP clinic; and hypothetical CHIP treatment. Preference changes were evaluated using the McNemar test. The survey response rate was 82.2% (528/642). Median age at time of survey was 46 years and median time from diagnosis was 108 months. Only 5.9% had prior knowledge of CHIP. After vignette presentation, most survivors (87.1%) recommended CHIP testing for the vignette patient. Presented next with CHIP-independent, population-based risks, 11.1% shifted their preference from testing to not testing. After receiving information about CHIP-associated risks, an additional 10.1% shifted their preference to testing. Preference for testing increased if vignette patient was offered a CHIP clinic or hypothetical CHIP treatment, with 7.2% and 14.1% switching preferences toward testing, respectively. Finally, 75.8% of participants desired CHIP testing for themselves. Among participants, 28.2% reported that learning about CHIP caused at least moderate anxiety. Most young survivors favored CHIP testing, with preferences influenced by risk presentation and potential management strategies. Our findings highlight the importance of risk communication and psychosocial support when considering biomarkers for future risk in cancer survivors. This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01468246.

Adolescent and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing to inform cancer care

Next-generation sequencing offers opportunities for targeted cancer therapies and may identify pathogenic germline variants. Adolescents' perception of testing is not well understood. We surveyed 16 adolescents and 59 parents regarding motivations, attitudes, and knowledge related to paired tumor/germline sequencing. Participants generally had a good objective understanding of germline genetics and cancer risk, with parents scoring higher than adolescents. Nearly all participants were motivated by a desire to help other patients and to treat their child/themselves. Most adolescents reported involvement in the decision to enroll in the study. Study findings suggest important similarities and differences between parent and adolescent views.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis

Background

The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research.

Objective

This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research.

Methods

Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute–designated academic cancer center.

Results

There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol.

Conclusions

Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

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.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

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.

Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes

Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Decision-making, attitudes, and understanding among patients and relatives invited to undergo genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project: A multisite survey study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess decisions, attitudes, and understanding of participants (patients, parents, relatives) having genome sequencing for rare disease diagnosis.

METHODS

This study involved a cross-sectional observational survey with participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 51% (504/978). Most participants self-reported that they had decided to undergo genome sequencing (94%) and that this was an informed decision (84%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Most self-reported that they had chosen to receive additional findings (88%) and that this was an informed decision (89%) with low decisional conflict (95%). Participants were motivated more by the desire to help others via research than by the belief it would help them obtain a diagnosis (Z = 14.23, P = 5.75 × 10^-46), although both motivations were high. Concerns were relatively few but, where expressed, were more about the potential psychological impact of results than data sharing/access (Z = 9.61, P = 7.65 × 10^-22). Concerns were higher among male, Asian or Asian British, and more religious participants. General and context-specific understanding of genome sequencing were both moderately high (means 5.2/9.0 and 22.5/28.0, respectively).

CONCLUSION

These findings are useful to inform consent guidelines and clinical implementation of genome sequencing.

Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

Relationship between genetic knowledge and familial communication of CRC risk and intent to communicate CRCP genetic information: insights from FamilyTalk eMERGE III

Successful translation of genetic information into patient-centered care and improved outcomes depends, at least in part, on patients' genetic knowledge. Although genetic knowledge is believed to be an important facilitator of familial communication of genetic risk information, empirical evidence of this association is lacking. We examined whether genetic knowledge was related to frequency of current familial communication about colorectal cancer and polyp (CRCP) risk, and future intention to share CRCP-related genomic test results with family members in a clinical sample of patients. We recruited 189 patients eligible for clinical CRCP sequencing to the eMERGE III FamilyTalk randomized controlled trial and surveyed them about genetic knowledge and familial communication at baseline. Participants were primarily Caucasian, 47% male, average age of 68 years, mostly well educated, and with high-income levels. Genetic knowledge was positively associated with future-intended familial communication of genetic information (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.23), but not associated with current communication of CRC risk (β = 0.01, p = .58). Greater current communication of CRC risk was associated with better family functioning (β = 0.04, p = 8.2e-5). Participants' genetic knowledge in this study was minimally associated with their intended familial communication of genetic information. Although participants have good intentions of communication, family-level factors may hinder actual follow through of these intentions. Continued focus on improving proband's genetic knowledge coupled with interventions to overcome family-level barriers to communication may be needed to improve familial communication rates.

Measuring Attitudes About Genomic Medicine: Validation of the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale)

OBJECTIVES

Assessing public attitudes about genomic medicine is critical for anticipating patient receptivity to clinical applications of genomics. Although scholars have highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholder opinions and views regarding advances in clinical genomics, to date there has not been a robust tool for measuring these attitudes. We designed a study to evaluate the validity of an instrument we developed for measuring attitudes about genomic medicine.

METHODS

We used psychometric methods to validate the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale). Our goal was to create an easy-to-use tool for evaluating positive and negative attitudes about genomic medicine.

RESULTS

We describe the validation testing of the GO Scale in a nationally representative sample of 1536 individuals residing in the United States. We report results from convergent and divergent validity testing and Rasch modeling analysis. The study produced a 26-item scale with 2 dimensions-optimism and pessimism.

CONCLUSIONS

The GO Scale may be used to characterize attitudinal perspectives among patients, clinicians, and the public. The GO Scale may also be useful in evaluating shifts in attitude over time, for example, following educational interventions, which has not been feasible to date.

Knowledge Is Power: Benefits, Risks, Hopes, and Decision-Making Reported by Parents Consenting to Next-Generation Sequencing for Children and Adolescents with Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To qualitatively describe parent perspectives of next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS) for their children with cancer, including perceived benefits, risks, hopes/expectations, and decision-making process when consenting or not consenting to NGS and prior to result disclosure.

DATA SOURCES

Qualitative interviews were used.

CONCLUSION

Altruism is an important factor in parents consenting to NGS testing, as well as making sense of their child's cancer and legacy building. Parents described realistic hopes and expectations associated with NGS participation. Although parents endorsed the likelihood of no medical benefit, those consenting to NGS felt there was no reason not to participate. Parents declining participation expressed avoidance of worry and parent guilt if a germline variant were to be disclosed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

As NGS evolves into a component of the routine diagnostic workup for pediatric cancer patients, genetic nurses play a role in conducting informed consent conversations and ensuring that patients and families have realistic hopes and expectations associated with NGS.

Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Genomics Knowledge Scale

BACKGROUND

Genomic testing is increasingly employed in clinical, research, educational, and commercial contexts. Genomic literacy is a prerequisite for the effective application of genomic testing, creating a corresponding need for validated tools to assess genomics knowledge. We sought to develop a reliable measure of genomics knowledge that incorporates modern genomic technologies and is informative for individuals with diverse backgrounds, including those with clinical/life sciences training.

METHODS

We developed the GKnowM Genomics Knowledge Scale to assess the knowledge needed to make an informed decision for genomic testing, appropriately apply genomic technologies and participate in civic decision-making. We administered the 30-item draft measure to a calibration cohort (n = 1,234) and subsequent participants to create a combined validation cohort (n = 2,405). We performed a multistage psychometric calibration and validation using classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) and conducted a post-hoc simulation study to evaluate the suitability of a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) implementation.

RESULTS

Based on exploratory factor analysis, we removed 4 of the 30 draft items. The resulting 26-item GKnowM measure has a single dominant factor. The scale internal consistency is α = 0.85, and the IRT 3-PL model demonstrated good overall and item fit. Validity is demonstrated with significant correlation (r = 0.61) with an existing genomics knowledge measure and significantly higher scores for individuals with adequate health literacy and healthcare providers (HCPs), including HCPs who work with genomic testing. The item bank is well suited to CAT, achieving high accuracy (r = 0.97 with the full measure) while administering a mean of 13.5 items.

CONCLUSION

GKnowM is an updated, broadly relevant, rigorously validated 26-item measure for assessing genomics knowledge that we anticipate will be useful for assessing population genomic literacy and evaluating the effectiveness of genomics educational interventions.

Understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Hong Kong

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is gaining popularity in Hong Kong (HK). As DTCGT forgoes specialist medical involvement, healthcare professionals have raised concerns regarding its validity, utility, and the public's ability to interpret DTCGT results. Thus, genetic counseling (GC) is recommended to facilitate understanding of DTCGT. This study aimed to investigate HK public's perception toward DTCGT and the importance of GC in DTCGT. A total of 304 HK adults were invited to complete a 37-item survey online. Participants' genomic literacy, understanding and attitude toward DTCGT and GC, and responses to a mock DTCGT scenario were assessed. 48% of participants were aware of DTCGT while 82% indicated an interest. 30% of participants were aware of GC services in HK; 49% were interested in GC services for understanding DTCGT results. Participants scored on average 7.6/11 in the genomic sequencing knowledge scale and were weak in limitations of genomic testing. In the mock DTCGT scenario, 73% of participants expressed concern with the positive results initially. After being explained limitations of DTCGT, 40% of participants reported decreased concern. Reduced perceived helpfulness in medical management and lifestyle modification were also reported by 35% and 27%, respectively. This HK population demonstrated a high level of awareness and interest in DTCGT. As potential DTCGT users, they might experience excess concern and overestimate the usefulness of positive DTCGT results, particularly in medical management. The importance of GC to educate and guide interpretation of DTCGT results is supported; yet the awareness and access of GC services is inadequate in HK.

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated how self-reported numeracy ability and preferences predict preferences for the amount and types of information provided about genome sequencing results among 1080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

METHODS

Participants reported their level of interest in 14 topics related to genome sequencing results on a survey. We calculated a Participant Information Needs (PIN) value based on the number of topics for which a participant wanted "a lot" of information. Numeracy was assessed using the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Analyses examined associations between the numeracy ability and preferences subscales, information needs for individual content topics, and PIN.

RESULTS

Higher preference for numeric data was correlated with increased PIN (β = 0.60, p < 0.01), while numeric ability was not correlated (β=0.16, p = 0.22). Family composition and knowledge about sequencing benefits were also significant covariates. Patients most preferred information on topics related to disease risk and health implications.

CONCLUSION

There may be utility in separating numeracy ability and preferences into two components in future research in order to investigate how numeracy impacts the return of genetic testing results.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These data suggest that numeracy preferences may be important to inform strategies for the return of genetic results.

"Is that something that should concern me?": a qualitative exploration of parent understanding of their child's genomic test results

Genetic counselors are trained to deliver complicated genomic test results to parents of pediatric patients. However, there is limited knowledge on how parents perceive this information and what they understand about the results. This research aims to qualitatively explore parents’ experiences receiving genomic test results for their children. As part of formative research for the NYCKidSeq Study, we recruited a purposive sample of parents of 22 children stratified by child race/ethnicity and test result classification (positive, uncertain, or negative) and conducted in-depth interviews using a semi-structured guide. Analysis was conducted using grounded theory’s constant comparative method across cases and themes. Parents described different elements of understanding: genetics knowledge; significance and meaning of positive, uncertain, or negative results; and implications for the health of their child and family. Parents reported challenges understanding technical details and significance of their child’s results but gladly allowed their providers to be custodians of this information. However, of the different elements of understanding described, parents cared most deeply about being able to understand implications for their child’s and family’s health. These findings suggest that a counseling approach that primarily addresses parents’ desire to understand how to best care for their child and family may be more appropriate than an information-heavy approach focused on technical details. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings in larger parent cohorts and to explore ways genetic counseling can support parents’ preferences without sacrificing important components of parent understanding and overall satisfaction with their experiences with genomic medicine.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening

Purpose:

Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of healthcare needs.

Methods:

As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, AZ, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments.

Results:

Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation.

Conclusion:

Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings.

GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing

With the broader introduction of genomic medicine in research and clinical care, an increasing number of persons are offered genetic testing. Many factors, including genetic literacy, may impact the utilization of genetic results by patients and their families. We developed a rapid, self-administered measure of genetic literacy, called Genetic Literacy Fast Test (GeneLiFT). We next evaluated the association of GeneLiFT scores with the comprehension of limitations of genomic medicine in participants undergoing genetic testing in the NIH-sponsored eMERGE III study at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. All participants underwent genetic screening for variants in 74 actionable genes associated with adult-onset disorders. A diverse cohort of 724 participants completed the survey (60% women, 45% less than 40 years old, and 53% self-reported White non-Hispanic ancestry). The GeneLiFT was validated using known group differences based on education, health literacy, and numeracy, and with questions assessing genetic knowledge. GeneLiFT identified multiple standard genetics terms, that is, jargon, not recognized by more than 50% of participants (including actionability and pathogenicity). Low genetic literacy, identified in 210 participants (29%), was significantly associated with poor understanding of the limitations of genetic testing (p-values < 10^-9 ). This association was independent of education, health literacy, and numeracy levels, highlighting the importance of directly measuring genetic literacy. Low genetic literacy was also associated with low satisfaction with the informed consent process. GeneLiFT is a practical tool for rapid assessment of genetic literacy in large studies or clinical care. GeneLiFT will allow future research to efficiently assess the role of genetic literacy on the clinical impact of genetic testing.

Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is positioned to become one of the most robust strategies for achieving timely diagnosis of rare genomic diseases. Despite its favorable diagnostic performance compared to conventional testing strategies, routine use and reimbursement of WGS are hampered by inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of clinical utility. For example, what constitutes clinical utility for WGS varies by stakeholder's perspective (physicians, patients, families, insurance companies, health-care organizations, and society), clinical context (prenatal, pediatric, critical care, adult medicine), and test purpose (diagnosis, screening, treatment selection). A rapidly evolving technology landscape and challenges associated with robust comparative study design in the context of rare disease further impede progress in this area of empiric research. To address this challenge, an expert working group of the Medical Genome Initiative was formed. Following a consensus-based process, we align with a broad definition of clinical utility and propose a conceptually-grounded and empirically-guided measurement toolkit focused on four domains of utility: diagnostic thinking efficacy, therapeutic efficacy, patient outcome efficacy, and societal efficacy. For each domain of utility, we offer specific indicators and measurement strategies. While we focus on diagnostic applications of WGS for rare germline diseases, this toolkit offers a flexible framework for best practices around measuring clinical utility for a range of WGS applications. While we expect this toolkit to evolve over time, it provides a resource for laboratories, clinicians, and researchers looking to characterize the value of WGS beyond the laboratory.

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.

Informed consent for genetic testing in hematology

Informed consent is a fundamental component of modern health care. All competent adult patients have the legal and ethical authority to accept (consent) or refuse (dissent) recommended health-related interventions. Various models of informed consent have been described, and herein I introduce a model that divides informed consent into 7 distinct elements: competence, voluntariness, disclosure, recommendation, understanding, decision, and authorization. Genetic testing, which is rapidly becoming a common feature of both clinical care and research in hematology, adds additional layers of complexity to each of these consent elements. Using the example case of Mr. Smith, a man with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia whose clinicians offer him genetic testing of the leukemia through a clinical trial, I highlight the challenges and controversies of informed consent for genetic testing, focusing on each consent element as it pertains to genetic testing in such a setting. Ultimately, given the growing importance of genetic testing for hematologic disorders, clinicians, and researchers in hematology should be facile at participating in all aspects of informed consent for genetic testing.

Parent Perspectives Towards Genetic and Epigenetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Examining community views on genetic/epigenetic research allows collaborative technology development. Parent perspectives toward genetic/epigenetic testing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are not well-studied. Parents of children with ASD (n = 131), non-ASD developmental delay (n = 39), and typical development (n = 74) completed surveys assessing genetic/epigenetic knowledge, genetic/epigenetic concerns, motives for research participation, and attitudes/preferences toward ASD testing. Most parents (96%) were interested in saliva-based molecular testing for ASD. Some had concerns about privacy (14%) and insurance-status (10%). None (0%) doubted scientific evidence behind genetic/epigenetic testing. Most reported familiarity with genetics (88%), but few understood differences from epigenetics (19%). Child developmental status impacted insurance concerns (p = 0.01). There is broad parent interest in a genetic/epigenetic test for ASD. It will be crucial to carefully consider and address bioethical issues surrounding this sensitive topic while developing such technology.

Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: The huge development of omics sciences is changing the classical medical approach and making new technologies available. In this context, education of citizens is essential to allow appropriate decisions about their own health. Hence, we aimed to summarize existing literature regarding citizens' knowledge, attitudes, and educational needs on omics sciences. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) using Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, and Embase databases. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies investigated knowledge, attitudes, or educational needs regarding omics sciences among the general population. Results: We included 54 studies, published between 2006 and 2020. Most of the included studies (72%) investigated citizens' knowledge, half of them (56%) attitudes, and 20% educational needs in the field of omics sciences, while 52% investigated attitudes and perceptions about genetic and/or omics tests. Most studies (64%) reported a limited knowledge level among citizens, even though most (59%) reported participants understood the benefits of the use of omics sciences into medicine. As for omics tests, a controversial opinion toward their use into practice was reported among citizens. Most of the studies (82%) investigating citizens' educational needs highlighted a clear gap to be filled. Conclusions: Our SLR summarizes current knowledge on citizens' literacy, attitudes, and educational needs on omics science, underlining the need for strengthening public engagement on this topic. Further research is needed, however, to identify appropriate methods and models to achieve such an improvement.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail

PURPOSE

As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results.

METHODS

An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project

PURPOSE

With few trained genetics professionals, the Military Health System is ill-equipped to manage the rapid expansion of genomic medicine. The MilSeq Project introduces an alternative service delivery model (ASDM) in which primary health-care providers (HCPs) provide post-test counseling (PTC) to healthy Airmen who have undergone exome sequencing. We describe HCP performance after a prerequisite educational intervention (EI).

METHODS

After a brief EI and pre-/posteducation surveys, HCPs were eligible to provide PTC with a genetic counselor available for consult. PTC was recorded, transcribed, and reviewed. Opportunities for improvement were organized into four error adjustment categories: (1) knowledge limitation, (2) minor, (3) moderate, and (4) critical. Thematic analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Pre-/posteducation survey responses revealed statistically significant improvements in all domains. Minor error adjustments were most represented (n = 93), followed by knowledge limitation (n = 39) and moderate (n = 19). No critical errors were identified, and 17 transcripts required no adjustment. Thematic analysis revealed four themes that would benefit from more focused education: (1) family-centered care, (2) conveying risk, (3) disease knowledge, and (4) assay knowledge.

CONCLUSION

HCPs demonstrated competence in basic PTC after a brief EI. This ASDM may be a viable interim response to the shortage of genetics professionals in some systems.

A Web-Based Tool to Automate Portions of Pretest Genetic Counseling for Inherited Cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk coupled with a shortage of providers trained in genetics highlight the potential for automated tools embedded in the clinic process to meet this demand. We developed and tested a scalable, easy-to-use, 12-minute web-based educational tool that included standard pretest genetic counseling elements related to panel-based testing for multiple genes associated with cancer risk.

METHODS

The tool was viewed by new patients at the Vanderbilt Hereditary Cancer Clinic before meeting with a board-certified genetics professional. Pre- and post-tool surveys measured knowledge, feeling informed/empowered to decide about testing, attitudinal values about genetic testing, and health literacy. Of the initial 100 participants, 50 were randomized to only have knowledge measured on the post-tool survey to assess for a priming effect.

RESULTS

Of 360 patients approached, 305 consented and completed both the pre- and post-tool surveys, with a mean age of 47 years, including 80% female patients and 48% patients with cancer. Survey results showed an increase in knowledge and feeling informed/empowered after viewing the tool (P<.001), but no significant change in attitude (P=.64). Post-tool survey data indicated no difference in median knowledge between low and high health literacy groups (P=.30). No priming effect was present among the initial 100 participants (P=.675).

CONCLUSIONS

Viewing the educational tool resulted in significant gains in knowledge across health literacy levels, and most individuals felt informed and empowered to decide about genetic testing. These findings indicate that the use of an automated pretest genetic counseling tool may help streamline the delivery of genetic services.

Public interest in whole genome sequencing and information needs: an online survey study

Aim: To survey the general public about whole genome sequencing interest, including pharmacogenomic testing, and to identify information important for sequencing decisions. Patients & methods: An online survey of 901 members of the general public in an eastern Canadian province. Results: Interest in whole genome sequencing, including pharmacogenomic testing, was high with few differences among demographic variables. Issues identified as very important to sequencing decisions included familial implications of testing, whether treatment was available for conditions tested and knowing who could access genomic information. Most respondents would value support when interpreting sequencing results. Conclusion: Findings reveal the kind of information and support users of sequencing services would value and could inform the implementation of sequencing into care in ways that accord with public preferences and needs.

Cancer patients' views and understanding of genome sequencing: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about knowledge of, and attitudes towards, genome sequencing (GS) among individuals with a personal history of cancer who decide to undergo GS. This qualitative study aimed to investigate baseline knowledge and attitudes among individuals previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely genetic origin who have consented to GS.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants (n=20) from the longitudinal Psychosocial Issues in Genomic Oncology study, within a month of consenting to GS and prior to receiving any results. Participants were adults with a cancer of likely genetic aetiology who are undertaking GS as part of a larger genetic study.

RESULTS

Analysis identified three main themes: limited understanding of genomics; multifactorial motivation; and complex decision making. While motivations such as obtaining health information about self and family appear to be the main drivers for undertaking GS, these motivations are sometimes based on limited knowledge of the accuracy and utility of GS, creating unrealistic expectations. This in turn can prolong the deliberation process and lead to ongoing decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the degree and nature of patient understanding of GS, as well as their attitudes and decision-making processes, will enable healthcare professionals to better manage patient expectations and appropriately engage and support patients to make an informed decision when pursuing GS.

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.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03597165.

Development and testing of the KnowGene scale to assess general cancer genetic knowledge related to multigene panel testing

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate a measure of cancer genetics knowledge relevant to multigene panel testing.

METHODS

The instrument was developed using systematic input from a national panel of genetics experts, acceptability evaluation by patient advocates, and cognitive testing. Twenty-four candidate items were completed by 591 breast or gynecological patients who had undergone genetic counseling and multigene panel testing in the past 18 months. A unidimensional item response theory model was fit with a mix of 2-parameter logistic nested response (2 plnrm) and 2-parameter logistic (2 pl) items.

RESULTS

Key domains addressing cancer genetics knowledge were found to be overlapping. Of the 24 candidate items, 8 items were removed due to poor discrimination or local dependence. The remaining 16 items had good fit (RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.946) and discrimination parameters ranging from 0.49 to 1.60. The items specified as 2 plnrm distinguish between those answering incorrect versus don't know, with discrimination ranging from 0.51 to 1.02. Information curves were highest among those with lower knowledge.

CONCLUSION

KnowGene is a rigorously developed and effective measure of knowledge after cancer genetic counseling and multigene panel testing.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Measuring knowledge in a systematic way will inform practice and research initiatives in cancer genetics.

Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing Among Participants in the Jackson and Framingham Heart Studies

Genetic analysis has become integral to many large cohort studies. However, little is known about longitudinal cohort study participants' attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. We analyzed data from a survey of participants in the Jackson Heart Study (n = 960), Framingham Heart Study (n = 955), and Framingham Heart Study-Omni Cohort (n = 160). Based on a three-question attitude scale, most participants had positive attitudes toward genetic testing (median score = 4.3-5/5). Participants were also asked to select words to describe their attitudes toward genetics. More respondents endorsed the positive words "hopeful" (60%-70%), "optimistic" (44%-64%), "enthusiastic" (35%-43%), or "excited" (28%-30%) than the negative words "cautious" (35%-38%), "concerned" (25%-55%), "worried" (6%-13%), "pessimistic" (2%-5%), or "horrified" (1%-5%). Characteristics associated with favorable attitudes were greater genetics knowledge, higher subjective numeracy, experience with genetic testing, less frequent religious attendance, and not being employed. These findings demonstrate variation in attitudes even among participants in long-standing cohort studies, indicating a need for ongoing participant engagement and education.

Psychosocial, attitudinal, and demographic correlates of cancer-related germline genetic testing in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey

The study objective was to examine bivariate and multivariate associations among worry, perceptions, attitudes, sociodemographics, and uptake of cancer-related germline genetic testing. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 5.1), administered (January-May 2017) to a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized adults (n = 3285). Those who had "heard about genetic tests that determine how a disease can be treated" had a higher likelihood of Lynch syndrome and BRCA1/2 testing (aRR = 2.57, p < 0.01; aRR = 3.23, p < 0.04). Attitudinal and psychosocial variables were not associated with uptake. Future research should explore ways to educate the public about the potential use of genetics in treatment decision-making.

Predispositional genome sequencing in healthy adults: design, participant characteristics, and early outcomes of the PeopleSeq Consortium

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of healthy individuals are undergoing predispositional personal genome sequencing. Here we describe the design and early outcomes of the PeopleSeq Consortium, a multi-cohort collaboration of predispositional genome sequencing projects, which is examining the medical, behavioral, and economic outcomes of returning genomic sequencing information to healthy individuals.

METHODS

Apparently healthy adults who participated in four of the sequencing projects in the Consortium were included. Web-based surveys were administered before and after genomic results disclosure, or in some cases only after results disclosure. Surveys inquired about sociodemographic characteristics, motivations and concerns, behavioral and medical responses to sequencing results, and perceived utility.

RESULTS

Among 1395 eligible individuals, 658 enrolled in the Consortium when contacted and 543 have completed a survey after receiving their genomic results thus far (mean age 53.0 years, 61.4% male, 91.7% white, 95.5% college graduates). Most participants (98.1%) were motivated to undergo sequencing because of curiosity about their genetic make-up. The most commonly reported concerns prior to pursuing sequencing included how well the results would predict future risk (59.2%) and the complexity of genetic variant interpretation (56.8%), while 47.8% of participants were concerned about the privacy of their genetic information. Half of participants reported discussing their genomic results with a healthcare provider during a median of 8.0 months after receiving the results; 13.5% reported making an additional appointment with a healthcare provider specifically because of their results. Few participants (< 10%) reported making changes to their diet, exercise habits, or insurance coverage because of their results. Many participants (39.5%) reported learning something new to improve their health that they did not know before. Reporting regret or harm from the decision to undergo sequencing was rare (< 3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthy individuals who underwent predispositional sequencing expressed some concern around privacy prior to pursuing sequencing, but were enthusiastic about their experience and not distressed by their results. While reporting value in their health-related results, few participants reported making medical or lifestyle changes.

Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in-person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in-person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in-person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in-person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in-person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer-specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer-specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in-person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in-person disclosure should be honored when possible.

Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need

Information-seeking models typically focus on information-seeking behaviors based on individuals' interest in information, because their current level is perceived to be insufficient. In the context of genetic risk information (GRI), however, information insufficiency is difficult to measure and thus can limit understanding of information behavior in the context of GRI. We propose that an individual's need for information might be a more direct and conceptually clearer alternative to predicting their information-seeking behavior. To test this hypothesis, this study investigates the extent to which previously identified factors affecting interest in GRI are also predictors of need for GRI among women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 or younger (N = 1,069). As hypothesized, there was a positive association between interest in and need for GRI. Furthermore, hypothesized factors of numeracy, information orientation, and genetic knowledge were significant predictors of increased interest in and need for GRI. In contrast, hypothesized factors of genetic worry and genetic causal belief predicted increased interest in GRI only, while genetic self-efficacy predicted increased need for GRI only. As hypothesized, BRCA status significantly moderated associations between informational norm and both interest in and need for GRI. Collectively, the findings support inclusion of need for GRI in theoretical information-seeking models in the context of genomic risk.

Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era

Exome and genome sequencing (EGS) are increasingly the genetic testing modalities of choice among researchers owing to their ready availability, low cost, and large data output. Recruitment of larger, more diverse cohorts into long-term studies with extensive data collection is fundamental to the success of EGS research and to the widespread benefit of genomic medicine to various populations. Effective engagement will be critical to meeting this demand. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) model provides a framework for how new technologies are adopted in communities, including antecedents of an individual's decision to adopt the technology, how the technology's attributes influence its acceptability, the predictors of sustained use of that technology, and its diffusion through society. We apply the DOI model to frame participant engagement in EGS research and to guide the proposal of potential strategies that aim to overcome forecasted challenges. Finally, we suggest a variety of ways genetic counselors can apply their skills and training to the development and implementation of these strategies.

Next-generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations

BACKGROUND

Implementation of precision oncology interventions poses several challenges to informed consent and patient education. This study assessed cancer patients' understanding, expectations, and outcomes regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care.

METHODS

A total of 297 patients (mean age: 59 years; 50% female; 96% white) with refractory, metastatic cancer were surveyed, including 217 who completed surveys both before and after undergoing integrated whole exome and transcriptome sequencing as part of a larger clinical research study.

RESULTS

At baseline, the vast majority of patients expected to receive several potential direct benefits from study participation, including written reports of sequencing findings (88%), greater understanding of the causes of their cancer (74%), and participation in clinical trials for which sequencing results would make them eligible (84%). In most cases, these benefits were not realized by study completion. Despite explanations from study personnel to the contrary, most participants (67%-76%) presumed that incidental germline sequencing findings relevant to noncancerous health conditions (eg, diabetes) would automatically be disclosed to them. Patients reported low levels of concern about study risks at baseline and low levels of regret about study participation at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients' expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study

PURPOSE

We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing.

METHODS

We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision.

RESULTS

We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male.

CONCLUSION

As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

Toward greater understanding of patient decision-making around genome sequencing

In the era of next-generation sequencing, it is essential to collect and understand the patient outcomes that result from this new technology. One critical determinant of these is the process by which individuals first decide whether and how to pursue genome sequencing. In this perspective article, we examine the literature on adult patient decision-making in genome sequencing and identify current research gaps to address. Several studies have explored the motivations and concerns of patients undergoing sequencing; less attention has been paid to those who decline sequencing or to individuals from lower socioeconomic groups. Many factors that might play a role in the decision to pursue or decline sequencing, including trust, family dynamics and barriers to access, have yet to be explored fully. Future research that captures the experience of the wider population will produce a more generalizable understanding of the clinical, psychosocial, and economic outcomes of pursuing or declining sequencing.

Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors

The growing importance of genome sequencing means that patients will increasingly face decisions regarding what results they would like to learn. The present study examined psychological and clinical factors that might affect these preferences. 1,080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey. We assessed their interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results: risk of preventable disease or unpreventable disease, cancer treatment response, uncertain meaning, risk to relatives' health, and ancestry/physical traits. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine whether being "very" interested in each result type was associated with clinical factors: BRCA1/2 mutation status, prior genetic testing, family history of breast cancer, and psychological factors: cancer recurrence worry, genetic risk worry, future orientation, health information orientation, and genome sequencing knowledge. The proportion of respondents who were very interested in learning each type of result ranged from 16% to 77%. In all multivariable models, those who were very interested in learning a result type had significantly higher knowledge about sequencing benefits, greater genetic risks worry, and stronger health information orientation compared to those with less interest (p-values < .05). Our findings indicate that high interest in return of various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors. Shared decision-making approaches that increase knowledge about genome sequencing and incorporate patient preferences for health information and learning about genetic risks may help support patients' informed choices about learning different types of sequencing results.

The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study, a Mayo Clinic Genomic Medicine Implementation Study: Design and Initial Results

OBJECTIVES

To identify clinically actionable genetic variants from targeted sequencing of 68 disease-related genes, estimate their penetrance, and assess the impact of disclosing results to participants and providers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study investigates outcomes following the return of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in 68 disease-related genes. The study was initiated in December 2016 and is ongoing. Targeted sequencing was performed in 2533 individuals with hyperlipidemia or colon polyps. The electronic health records (EHRs) of participants carrying P/LP variants in 36 cardiovascular disease (CVD) genes were manually reviewed to ascertain the presence of relevant traits. Clinical outcomes, health care utilization, family communication, and ethical and psychosocial implications of disclosure of genomic results are being assessed by surveys, telephone interviews, and EHR review.

RESULTS

Of 29,208 variants in the 68 genes, 1915 were rare (frequency <1%) and putatively functional, and 102 of these (60 in 36 CVD genes) were labeled P/LP based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics framework. Manual review of the EHRs of participants (n=73 with P/LP variants in CVD genes) revealed that 33 had the expected trait(s); however, only 6 of 45 participants with non-familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) P/LP variants had the expected traits.

CONCLUSION

Expected traits were present in 13% of participants with P/LP variants in non-FH CVD genes, suggesting low penetrance; this estimate may change with additional testing performed as part of the clinical evaluation. Ongoing analyses of the RAVE Study will inform best practices for genomic medicine.