Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: interest, impact, and demands on researchers

Facilitating return of actionable genetic research results from a biobank repository: Participant uptake and utilization of digital interventions

Research participants report interest in receiving genetic research results. How best to return results remains unclear. In this randomized pilot study, we sought to assess the feasibility of returning actionable research results through a two-step process including a patient-centered digital intervention as compared with a genetic counselor (GC) in the Penn Medicine biobank. In Step 1, participants with an actionable result and procedural controls (no actionable result) were invited to digital pre-disclosure education and provided options for opting out of results. In Step 2, those with actionable results who had not opted out were randomized to receive results via a digital disclosure intervention or with a GC. Five participants (2%) opted out of results after Step 1. After both steps, 52 of 113 (46.0%) eligible cases received results, 5 (4.4%) actively declined results, 34 (30.1%) passively declined, and 22 (19.5%) could not be reached. Receiving results was associated with younger age (p < 0.001), completing pre-disclosure education (p < 0.001), and being in the GC arm (p = 0.06). Being older, female, and of Black race were associated with being unable to reach. Older age and Black race were associated with passively declining. Forty-seven percent of those who received results did not have personal or family history to suggest the mutation, and 55.1% completed clinical confirmation testing. The use of digital tools may be acceptable to participants and could reduce costs of returning results. Low uptake, disparities in uptake, and barriers to confirmation testing will be important to address to realize the benefit of returning actionable research results.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.

METHODS

We exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.

RESULTS

Excluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.

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

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility.

RESULTS

Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.

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

BACKGROUND

Although genetic testing for known familial melanoma genes is commercially available, clinical implementation has been restrained as utility is unclear, concerns of causing psychological distress are often cited, and consumer interest and perceptions are not well understood. A review of studies exploring participant-reported psychosocial outcomes and attitudes towards genetic testing for familial melanoma will provide insight into common emotional and cognitive responses.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted using a date range of January 1995 to June 2020. Studies examining any psychosocial outcomes alongside genetic testing (real or hypothetical), in participants described as having a high risk of melanoma, were eligible. A narrative synthesis of results was used to describe psychosocial outcomes and summarise participant beliefs and attitudes towards genetic testing.

RESULTS

Limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes was found. No impacts on perceived risk or control were reported, and minimal decisional regret was recorded. Generalised distress was comparable between both genetic mutation carriers and non-carriers, often decreasing over time from pretesting levels. Melanoma-specific distress was frequently higher in carriers than non-carriers; however, this difference was present prior to testing and often associated with personal melanoma history. Overall, participants' attitudes towards testing were largely positive, with benefits more frequently described than limitations, and support for testing minors was strong.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has found evidence of few adverse psychological outcomes following genetic testing. There was no indication of increased distress after genetic test results had been disclosed. If these findings were replicated in additional, larger, diverse populations over a longer follow-up period, this would be compelling evidence to guide clinical recommendations.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Assessing the implications of positive genomic screening results

Aim:

Before population screening of ‘healthy’ individuals is widely adopted, it is important to consider the harms and benefits of receiving positive results and how harms and benefits may differ by age.

Subjects & methods:

Participants in a preventive genomic screening study were screened for 17 genes associated with 11 conditions. We interviewed 11 participants who received positive results.

Results:

Interviewees expressed little concern about their positive results in light of their older age, the risk condition for which they tested positive, or other pressing health concerns.

Conclusion:

Researchers and clinicians should recognize that returning positive results may not have the impact they presume given the diversity of the conditions screened and those who choose to undergo screening.

Pancreatic cancer and melanoma related perceptions and behaviors following disclosure of CDKN2A variant status as a research result

PURPOSE

This study examined whether participants who learned research results related to a germline CDKN2A variant known to be associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer and malignant melanoma would pursue confirmatory testing and cancer screening, share the genetic information with health care providers and family, and change risk perceptions.

METHODS

Participants were pancreas research registry enrollees whose biological sample was tested in a research laboratory for the variant. In total, 133 individuals were invited to learn a genetic research result and participate in a study about the disclosure process. Perceived cancer risk, screening intentions, and behaviors were assessed predisclosure, immediately postdisclosure, and six months postdisclosure.

RESULTS

Eighty individuals agreed to participate and 63 completed the study. Immediately postdisclosure, carriers reported greater intentions to undergo pancreatic cancer and melanoma screening (p values ≤0.024). Seventy-three percent of carriers (47.5% noncarriers) intended to seek confirmatory testing within six months and 20% (2.5% noncarriers) followed through. All participants shared results with ≥1 family member. More carriers shared results with their health care provider than noncarriers (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Recipients of cancer genetic research results may not follow through with recommended behaviors (confirmatory testing, screening), despite stated intentions. The research result disclosure motivated follow-up behaviors among carriers more than noncarriers.

Psychological Impact of Learning CDKN2A Variant Status as a Genetic Research Result

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about genetic research participants' responses to receiving individual research results (IRR) from cancer genetic research. We examined the immediate and delayed psychological impact of returning a CDKN2A variant result that is associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer and melanoma.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-three pancreas research registry enrollees whose samples were tested in a research laboratory for the CDKN2A variant were invited by mail to learn the result by telephone and participate in a study about the disclosure process. Self-rated health, quality of life, and emotional responses were surveyed before and 6 months after disclosure. Genetic testing-specific distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were assessed 6 months after disclosure.

RESULTS

Eighty individuals agreed to participate; 63 completed the study. Both carriers and noncarriers showed no change over time in self-rated health, quality of life, or anxiety levels. Carriers reported more sadness than noncarriers before and 6 months after disclosure. Both carriers and noncarriers showed more hopefulness 6 months after than before disclosure. Carriers experienced greater test-specific distress and uncertainty than noncarriers, but levels were low. -Conclusions: Return of IRR in conjunction with cancer prevention counseling led to low levels of test-specific distress and uncertainty among carriers. No other adverse psychological outcomes were observed.

Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk

Purpose

Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations.

Patients and Methods

This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics—University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute—who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate).

Results

Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested.

Conclusion

In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples

Discussions about disclosing individual genetic research results include calls to consider participants' preferences. In this study, parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients set preferences for disclosure based on disease preventability and severity, and could exclude mental health, developmental, childhood degenerative, and adult-onset disorders. Participants reviewed hypothetical reports and reset preferences, if desired. Among 661 participants who initially wanted all results (64%), 1% reset preferences. Among 336 participants who initially excluded at least one category (36%), 38% reset preferences. Participants who reset preferences added 0.9 categories, on average; and their mean satisfaction on 0 to 10 scales increased from 4.7 to 7.2 ( p < .001). Only 2% reduced the number of categories they wanted disclosed. Findings demonstrate the benefits of providing examples of preference options and the tendency of participants to want results disclosed. Findings also suggest that preference-setting models that do not provide specific examples of results could underestimate participants' desires for information.

The Advantages and Challenges of Testing Children for Heritable Predisposition to Cancer

The increased application of germline genetic testing is expanding our understanding of the risk factors associated with childhood cancer development, and, in some cases, such testing is also informing clinical management. Nonetheless, the incorporation of genetic testing into the pediatric oncology setting is complex and associated with many ethical and practical challenges. The decision as to whether to pursue clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition for children should always be guided by the best interest of the child. Despite this fundamental ethical principle, patients, parents, and health care providers may differ in their opinions. Clinical genetic testing to detect the presence of predisposition syndromes associated with childhood-onset cancers, particularly those for which surveillance and preventive measures have proven to enhance outcome, is currently well accepted. On the other hand, clinical genetic testing of children for syndromes associated with adult-onset cancers has raised many concerns about the potential for psychological harm and disrespect of patient autonomy. As a consequence, such testing is not encouraged. The challenges surrounding germline genetic testing are further complicated when testing is done in the research setting and/or when it involves whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing approaches, which can uncover genetic variants that may or may not be associated with the disease under study. Accordingly, there is great debate around these processes and the most appropriate approaches regarding the return of test results. Future research is needed to enhance knowledge about how best to incorporate genomic information into clinical practice.

How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Background

The increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

Methods

We conducted 60 semistructured, in‐person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10.

Results

The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining.

Conclusions

A critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision‐making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned.

While the issue of what genome sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person.

Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine

BACKGROUND

The practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research.

METHODS

Thirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research.

RESULTS

Cancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results.

DISCUSSION

In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.

CONCLUSIONS

Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

Genetic Testing Awareness and Attitudes among Latinos: Exploring Shared Perceptions and Gender-Based Differences

BACKGROUND

Latinos, whose views are infrequently examined in genomic research, may be at risk of missing out on the benefits of genomic medicine.

AIMS

To explore this possibility, we conducted a qualitative study of awareness and attitudes about genetic testing among Latinos with lower acculturation in New York City.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups (7 English-speaking men, 5 Spanish-speaking men, 13 English-speaking women and 13 Spanish-speaking women) to explore factors that influence the adoption of new innovations through the discussion of genetic testing in general, and a hypothetical vignette describing a genetic test for skin cancer risk, in particular.

RESULTS

Through inductive thematic text analysis of focus group transcripts, our multidisciplinary team identified themes within knowledge and attitudes, communication and sources of information, anticipated responses, factors that may increase adoption, and barriers to adoption of genetic testing. Specifically, a majority of participants expressed some degree of uncertainty regarding the purpose of genetic tests and information these tests provide, rarely discussed genetic testing with others in their social networks, and expressed concerns about the misuse of and possible adverse emotional responses to genetic information. However, participants also expressed high levels of interest in receiving a skin cancer genetic test in response to the vignette and believed that receiving actionable health information was a primary reason to consider testing. Gender-based differences in perceived barriers to testing emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight beliefs and barriers that future interventions could target to help ensure that Latinos have adequate understanding of and access to genomic medicine advances.

Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants

General consensus exists that clinically significant germline genetic research results should be fed back to research participants. A body of literature is emerging about Australian research participants' experiences of feedback of genetic research results and factors that influence a participant's actions after receiving such information. This exploratory qualitative study conducted interviews with 11 participants from the International Sarcoma Kindred Study, four probands and seven of their relatives. They had been informed by letter of the availability of clinically significant germline TP53 mutations identified through research. We examined the participants' views about the feedback of these genetic test results. Thematic (inductive) analysis was used to analyse the data. A number of factors influenced participants' responses following notification. This included participants' understanding of the notification letter and their perception of the relevance of the information for them and/or their family. Most notably, timing of the letter in the context of an individual's current life experiences was important. Timing and context are novel factors identified that may impact on research participants' understanding or their ability to access clinically significant research results. We outline strategies for disseminating results to research participants and their next of kin that may reduce their uncertainty around the receipt of research results.

Histologic features of melanoma associated with CDKN2A genotype

BACKGROUND

Inherited susceptibility genes have been associated with histopathologic characteristics of tumors.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify associations between histology of melanomas and CDKN2A genotype.

METHODS

This was a case-control study design comparing 28 histopathologic tumor features among individuals with sporadic melanomas (N = 81) and cases from melanoma families with (N = 123) and without (N = 120) CDKN2A germline mutations.

RESULTS

Compared with CDKN2A(-) cases, mutation carriers tended to have histologic features of superficial spreading melanoma subtype including higher pigmentation (Ptrend = .02) and increased pagetoid scatter (Ptrend = .07) after adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer thickness category. Similar associations were observed when comparing mutation carriers with a combined group of CDKN2A(-) (wild type) and sporadic melanomas. The presence of spindle cell morphology in the vertical growth phase was also an important predictor of genotype. Of the 15 cases with this phenotype, none were observed to harbor a CDKN2A mutation.

LIMITATIONS

Our study examined rare mutations and may have been underpowered to detect small, but biologically significant associations between histology and genotype.

CONCLUSION

Familial melanomas with CDKN2A mutations preferentially express a histologic phenotype of dense pigmentation, high pagetoid scatter, and a non-spindle cell morphology in the vertical growth phase.

Rare presentations of primary melanoma and special populations: a systematic review

A subset of patients with melanoma present in rare and unique clinical circumstances requiring specific considerations with respect to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Herein, we present our review of patients with: (1) primary mucosal melanoma of the head and neck, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tracts; (2) primary melanoma of the eye; (3) desmoplastic melanoma; (4) subungual melanoma; (5) melanoma in special populations: children, nonwhites, as well as a discussion of familial melanoma.

Unaffected family members report improvements in daily routine sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing

PURPOSE

Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure may decrease melanoma risk in the hereditary melanoma setting. It is unknown whether genetic counseling and test reporting of CDKN2A/p16 mutation status promote long-term compliance with photoprotection recommendations, especially in unaffected mutation carriers.

METHODS

This study evaluated changes 2 years following melanoma genetic testing in self-reported practice of sun protection (sunscreen, photoprotective clothing, and ultraviolet radiation avoidance) among 37 members of two CDKN2A/p16 kindreds (10 unaffected carriers, 11 affected carriers, and 16 unaffected noncarriers; response rate = 64.9% of eligible participants).

RESULTS

Multivariate profile analysis indicated that all three participant groups reported increased daily routine practice of sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing (P < 0.02), with 96.9% reporting that at least one sun protection behavior was part of their daily routine, up from 78.1% at baseline (P < 0.015). Unaffected carriers (P < 0.024) and unaffected noncarriers (P < 0.027) reported significantly more frequent use of photoprotective clothing. Affected carriers maintained adherence to all sun protection behaviors. Reported sunburns in the past 6 months decreased significantly (P < 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Members of high-risk families reported increased daily routine sun protection and decreased sunburns 2 years following melanoma genetic testing, with no net decline in sun protection following negative test results. Thus, genetic testing and counseling may motivate sustained improvements in prevention behaviors.

Development of a communication protocol for telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer predisposition

Background

Dissemination of genetic testing for disease susceptibility, one application of “personalized medicine”, holds the potential to empower patients and providers through informed risk reduction and prevention recommendations. Genetic testing has become a standard practice in cancer prevention for high-risk populations. Heightened consumer awareness of “cancer genes” and genes for other diseases (eg, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease), as well as the burgeoning availability of increasingly complex genomic tests (ie, multi-gene, whole-exome and -genome sequencing), has escalated interest in and demand for genetic risk assessment and the specialists who provide it. Increasing demand is expected to surpass access to genetic specialists. Thus, there is urgent need to develop effective and efficient models of delivery of genetic information that comparably balance the risks and benefits to the current standard of in-person communication.

Objective

The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a theoretically grounded and rigorously developed protocol for telephone communication of BRCA1/2 (breast cancer) test results that might be generalizable to genetic testing for other hereditary cancer and noncancer syndromes.

Methods

Stakeholder data, health communication literature, and our theoretical model grounded in Self-Regulation Theory of Health Behavior were used to develop a telephone communication protocol for the communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Framework analysis of selected audiotapes of disclosure sessions and stakeholders’ feedback were utilized to evaluate the efficacy and inform refinements to this protocol.

Results

Stakeholder feedback (n=86) and audiotapes (38%, 33/86) of telephone disclosures revealed perceived disadvantages and challenges including environmental factors (eg, non-private environment), patient-related factors (eg, low health literacy), testing-related factors (eg, additional testing needed), and communication factors (eg, no visual cues). Resulting modifications to the communication protocol for BRCA1/2 test results included clarified patient instructions, scheduled appointments, refined visual aids, expanded disclosure checklist items, and enhanced provider training.

Conclusions

Analyses of stakeholders’ experiences and audiotapes of telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results informed revisions to communication strategies and a protocol to enhance patient outcomes when utilizing telephone to disclose genetic test results.

Return of individual genetic results in a high-risk sample: enthusiasm and positive behavioral change

Purpose

The goal of this study is to examine participant responses to disclosure of genetic results in a minority population at high-risk for depression and anxiety.

Methods

82 subjects in a genetic study of nicotine dependence were offered personalized genetic results: all were nicotine dependent and 64% self-identified as African American. Pathway Genomics was used to evaluate genetic risks for 5 complex diseases. Participants returned 4–8 weeks following enrollment for in-person genetic counseling interviews and evaluation of baseline measures. A telephone follow-up was performed 4–8 weeks later to assess responses to results.

Results

50 of the 82 subjects (61%) were interested in receiving genetic results. These participants had multiple risk factors, including high baseline measures of depression (66%) and anxiety (32%), as well as low rates of employment (46%), adequate health literacy (46%), and health insurance (45%). Pathway Genomics reported “increased risk” for at least one disease in 77% of subjects. 95% of participants reported that they appreciated the genetic results, and receiving these results was not associated with changes in symptoms of depression or anxiety. Furthermore, after return of genetic results, smoking cessation attempts increased (p=0.003).

Conclusion

Even in an underserved population at high-risk for adverse psychological reactions, subjects responded positively to personalized genetic results.

Returning findings within longitudinal cohort studies: the 1958 birth cohort as an exemplar

Population-based, prospective longitudinal cohort studies are considering the issues surrounding returning findings to individuals as a result of genomic and other medical research studies. While guidance is being developed for clinical settings, the process is less clear for those conducting longitudinal research. This paper discusses work conducted on behalf of The UK Cohort and Longitudinal Study Enhancement Resource programme (CLOSER) to examine consent requirements, process considerations and specific examples of potential findings in the context of the 1958 British Birth cohort. Beyond deciding which findings to return, there are questions of whether re-consent is needed and the possible impact on the study, how the feedback process will be managed, and what resources are needed to support that process. Recommendations are made for actions a cohort study should consider taking when making vital decisions regarding returning findings. Any decisions need to be context-specific, arrived at transparently, communicated clearly, and in the best interests of both the participants and the study.

Connecting patients, researchers and clinical genetics services: the experiences of participants in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS)

Population-based genetic research may produce information that has clinical implications for participants and their family. Researchers notify participants or their next of kin (NoK) about the availability of genetic information via a notification letter; however, many subsequently do not contact a family cancer centre (FCC) to clarify their genetic status. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine research participants' experience of receiving a notification letter and the factors that influenced contact with an FCC. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with research participants (n=10) or their NoK (n=15) who had received a notification letter following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. There were a number of factors which impacted participants' access to genetic counselling at an FCC. Some participants had unmet information and support needs, which were addressed by their participation in this psychosocial interview study. Recruitment and participation in this study therefore inadvertently increased a number of participants' intention to contact an FCC. For others, participation in this study facilitated access to an FCC. Recommendations are proposed regarding future notification as well as implications for clinical practice. An approach that also provides opportunity to address research participants' support and informational needs before contacting a clinical genetics service as well as practical guidance for accessing genetic services would facilitate timely and smooth access for research participants who are interested in following up clinically relevant genetic test results.

Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results

OBJECTIVES

With an increasing demand for genetic services, effective and efficient delivery models for genetic testing are needed.

METHODS

In this prospective single-arm communication study, participants received clinical BRCA1/2 results by telephone with a genetic counselor and completed surveys at baseline, after telephone disclosure (TD) and after in-person clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of women agreed to participate; 73% of decliners preferred in-person communication. Anxiety decreased from baseline to post-TD (p=0.03) and satisfaction increased (p<0.01). Knowledge did not change significantly from baseline to post-TD, but was higher post-clinical follow-up (p=0.04). Cancer patients had greater declines in state anxiety and African-American participants reported less increase in satisfaction. 28% of participants did not return for in-person clinical follow-up, particularly those with less formal education, and higher post-disclosure anxiety and depression (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results may not be associated with negative cognitive and affective responses among willing patients, although some subgroups may experience less favorable responses. Some patients do not return for in-person clinical follow-up and longitudinal outcomes are unknown.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further evaluation of longitudinal outcomes of telephone disclosure and differences among subgroups can inform how to best incorporate telephone communication into delivery of genetic services.

Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later

BACKGROUND

A major goal of predictive genetic testing for melanoma is to promote early detection to reduce mortality. This study evaluated the long-term impact of melanoma genetic test reporting and counseling on screening adherence.

METHODS

This study assessed adherence to recommendations for annual total body skin examinations (TBSE) and monthly skin self-examinations (SSE) among 37 members of Utah CDKN2A/p16 kindreds (10 unaffected carriers, 11 affected carriers, and 16 unaffected noncarriers; response rate = 64.9% of eligible participants).

RESULTS

Two years following test reporting, adherence to annual TBSE among unaffected carriers increased from 40% to 70%. However, unaffected noncarriers' adherence decreased from 56% to 13%. Affected carriers reported TBSEs at both assessments (91% and 82%, respectively). Monthly SSE frequency remained highly variable in all patient groups: at 2 years, 29.7% reported monthly SSEs, 27.0% reported more frequent self-examinations, and 43.2% reported underscreening. However, SSE quality improved significantly: participants checked more body sites at 2 years than at baseline, especially feet, shoulders, legs, and genitals. Perceived logistic barriers to TBSEs (e.g., expensive, inconvenient) and SSEs (hard to remember, time-consuming) predicted lower adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Unaffected carriers reported increased TBSE adherence and thoroughness of SSEs 2 years following melanoma genetic test reporting, suggesting clinical benefit in this modest sample. Unaffected noncarriers reported comparable gains in SSE thoroughness, but decreased TBSEs.

IMPACT

Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting may improve adherence among unaffected carrier members of p16 families. Further interventions to reduce logistic barriers and to promote continued screening adherence among unaffected noncarrier family members may be needed.

Using AD biomarker research results for clinical care: a survey of ADNI investigators

OBJECTIVE

To inform whether the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) should change its policy of not returning research results to ADNI participants, we surveyed investigators and research staff about disclosing ADNI biomarker information to research participants, with particular emphasis on amyloid imaging results.

METHODS

In April 2012, just before Food and Drug Administration approval of the amyloid-binding radiotracer, florbetapir, all ADNI investigators and personnel were recruited to complete an anonymous online survey that contained fixed choice and free-text questions.

RESULTS

Although ADNI participants often requested amyloid imaging results (the proportions of investigators who reported requests from more than half of their participants with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment were 20% and 22%, respectively), across all diagnostic groups, the majority of ADNI investigators (approximately 90%) did not return amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. However, the majority of investigators reported that, if the Food and Drug Administration approved florbetapir, they would support the return of amyloid imaging results to participants with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition, but they emphasized the need for guidance on how to provide these results to participants and for research to assess the value of returning results as well as how returning results will affect study validity and participant well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of ADNI investigators support returning amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. The findings that they want guidance on how to do this and research on the impact of disclosure suggest how to develop and monitor a disclosure process.

Genotype-driven recruitment: a strategy whose time has come?

Background

Genotype-Driven Recruitment (GDR) is a research design that recruits research participants based on genotype rather than based on the presence or absence of a particular condition or clinical outcome. Analyses of the ethical issues of GDR studies, and the recommendations derived from these analyses, are based on GDR research designs that make use of genetic information already collected in previous studies. However, as genotyping becomes more affordable, it is expected that genotypic information will become a common part of the information stored in biobanks and held in health care records. Furthermore, individuals will increasingly gain knowledge of their own genotypes through Direct-to-Consumer services. One can therefore foresee that individuals will be invited to participate not only in follow-up GDR studies but also in original GDR studies because genetic information about them is available. These individuals may or may have not participated in research before and may or may not be aware that their genetic information is available for research.

Discussion

From a conceptual point of view, we investigate whether the current ethics-related recommendations for the conduct of GDR suffice for a broader array of circumstances under which genetic information can be available. Our analysis reveals that the existing recommendations do not suffice for a broader use of GDR.

Summary

Our findings refocus attention on ethical issues which are neither new nor specific to GDR but which place greater demand on coordinated solutions. These challenges and approaches for addressing them are discussed.

Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of knowledge of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype on melanoma prevention behaviors like sun avoidance and skin examination in the context of familial melanoma.

METHODS

Seventy-three adults with a family history of melanoma were randomly assigned to be offered individualized CDKN2A and MC1R genotyping results in the context of a genetic counseling session, or the standard practice of not being offered counseling or disclosure of genotyping results. Mixed effects or longitudinal logistic models were used to determine whether the intervention affected change in sun protection habits, skin examinations, and perception and beliefs related to melanoma risk, prevention, and genetic counseling.

RESULTS

All participants in the intervention group who attended genetic counseling sessions chose to receive their test results. From baseline to follow-up, participants in the intervention group reported an increase in the frequency of skin self-examinations compared with a slight decrease in the control group (P = 0.002). Participants in the intervention group reported a smaller decrease in frequency of wearing a shirt with long sleeves than did participants in the control group (P = 0.047). No effect of the intervention was noted for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype among families without known pathogenic CDKN2A mutations does not seem to decrease sun protection behaviors.

IMPACT

While disclosure of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype did not have negative effects on prevention, the benefits of communicating this information remain unclear. The small number of families who tested positive for CDKN2A mutations in this study is a limitation.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance

BACKGROUND

Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To explore publicly accessible IRB websites for guidance in this area, using summative content analysis.

FINDINGS

Three types of research results were addressed in 45 informed consent templates and instructions from 20 IRBs based at centres conducting genomic research: (1) IRRs in general, (2) incidental findings (IFs) and (3) a broad and unspecified category of 'significant new findings' (SNFs). IRRs were more frequently referenced than IFs or SNFs. Most documents stated that access to IRRs would not be an option for research participants. These non-disclosure statements were found to coexist in some documents with statements that SNFs would be disclosed to participants if related to their willingness to participate in research. The median readability of template language on IRRs, IFs and SNFs exceeded a ninth-grade level.

CONCLUSION

IRB guidance may downplay the possibility of IFs and contain conflicting messages on IRR non-disclosure and SNF disclosure. IRBs may need to clarify why separate IRR and SNF language should appear in the same consent document. The extent of these issues, nationally and internationally, needs to be determined.

Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives

It is unclear how genomic incidental finding (GIF) prospects should be addressed in informed consent processes. An exploratory study on this topic was conducted with 34 purposively sampled Chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs) at centers conducting genome-wide association studies. Most Chairs (96%) reported no knowledge of local IRB requirements regarding GIFs and informed consent. Chairs suggested consent processes should address the prospect of, and study disclosure policy on, GIFs; GIF management and follow-up; potential clinical significance of GIFs; potential risks of GIF disclosure; an opportunity for participants to opt out of GIF disclosure; and duration of the researcher's duty to disclose GIFs. Chairs were concerned about participant disclosure preferences changing over time; inherent limitations in determining the scope and accuracy of claims about GIFs; and making consent processes longer and more complex. IRB Chair and other stakeholder perspectives can help advance informed consent efforts to accommodate GIF prospects.

Broadening research consent in the era of genome-informed medicine

Genetic variant associations and advances in research technologies are generating an unprecedented volume of genomic data. Whole-genome sequencing will introduce even greater depth to current data sets and will propel medical research and development. Yet as one area of biomedical research evolves, another stagnates: informed consent. As presently employed, informed consent is not entirely attuned to the era of whole-genome sequencing. The greatest value of genomic data lays in its accessibility over time; the current model of informed consent restricts the use of data and does not readily accommodate prospective basic and clinical research, a priori research, or opportunities to act upon incidental findings. It also disengages the research participant from the discovery process, discouraging the provision of research results that may have clinical value to that individual. A revisited informed consent approach-the Informed Cohort Oversight Board (ICOB)-has been proven successful at consenting individuals to a model which facilitates the simultaneous construction of longitudinal data with the return of results to participants as scientific knowledge and technology allows. The opportunity to sequence once and consult often is cost-effective, encourages scientific innovation, and provides the opportunity to quickly translate genomics into better clinical care.

Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results

Whether or not to give research results back to individuals whose specimens are used for biomedical research is a subject of considerable controversy. Much of the debate has been focused around the ethical and legal concerns with some consideration of broader social issues such as whether or not people will be affected by such information for employment or health care. Much less attention has been paid to biobanks that collect the specimens used to generate the research findings and the issues and operational requirements for implementing return of individual research results. In this article, we give the biobanks' perspective and highlight that given the diversity among the types of biobanks, it may be difficult to design and implement a blanket policy in this complex area. We discuss the variability in the types of biobanks and some important issues that should be considered in determining whether or not research results should be provided to individuals whose specimens are used in biomedical research. We also discuss challenges that should be considered in implementing any approaches to the return of research results.

Genetic testing for hereditary melanoma and pancreatic cancer: a longitudinal study of psychological outcome

OBJECTIVE

CDKN2A/p16 mutations confer 76% lifetime risk of melanoma and up to 17% lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer. Our objective was to determine the short- and long-term impact of CDKN2A/p16 genetic counseling and test reporting on psychological distress, cancer worry, and perceived costs and benefits of testing.

METHODS

Prospective changes in anxiety, depression, and cancer worry following CDKN2A/p16 counseling and test reporting were evaluated at multiple assessments over 2 years among 60 adult members of melanoma-prone families; 37 participants completed the 2-year follow-up. Quantitative and qualitative assessments of the costs and benefits of testing were carried out. Outcomes were evaluated among unaffected noncarriers (n = 27), unaffected carriers (n = 15), and affected carriers (n = 18).

RESULTS

Reported anxiety and depression were low. For carriers and noncarriers, anxiety decreased significantly throughout the 2-year period, whereas depression and melanoma worry showed short-term decreases. Worry about pancreatic cancer was low and decreased significantly. In all groups, test-related distress and uncertainty were low, regret was absent, and positive experiences were high. All participants (>93% at each assessment) reported at least one perceived benefit of genetic testing; only 15.9% listed any negative aspect. Carriers reported increased knowledge about melanoma risk and prevention (78.3%) and increased prevention and screening behaviors for self and family (65.2%). Noncarriers reported increased knowledge (95.2%) and emotional benefits (71.4%).

CONCLUSION

Among US participants familiar with their hereditary melanoma risk through prior epidemiological research participation, CDKN2A/p16 genetic testing provides multiple perceived benefits to both carriers and noncarriers without inducing distress in general or worry about melanoma or pancreatic cancer.