Search

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

Introduction: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results., Methods and Analysis: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice., Trial Registration Number: NCT03244202; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Few reports of educational and counseling support resources exist for Lynch syndrome (LS), a disorder requiring multi-organ cancer screening and specialized medical care throughout adult life. Here we describe the development and efficacy of two resources designed to address this need, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Clinical Genetics Service annual Lynch Syndrome Educational Workshop (LSEW), and a quarterly Lynch Syndrome Patient Advocacy Network (LSPAN) support group. The LSEW and LSPAN were implemented beginning in 2012. Participant survey data evaluating satisfaction, clarity, and unmet needs for each event were retrospectively analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Annual LSEW attendance ranged from 53 to 75 total participants. LSEW year 1 participants indicated a need for a support group, and preferred in-person meetings at a frequency of every 3-6 months. For LSEW year 2-5 participants, >96 % reported satisfaction with the LSEW, and >82 % expressed interest in secure online support. Common themes for improvement included increased time for question and answer sessions and additional introductory genetics education. Responding LSPAN participants (n = 57 total survey responses in 11 meetings) found the meetings helpful (100 %), information clear (91 %), and presence of a genetic counselor useful (67 %). Desired discussion topics included coping with stress and anxiety, development of a support network, family communication about LS, genetic testing decisions, and bereavement. Following genetic counseling, a need exists for ongoing educational and emotional support in LS. Implementation of resources such as the LSEW and LSPAN is feasible and perceived as helpful by participants.