Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionThe 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 analysisWe 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 disseminationThis 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.

Families who face genetic disease risk must learn how to grapple with complicated uncertainties about their health and future on a long-term basis. Women who undergo BRCA 1/2 genetic testing describe uncertainty related to personal risk as well as their loved ones’, particularly daughters’, risk. The genetic counseling setting is a prime opportunity for practitioners to help mothers manage uncertainty in the moment but also once they leave a session. Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT) helps to illuminate the various types of uncertainty women encounter and the important role of communication in uncertainty management. Informed by UMT, we conducted a thematic analysis of 16 genetic counseling sessions between practitioners and mothers at risk for, or carriers of, a BRCA1/2 mutation. Five themes emerged that represent communication strategies used to manage uncertainty: 1) addresses myths, misunderstandings, or misconceptions; 2) introduces uncertainty related to science; 3) encourages information seeking or sharing about family medical history; 4) reaffirms or validates previous behavior or decisions; and 5) minimizes the probability of personal risk or family members’ risk . Findings illustrate the critical role of genetic counseling for families in managing emotionally challenging risk-related uncertainty. The analysis may prove beneficial to not only genetic counseling practice but generations of families at high risk for cancer who must learn strategic approaches to managing a complex web of uncertainty that can challenge them for a lifetime.

IntroductionGenomic 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 analysisWe 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 disseminationThis 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.

Uncertainty is central to the experience of genetic decision making and counseling about cancer risk. Women seeking genetic counseling about their breast cancer risk may experience a great deal of uncertainty about issues related to their daughters. We used a theory of Communication and Uncertainty Management to guide analysis of sources of uncertainty about daughters that emerged during 16 video-recorded and transcribed conversations between mothers at risk for a BRCA 1/2 mutation and their genetic healthcare practitioners. An interpretive design and constant comparative method revealed three dominant patterns or themes representing sources of uncertainty mothers have relating to their daughters: disease risk, future cancer screening, and communication of related information to daughters. Both practitioners and mothers discussed these aspects of uncertainty. The findings identify the significant role uncertainty and familial concerns play in mothers’ genetic testing decision making process. To assist genetic practitioners, we highlight daughter-related concerns that mothers are uncertain about and which are vital to their genetic counseling needs.

Purpose: This study examines the analytic validity of a software tool designed to provide individuals with risk assessments for colorectal cancer based on personal health and family history information. The software is compatible with the US Surgeon General’s My Family Health Portrait (MFHP). Methods: An algorithm for risk assessment was created using accepted colorectal risk assessment guidelines and programmed into a software tool (MFHP). Risk assessments derived from 150 pedigrees using the MFHP tool were compared with “gold standard” risk assessments developed by three expert cancer genetic counselors. Results: Genetic counselor risk assessments showed substantial, but not perfect, agreement. MFHP risk assessments for colorectal cancer yielded a sensitivity for colorectal cancer risk of 81% (95% confidence interval: 54–96%) and specificity of 90% (95% confidence interval: 83–94%), as compared with genetic counselor pedigree review. The positive predictive value for risk for MFHP was 48% (95% confidence interval: 29–68%), whereas the negative predictive value was 98% (95% confidence interval: 93–99%). Agreement between MFHP and genetic counselor pedigree review was moderate ( κ = 0.54). Conclusion: The analytic validity of the MFHP colorectal cancer risk assessment software is similar to those of other types of screening tools used in primary care. Future investigations should explore the clinical validity and utility of the software in diverse population groups. Genet Med 17 9, 753–756.

BRCA1/2 large rearrangement (LR) testing has been available to patients since 2006. Three existing models commonly used in cancer genetics clinical and research settings (BRCAPRO, Penn II and Myriad II) have not been assessed for their performance in predicting the presence of BRCA1 /2 large genomic rearrangements in patients who do not have mutations detectable by the traditional Sanger sequencing approach. This study sought to determine if there is an optimal pre-test probability “cut off” value, calculated using these models, to optimize detection of large rearrangements (LRs). Our cohort consisted of 3,301 probands seen for genetic counseling and BRCA1 /2 clinical testing from September 2006 to September 2011. A detailed personal and three-generation family history, including self-reported ethnicity, was taken as part of our standard clinical practice. We applied the BRCAPRO, Penn II, and Myriad II models to the probands with LRs. In our cohort of 3,301 probands, 150 carried a non-Ashkenazi mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 . Seventeen unrelated probands carried a private BRCA1 /2 LR (17/150, 11.3 % of all detectable non-AJ mutations). At a pre-test probability cutoff of 10 %, all three empiric risk models would have failed to identify almost 30 % of probands with LRs. Our study shows that BRCA1/2 LR testing should be offered to all women who meet criteria for BRCA1 /2 sequence analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients be informed of their incidental results (IR) when undergoing genomic sequencing (GS), yet there are limited tools to support patients’ decisions about learning IR. The aim of this study is to develop and test the usability of a decision aid (DA) to guide patients’ selection of IR, and to describe patients’ preferences for learning IR following use of the DA. We developed and evaluated a DA using an iterative, mixed-methods process consisting of (1) prototype development, (2) feasibility testing, (3) cognitive interviews, (4) design and programming, and (5) usability testing. We created an interactive online DA called the Genomics ADvISER, a genomics decision AiD about Incidental SEquencing Results. The Genomics ADvISER begins with an educational whiteboard video, and then engages users in a values clarification exercise, knowledge quiz and final choice step, based on a ‘binning’ framework. Participants found the DA acceptable and intuitive to use. They were enthusiastic towards GS and IR; all selected multiple categories of IR. The Genomics ADvISER is a new patient-centered tool to support the clinical delivery of incidental GS results. The Genomics ADvISER fills critical care gaps, given the health care system’s limited genomics expertise and capacity to convey the large volume of IR and their myriad of implications.

Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Approximately 25 % of mismatch repair (MMR) variants are exonic nucleotide substitutions. Some result in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein sequence, so-called missense variants, while others are silent. The interpretation of the effect of missense and silent variants as deleterious or neutral is challenging. Pre-symptomatic testing for clinical use is not recommended for relatives of individuals with variants classified as ‘of uncertain significance’. These relatives, including non-carriers, are considered at high-risk as long as the contribution of the variant to disease causation cannot be determined. This results in continuing anxiety, and the application of potentially unnecessary screening and prophylactic interventions. We encountered a large Irish Lynch syndrome kindred that carries the c.544A>G (p.Arg182Gly) alteration in the MLH1 gene and we undertook to study the variant. The clinical significance of the variant remains unresolved in the literature. Data are presented on cancer incidence within five kindreds with the same germline missense variant in the MLH1 MMR gene. Extensive testing of relevant family members in one kindred, a review of the literature, review of online MMR mutation databases and use of in silico phenotype prediction tools were undertaken to study the significance of this variant. Clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and molecular evidence from these families and other independent clinical and scientific evidence indicates that the MLH1 p.Arg182Gly (c.544A>G) change causes Lynch syndrome and supports reclassification of the variant as pathogenic.

Pharmacogenomics test coverage and reimbursement are major obstacles to clinical uptake. Several early adopter programs have been successfully initiated through dedicated investments by federal and institutional research funding. As a result of research endeavors, evidence has grown sufficiently to support development of pharmacogenomics guidelines. However, clinical uptake is still limited. Third-party payer support plays an important role in increasing adoption, which to date has been limited to reactive single-gene testing. Access to and interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing are driving demand for increasing healthcare providers and third-party awareness of this burgeoning field. Pharmacogenomics implementation models developed by early adopters promise to expand patient access and options, as testing continues to increase due to growing consumer interest and falling test prices.