Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background While there is increasing interest in sharing genetic research results with participants, how best to communicate the risks, benefits and limitations of research results remains unclear. Methods Participants who received genetic research results answered open and closed‐ended questions about their experiences receiving results and interest in and advantages and disadvantages of a web‐based alternative to genetic counseling. Results 107 BRCA1/2 negative women with a personal or family history of breast cancer consented to receive genetic research results and 82% completed survey items about their experience. Most participants reported there was nothing they disliked (74%) or would change (85%) about their predisclosure or disclosure session (78% and 89%). They most frequently reported liking the genetic counselor and learning new information. Only 24% and 26% would not be willing to complete predisclosure counseling or disclosure of results by a web‐based alternative, respectively. The most frequently reported advantages included convenience and reduced time. Disadvantages included not being able to ask questions, the risk of misunderstanding and the impersonal nature of the encounter. Conclusion Most participants receiving genetic research results report high satisfaction with telephone genetic counseling, but some may be willing to consider self‐directed web alternatives for both predisclosure genetic education and return of results. Return of genetic research results is an increasing area of interest and concern for participants and researchers. How best to share this information remains unknown. Analysis of open and closed‐ended survey questions about experiences, and expectations about receiving research results, indicate high satisfaction with traditional genetic counseling but also participant willingness to consider web alternatives to both pre‐disclosure genetic education and actual return of results.

Background In developed countries, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 5%, and it is the second leading cause of death from cancer. The presence of family history is a well established risk factor with 25-35% of CRCs attributable to inherited and/or familial factors. The highly penetrant inherited colon cancer syndromes account for approximately 5%, leaving greater than 20% without clear genetic definition. Familial colorectal cancer has been linked to chromosome 7q31 by multiple affected relative pair studies. The MET proto-oncogene which resides in this chromosomal region is considered a candidate for genetic susceptibility. Methods MET exons were amplified by PCR from germline DNA of 148 affected sibling pairs with colorectal cancer. Amplicons with altered sequence were detected with high-resolution melt-curve analysis using a LightScanner (Idaho Technologies). Samples demonstrating alternative melt curves were sequenced. A TaqMan assay for the specific c.2975C > T change was used to confirm this mutation in a cohort of 299 colorectal cancer cases and to look for allelic amplification in tumors. Results Here we report a germline non-synonymous change in the MET proto-oncogene at amino acid position T992I (also reported as MET p.T1010I) in 5.2% of a cohort of sibling pairs affected with CRC. This genetic variant was then confirmed in a second cohort of individuals diagnosed with CRC and having a first degree relative with CRC at prevalence of 4.1%. This mutation has been reported in cancer cells of multiple origins, including 2.5% of colon cancers, and in <1% in the general population. The threonine at amino acid position 992 lies in the tyrosine kinase domain of MET and a change to isoleucine at this position has been shown to promote metastatic behavior in cell-based models. The average age of CRC diagnosis in patients in this study is 63 years in mutation carriers, which is 8 years earlier than the general population average for CRC. Conclusions Although the MET p.T992I genetic mutation is commonly found in somatic colorectal cancer tissues, this is the first report also implicating this MET genetic mutation as a germline inherited risk factor for familial colorectal cancer. Future studies on the cancer risks associated with this mutation and the prevalence in different at-risk populations will be an important extension of this work to define the clinical significance.

Purpose: Clinical testing for germ-line variation in multiple cancer susceptibility genes is available using massively parallel sequencing. Limited information is available for pretest genetic counseling regarding the spectrum of mutations and variants of uncertain significance in defined patient populations. Methods: We performed massively parallel sequencing using targeted capture of 22 cancer susceptibility genes in 278 BRCA1/2 -negative patients with early-onset breast cancer (diagnosed at younger than 40 years of age). Results: Thirty-one patients (11%) were found to have at least one deleterious or likely deleterious variant. Seven patients (2.5% overall) were found to have deleterious or likely deleterious variants in genes for which clinical guidelines exist for management, namely TP53 (4), CDKN2A (1), MSH2 (1), and MUTYH (double heterozygote). Twenty-four patients (8.6%) had deleterious or likely deleterious variants in a cancer susceptibility gene for which clinical guidelines are lacking, such as CHEK2 and ATM . Fifty-four patients (19%) had at least one variant of uncertain significance, and six patients were heterozygous for a variant in MUTYH . Conclusion: These data demonstrate that massively parallel sequencing identifies reportable variants in known cancer susceptibility genes in more than 30% of patients with early-onset breast cancer. However, only few patients (2.5%) have definitively actionable mutations given current clinical management guidelines. Genet Med 17 8, 630–638.

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = − 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = − 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing. BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.

Consensus guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer include management recommendations for pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and other DNA damage repair (DDR) genes beyond BRCA1 or BRCA2. We report on clinical management decisions across three academic medical centers resulting from P/LP findings in DDR genes in breast/ovarian cancer patients. Among 2184 patients, 156 (7.1%) carried a P/LP variant in a DDR gene. Clinical follow-up information was available for 101/156 (64.7%) patients. Genetic test result-based management recommendations were made for 57.8% (n = 59) of patients and for 64.7% (n = 66) of patients’ family members. Most recommendations were made for moderate-to-high risk genes and were consistent with guidelines. Sixty-six percent of patients (n = 39/59) implemented recommendations. This study suggests that P/LP variants in DDR genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 can change clinical management recommendations for patients and their family members, facilitate identification of new at-risk carriers, and impact treatment decisions. Additional efforts are needed to improve the implementation rates of genetic-testing-based management recommendations for patients and their family members.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer susceptibility condition associated with varying cancer risks depending on which of the five causative genes harbors a pathogenic variant; however, lifestyle and medical interventions provide options to lower those risks. We developed MyLynch, a patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) web application that applies genetically-guided personalized medicine (GPM) for individuals with LS. The tool was developed in R Shiny through a patient-focused iterative design process. The knowledge base used to estimate patient-specific risk leveraged a rigorously curated literature review. MyLynch informs LS patients of their personal cancer risks, educates patients on relevant interventions, and provides patients with adjusted risk estimates, depending on the interventions they choose to pursue. MyLynch can improve risk communication between patients and providers while also encouraging communication among relatives with the goal of increasing cascade testing. As genetic panel testing becomes more widely available, GPM will play an increasingly important role in patient care, and CDS tools offer patients and providers tailored information to inform decision-making. MyLynch provides personalized cancer risk estimates and interventions to lower these risks for patients with LS.

Purpose To better understand the longitudinal risks and benefits of telephone disclosure of genetic test results in the era of multigene panel testing. Methods Adults who were proceeding with germline cancer genetic testing were randomized to telephone disclosure (TD) with a genetic counselor or in-person disclosure (IPD) (i.e., usual care) of test results. All participants who received TD were recommended to return to meet with a physician to discuss medical management recommendations. Results Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized to TD and 497 to IPD. There were no differences between arms for any cognitive, affective, or behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Only 50% of participants in the TD arm returned for the medical follow-up appointment. Returning was associated with site ( p  < 0.0001), being female ( p  = 0.047), and not having a true negative result ( p  < 0.002). Mammography was lower at 12 months among those who had TD and did not return for medical follow-up (70%) compared with those who had TD and returned (86%) and those who had IPD (87%, adjusted p  < 0.01). Conclusion Telephone disclosure of genetic test results is a reasonable alternative to in-person disclosure, but attention to medical follow-up may remain important for optimizing appropriate use of genetic results.

This study evaluated rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) test result acceptance among African American women and identified determinants of test result acceptance. Acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results was evaluated among 157 African American women at high and moderate risk for having a BRCA1/2 mutation who were offered genetic testing as part of a clinical genetic counseling research program. Twenty-two percent of women received BRCA1/2 test results. Test result acceptance differed between women with > or =10% prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (34%) and those who had a 5% prior probability (8%). Among women with > or =10% prior probability, test result acceptors were most likely to be married (OR = 5.29, 95% CI = 1.82, 15.38, P = 0.002) and be less certain about their risk of developing cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.04, 9.80, P = 0.04). These results demonstrate that acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results may be limited among African American women. Being married and having less certainty about one's cancer risk may motivate acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results among African American women. It may be important to emphasize the possibility that BRCA1/2 test results may not clarify cancer risks during pre-test counseling with African American women to ensure informed decision-making about testing.

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.