Search

Purpose: The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach., Results: We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment., Conclusion: Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results., Methods: Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available., Results: Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p < 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001-0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034)., Conclusion: Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress., Practice Implications: Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To understand advanced cancer patients' experience of uncertainty when receiving comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their perceptions of how healthcare provider (HCP) communication impacts uncertainty., Methods: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CTGP results. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach., Results: We identified three themes that illustrate patient experience of uncertainties when receiving CTGP results: 1. Type and degree of uncertainty fluctuates along with changing illness circumstances and the nature of the CTGP results; 2. HCPs' co-ordination of care and communication shapes uncertainty, with immediate, clearer and simpler information promoting certainty; and 3. Patients felt that communicating results to reduce relatives' uncertainty is important, with patients choosing the time and process for achieving this and desiring HCPs support., Conclusion: Oncology patients are confronted with an array of uncertainties. Clear, simple communication from HCPs about results and their implications, and support to manage uncertainty, will be of benefit., Practice Implications: If CTGP is to become routine clinical practice, clear communication will be crucial in reducing uncertainty. Awareness of potential uncertainties experienced by patients when receiving results, will assist HCPs to address uncertainties, reduce uncertainty where possible, and offer targeted support to patients struggling with uncertainty., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest BM has a remunerated consultant role with the company Astrazeneca with respect to an unrelated project. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Genomic Sequencing (GS) to identify high cancer risk will soon enter clinical practice at significant cost to the health system. This study aimed to quantify perceived value of GS to Australian cancer patients and their first-degree relatives participating in a genomic sequencing study, and factors associated with value. Participants were recruited upon consent to the genomics study. Eligible participants (with cancer of likely genetic etiology, or a first-degree relative) completed a questionnaire prior to GS. Willingness to pay was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios of actionable result return rates of 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%. Of 348 probands and 213 relatives (92% and 93% response rate), 81% would consistently have GS for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Participants would pay a median of $1,000 for return rates of at least 20% (probands) or 30% (relatives), and $300 for lower return rates. Probands with common cancers and negative attitudes to uncertainty were more likely to have GS; those with higher education were more willing to pay $1,000 and $3,000 for lower return rates. This study found high interest in, but lower willingness to pay for GS in cancer patients and their first-degree relatives, possibly due to inability to pay. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of how individuals in different risk circumstances, trade-off the risks, harms, and benefits of GS., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Tumor mutation profiling (MP) is often conducted on tissue from biopsies conducted for clinical purposes (diagnostic tissue). We aimed to explore the views of patients with cancer on who should own tumor biopsy tissue, pay for its storage, and decide on its future use; and determine their attitudes to and predictors of undergoing additional biopsies if required for research purposes. In this mixed methods, cross-sectional study, patients with advanced solid cancers enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n  = 397) completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing MP (n  = 356/397). A subset (n  = 23) also completed a qualitative interview. Fifty percent of participants believed they and/or relatives should own and control access to diagnostic tissue. Most (65.5%) believed the government should pay for tissue preparation. Qualitative themes included (1) custodianship of diagnostic tissue, (2) changing value of tissue across time and between cultures, (3) equity regarding payment, and (4) cost-benefit considerations in deciding on additional biopsies. Policy and regulation should consider patient perspectives. Extension of publicly funded health care to include tissue retrieval for clinical trials should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Fear of cancer progression (FCP) impacts quality of life and is a prevalent unmet need in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, particularly as treatment options are reduced. We aimed to identify longitudinal patterns in FCP over 6 months in patients with advanced cancer receiving comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their correlates. Methods: Patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic disease (∼70% rare cancers) receiving or post their last line of standard therapy completed questionnaires at T0 (prior to CTGP), T1 (immediately post CTGP results) and T2 (2 months later). Results: High stable (N = 52; 7.3%) and low/moderate stable (N = 56; 7.8%) FCP patterns over time typified the largest participant groups (N = 721). Those with an immediately actionable variant versus a non‐actionable variant (p = 0.045), with higher FCP (p < 0.001), and lower Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well‐being (FACIT‐Sp) scores (p = 0.006) at T0, had higher FCP at T1. Those with higher FCP at T0 (p < 0.001) and at T1 (p < 0.001), lower FACIT‐Sp scores at T1 (p = 0.001), lower education (p = 0.031) and female gender (p = 0.027) had higher FCP at T2. Discussion: Routine screening for psychological/spiritual characteristics in those about to undergo CTGP may help to identify patients who may benefit from closer monitoring and provision of psychosocial support. Future studies should explore interventions to best address FCP in this vulnerable group, as interventions assessed to date have almost all addressed patients with curative cancers or newly diagnosed advanced disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study explored family communication about undertaking genomic sequencing, and intentions to communicate pertinent heritable results to family members.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 53) and their relatives (n = 20) who underwent germline genome sequencing or molecular tumor testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Key themes relevant to family communication about undertaking sequencing included: perceiving family member interest, delaying discussion until results were received, having shared capacity to understand and cope, and having open communication in the family. Intended communication subsequent to receiving results was affected by: disease severity, risk management options, degree of closeness in the family, sense of responsibility, and potential adverse impacts on family. Resource and support needs varied based on the complexity of test results, health professionals' availability, and disease severity. Unique subthemes were identified for specific subgroups.Conclusion: Current findings support the need to assess the impact and resource needs specific to each clinical application of genomic sequencing.Practice Implications: Increasingly sophisticated and complex clinical genomic sequencing warrants development of family-centered interventions and resources to facilitate preference-sensitive communication about genomic sequencing, including disseminating relevant information to family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes.Methods: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors.Results: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02).Conclusions: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes.Practice Implications: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]