Search

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have linked increased risk of osteosarcoma with tall stature, high birthweight, and early puberty, although evidence is inconsistent. We used genetic risk scores (GRS) based on established genetic loci for these traits and evaluated associations between genetically inferred birthweight, height, and puberty timing with osteosarcoma. METHODS: Using genotype data from two genome-wide association studies, totaling 1039 cases and 2923 controls of European ancestry, association analyses were conducted using logistic regression for each study and meta-analyzed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted by case diagnosis age, metastasis status, tumor location, tumor histology, and presence of a known pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. RESULTS: Genetically inferred higher birthweight was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma (OR =1.59, 95% CI 1.07-2.38, P = 0.02). This association was strongest in cases without metastatic disease (OR =2.46, 95% CI 1.44-4.19, P = 9.5 ×10-04). Although there was no overall association between osteosarcoma and genetically inferred taller stature (OR=1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17, P = 0.28), the GRS for taller stature was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma in 154 cases with a known pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant (OR=1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.63, P = 0.03). There were no significant associations between the GRS for puberty timing and osteosarcoma. CONCLUSION: A genetic propensity to higher birthweight was associated with increased osteosarcoma risk, suggesting that shared genetic factors or biological pathways that affect birthweight may contribute to osteosarcoma pathogenesis.

Cancer genetics has to date focused on epithelial malignancies, identifying multiple histotype-specific pathways underlying cancer susceptibility. Sarcomas are rare malignancies predominantly derived from embryonic mesoderm. To identify pathways specific to mesenchymal cancers, we performed whole-genome germline sequencing on 1644 sporadic cases and 3205 matched healthy elderly controls. Using an extreme phenotype design, a combined rare-variant burden and ontologic analysis identified two sarcoma-specific pathways involved in mitotic and telomere functions. Variants in centrosome genes are linked to malignant peripheral nerve sheath and gastrointestinal stromal tumors, whereas heritable defects in the shelterin complex link susceptibility to sarcoma, melanoma, and thyroid cancers. These studies indicate a specific role for heritable defects in mitotic and telomere biology in risk of sarcomas.

OBJECTIVE: Research on family communication of germline genome sequencing (GS) results (versus of genetic results after targeted genetic testing) is still emerging, yet potentially complex results increase the importance of communicating risk to relatives. Promoting equity by ensuring patients have sufficient health literacy to interpret results is important in this context. This study aimed to identify cancer patients' perceived importance of result disclosure, predictors of perceptions, and perspectives on family communication. METHODS: This explanatory-sequential, cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved participants (n = 246) completing a questionnaire and (n = 20) a semi-structured interview. Ordinal logistic regressions determined associations between potential predictors and perceived importance of result disclosure. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: More participants intended disclosing to nuclear (77.4%) than to extended family (42.7%). More than half (59.3%) felt results were family information; 62.7% believed it was important to disclose results to family members. Nuclear and extended family communication scores and education level were significantly positively associated with perceived importance of disclosure (p < 0.05). Six qualitative themes were identified: i) Responsibility to inform, ii) Choice, iii) Autonomy, iv) Family Communication, v) Significance of results, and vi) Health professional role. CONCLUSION: Low health literacy and family conflict can complicate communication of GS results. Patients seek clear, interpretable information in a format they can easily communicate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals can facilitate discussion of GS results by offering written information, encouraging disclosure, exploring existing family dynamics and communication patterns, and offering strategies to improve family communication. Centralised genetic communication offices and

AbstractGermline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide res

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.

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are personalized assessments of disease risk based on the cumulative effect of common low-risk genetic variants. PRS have been shown to accurately predict women's breast cancer risk and are likely to be incorporated into personalized breast cancer risk management programs. However, there are few studies investigating the individual impact of receiving a breast cancer PRS. Existing studies have not demonstrated significant changes in perceived risk or risk management behaviors after receipt of polygenic risk information. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women with a family history of breast cancer construct breast cancer risk perceptions after receipt of a breast cancer PRS. Unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer who had not previously received genetic counseling regarding their breast cancer risk were invited to participate in this study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who attended a familial cancer clinic in the Australian states of Victoria and Tasmania. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Women's lived experience played a significant role in the construction and maintenance of their breast cancer risk perception. Women's pre-existing risk perceptions were informed by their family history and their knowledge that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease. Knowing that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease enabled most women to integrate genetic information with their pre-existing notions of risk. Women reported that the information they received was consistent with their existing notions of personal risk and screening advice. Therefore, the PRS did not lead to a change in perceived risk or risk management behaviors for most women. The results of this study provide insight into how polygenic risk information is integrated with pre-existing notions of risk, which will inform its implementation into clinical practice.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose: Fear of cancer recurrence/occurrence (FCR/O) is prevalent and associated with poorer psychological outcomes but can also motivate individuals to pursue genomic information about cancer risk. Guided by Protection Motivation Theory, this study investigated FCR/O prevalence and associated factors among probands previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely heritable origin, and their relatives, who had agreed to have germline genome sequencing. Methods: Three hundred and forty-eight probands and 167 relatives completed the Concerns about Recurrence Questionnaire (adapted for occurrence for some relatives) within 1 month of agreeing to undertake genome sequencing. Linear regressions investigated demographic, disease, attitude and behavioral associations with FCR/O. Results: Probands demonstrated greater FCR compared to relatives. In probands, greater FCR was associated with being female, non-English speaking at home, less time since diagnosis, greater intention to change behavior if gene variant found, lower perceived ability to cope with results, higher perceived susceptibility to having a recurrence, and more negative attitudes towards uncertainty. For relatives with cancer, greater FCR was associated with being male, greater intention to change behavior if a gene variant found, and higher perceived susceptibility to recurrence. In relatives without cancer, greater FCO was associated with not having had genetic testing prior to this study, lower perceived ability to cope with results, and higher perceived susceptibility to developing cancer. Conclusion: Current findings on FCR/O prevalence and associated demographic and attitudinal variables in those who pursue genomic risk information might be used to target interventions that can prevent adverse psychological outcomes in vulnerable patients.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Background Little is known about knowledge of, and attitudes towards, genome sequencing (GS) among individuals with a personal history of cancer who decide to undergo GS. This qualitative study aimed to investigate baseline knowledge and attitudes among individuals previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely genetic origin who have consented to GS. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants (n=20) from the longitudinal Psychosocial Issues in Genomic Oncology study, within a month of consenting to GS and prior to receiving any results. Participants were adults with a cancer of likely genetic aetiology who are undertaking GS as part of a larger genetic study. Results Analysis identified three main themes: limited understanding of genomics; multifactorial motivation; and complex decision making. While motivations such as obtaining health information about self and family appear to be the main drivers for undertaking GS, these motivations are sometimes based on limited knowledge of the accuracy and utility of GS, creating unrealistic expectations. This in turn can prolong the deliberation process and lead to ongoing decisional conflict. Conclusion Understanding the degree and nature of patient understanding of GS, as well as their attitudes and decision-making processes, will enable healthcare professionals to better manage patient expectations and appropriately engage and support patients to make an informed decision when pursuing GS.

Importance: Use of tumor molecular profiling (MP) is entering routine clinical practice; however, little is known about how much and why patients value MP. Objective: To examine the perceived value of MP to patients with advanced cancer and factors associated with perceived value. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey that included willingness-to-pay trade-off scenarios was administered to participants after consent and before MP. A total of 777 participants (94% response rate) were recruited from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Eligible patients had advanced solid cancers of any histologic type, were receiving or had completed their last line of effective therapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 to 3, and had sufficient accessible tissue for MP. The participants were recruited between October 24, 2017, and March 12, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from March 13 to April 14, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Willingness to pay for MP was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios varying in the actionable return rate (1%, 20%, or 40%) and cost (A$0, A$300 [US$210], A$1000 [US $700], A$3000 [US $2100], or A$10000 [US $7000]). Ordinal regressions were used to explore factors associated with willingness to have and pay for MP. Results: Of 777 participants (405 women [52%]; mean [SD] age, 55.47 [14.26] years), 689 patients (89%) would have MP for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Fifty-six patients (7%) would require at least a 20% return rate and 11 patients (1%) would require at least a 40% return rate. Fifteen patients (2%) consistently chose not to have the test; 6 participants (0.8%) had missing values on this item. Participants were willing to pay a median of A$1000 if the actionable return rate was 1% and A$3000 for an actionable return rate of 20% to 40%. Of 762 individuals who agreed to testing, 482 patients (64%) were consistently unwilling to pay A$10000, regardless of the

Implementation of any new medical test, including germline genome sequencing (GS) to inform cancer risk, should take place only when a test is effective, ethically justifiable and acceptable to a population. Little empirical evidence exists on patient views regarding GS for cancer risk. The aim of this study was to elicit opinions on who should be offered GS and who should pay for it. Participants with a probable genetic basis for their cancer (n = 335) and blood relatives (n = 199) were recruited to undergo GS and invited to complete questionnaires at baseline. A subset (n = 40) also participated in qualitative interviews about their views regarding access to GS to detect cancer risk. Our response rate was 92% for questionnaires and 100% for interviews. Participants expressed high enthusiasm overall for access to GS for those with a family history of cancer and anyone who requested testing, but enthusiasm was lower for universal access, if opting out was possible and finances not an issue. Rationales for these views reflected maximising the sound use of resources. Challenges to introducing community screening via GS to limit cancer burden were raised, including the current limits of science and individual ability to cope with uncertain results. Participants undergoing GS supported cancer risk testing for those with a family history of cancer but were concerned about the challenges of designing and implementing a population-based GS cancer-screening program.

Fusion genes are a major cause of cancer. Their rapid and accurate diagnosis can inform clinical action, but current molecular diagnostic assays are restricted in resolution and throughput. Here, we show that targeted RNA sequencing (RNAseq) can overcome these limitations. First, we establish that fusion gene detection with targeted RNAseq is both sensitive and quantitative by optimising laboratory and bioinformatic variables using spike-in standards and cell lines. Next, we analyse a clinical patient cohort and improve the overall fusion gene diagnostic rate from 63% with conventional approaches to 76% with targeted RNAseq while demonstrating high concordance for patient samples with previous diagnoses. Finally, we show that targeted RNAseq offers additional advantages by simultaneously measuring gene expression levels and profiling the immune-receptor repertoire. We anticipate that targeted RNAseq will improve clinical fusion gene detection, and its increasing use will provide a deeper understanding of fusion gene biology.

Germline pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene cause Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a condition that predisposes individuals to a wide range of cancer types. Identification of individuals carrying a TP53 pathogenic variant is linked to clinical management decisions, such as the avoidance of radiotherapy and use of high-intensity screening programs. The aim of this study was to develop an evidence-based quantitative model that integrates independent in silico data (Align-GVGD and BayesDel) and somatic to germline ratio (SGR), to assign pathogenicity to every possible missense variant in the TP53 gene. To do this, a likelihood ratio for pathogenicity (LR) was derived from each component calibrated using reference sets of assumed pathogenic and benign missense variants. A posterior probability of pathogenicity was generated by combining LRs, and algorithm outputs were validated using different approaches. A total of 730 TP53 missense variants could be assigned to a clinically interpretable class. The outputs of the model correlated well with existing clinical information, functional data, and ClinVar classifications. In conclusion, these quantitative outputs provide the basis for individualized assessment of cancer risk useful for clinical interpretation. In addition, we propose the value of the novel SGR approach for use within the ACMG/AMP guidelines for variant classification.

Background: Advances in genomics offer promise for earlier detection or prevention of cancer, by personalisation of medical care tailored to an individual's genomic risk status. However genome sequencing can generate an unprecedented volume of results for the patient to process with potential implications for their families and reproductive choices. This paper describes a protocol for a study (PiGeOn) that aims to explore how patients and their blood relatives experience germline genomic sequencing, to help guide the appropriate future implementation of genome sequencing into routine clinical practice. Methods: We have designed a mixed-methods, prospective, cohort sub-study of a germline genomic sequencing study that targets adults with cancer suggestive of a genetic aetiology. One thousand probands and 2000 of their blood relatives will undergo germline genomic sequencing as part of the parent study in Sydney, Australia between 2016 and 2020. Test results are expected within12-15 months of recruitment. For the PiGeOn sub-study, participants will be invited to complete surveys at baseline, three months and twelve months after baseline using self-administered questionnaires, to assess the experience of long waits for results (despite being informed that results may not be returned) and expectations of receiving them. Subsets of both probands and blood relatives will be purposively sampled and invited to participate in three semi-structured qualitative interviews (at baseline and each follow-up) to triangulate the data. Ethical themes identified in the data will be used to inform critical revisions of normative ethical concepts or frameworks. Discussion: This will be one of the first studies internationally to follow the psychosocial impact on probands and their blood relatives who undergo germline genome sequencing, over time. Study results will inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as informed consent for genomic sequencing, and informing participants and th

Germline genomic testing is increasingly used in research to identify genetic causes of disease, including cancer. However, there is evidence that individuals who are notified of clinically actionable research findings have difficulty making informed decisions regarding uptake of genetic counseling for these findings. This study aimed to produce and pilot test a decision aid to assist participants in genomic research studies who are notified of clinically actionable research findings to make informed choices regarding uptake of genetic counseling. Development was guided by published literature, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, and the expertise of a steering committee of clinicians, researchers, and consumers. Decision aid acceptability was assessed by self-report questionnaire. All 19 participants stated that the decision aid was easy to read, clearly presented, increased their understanding of the implications of taking up research findings, and would be helpful in decision-making. While low to moderate levels of distress/worry were reported after reading the booklet, a majority of participants also reported feeling reassured. All participants would recommend the booklet to others considering uptake of clinically actionable research findings. Results indicate the decision aid is acceptable to the target audience, with potential as a useful decision support tool for genomic research participants.

Background: Genomic sequencing in cancer (both tumour and germline), and development of therapies targeted to tumour genetic status, hold great promise for improvement of patient outcomes. However, the imminent introduction of genomics into clinical practice calls for better understanding of how patients value, experience, and cope with this novel technology and its often complex results. Here we describe a protocol for a novel mixed-methods, prospective study (PiGeOn) that aims to examine patients’ psychosocial, cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to tumour genomic profiling and to integrate a parallel critical ethical analysis of returning results. Methods: This is a cohort sub-study of a parent tumour genomic profiling programme enrolling patients with advanced cancer. One thousand patients will be recruited for the parent study in Sydney, Australia from 2016 to 2019. They will be asked to complete surveys at baseline, three, and five months. Primary outcomes are: knowledge, preferences, attitudes and values. A purposively sampled subset of patients will be asked to participate in three semi-structured interviews (at each time point) to provide deeper data interpretation. Relevant ethical themes will be critically analysed to iteratively develop or refine normative ethical concepts or frameworks currently used in the return of genetic information. Discussion: This will be the first Australian study to collect longitudinal data on cancer patients’ experience of tumour genomic profiling. Findings will be used to inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as how to effectively obtain informed consent for genomic profiling return results, distinguish between research and clinical practice and manage patient expectations. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods will provide comprehensive and critical data on how patients cope with ‘actionable’ and ‘non-actionable’ results. This information is needed to

Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of individuals referred to cancer genetic counselling (GC) do not attend, and thus may not be engaged in adequate cancer risk management. We aimed to review the literature to better understand barriers to accessing GC and how they may be overcome. We conducted a systematic literature search for articles examining factors influencing cancer GC uptake as well as motivators and barriers to GC attendance. Factors were categorised as sociodemographic, psychosocial or clinical. The literature search identified 1413 citations, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria. GC uptake ranged from 19% to 88%. With the exceptions of education level, socioeconomic status, cancer-specific distress, personal cancer diagnosis and actual and perceived risk of cancer, support was lacking for most sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial factors as predictors of GC uptake. Cost and logistical barriers, emotional concerns, family concerns and low perceived personal relevance were reported as important considerations for those declining GC. We conclude that there is poor understanding of GC and a lack of decision support among those referred to GC. Research into ways of providing education and support to referred individuals will be important as the scope and availability of GC and genetic testing broaden.

AIM: Integration of clinical genetics into oncology is variable. Sarcomas have a strong genetic component, with up to 1/30 patients carrying germline TP53 mutations. This study aimed to define genetic risk awareness among sarcoma physicians. Outcomes were attitudes toward genetic testing, level of cancer risk and awareness of risk reduction measures. METHODS: An online survey was administered to members of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society and the Australasian Sarcoma Study Group. RESULTS: Sarcoma physicians (N = 124) from 21 countries participated, 40% of whom favored TP53 mutation testing in children regardless of family history, increasing to ∼83% for all age groups if a family history was present and ∼85% if multiple primary cancers were present. However, 33% were not aware that risk reduction strategies might identify some cancers at a more curable stage in carriers. CONCLUSION: Clinical genetics is not yet standard of care for multidisciplinary management of sarcoma. Awareness of genetic risk is important among sarcoma physicians. Attitudes among the sarcoma community were generally positive, but education on genetic risk in sarcoma patients and collaboration with clinical genetics services might improve quality of care. Sarcoma physicians need routine access to clinical genetics services so that potential germline TP53 mutation carriers are recognized.

The study of human genetics has provided substantial insight into cancer biology. With an increase in sequencing capacity and a reduction in sequencing costs, genomics will probably transform clinical cancer genetics. A heritable basis for many cancers is accepted, but so far less than half the genetic drivers have been identified. Genomics will increasingly be applied to populations irrespective of family history, which will change the framework of phenotype-directed genetic testing. Panel testing and whole genome sequencing will identify novel, polygenic, and de-novo determinants of cancer risk, often with lower penetrance, which will challenge present binary clinical classification systems and management algorithms. In the future, genotype-stratified public screening and prevention programmes could form part of tailored population risk management. The integration of research with clinical practice will result in so-called discovery cohorts that will help identify clinically significant genetic variation.

Sarcomas are a key feature of Li-Fraumeni and related syndromes (LFS/LFL), associated with germline TP53 mutations. Current penetrance estimates for TP53 mutations are subject to significant ascertainment bias. The International Sarcoma Kindred Study is a clinic-based, prospective cohort of adult-onset sarcoma cases, without regard to family history. The entire cohort was screened for mutations in TP53 using high-resolution melting analysis and Sanger sequencing, and multiplex-ligation-dependent probe amplification and targeted massively parallel sequencing for copy number changes. Pathogenic TP53 mutations were detected in blood DNA of 20/559 sarcoma probands (3.6%); 17 were germline and 3 appeared to be somatically acquired. Of the germline carriers, one appeared to be mosaic, detectable in the tumor and blood, but not epithelial tissues. Germline mutation carriers were more likely to have multiple cancers (47% vs 15% for non-carriers, P = 3.0×10(-3)), and earlier cancer onset (33 vs 48 years, P = 1.19×10(-3)). The median survival of mutation carriers following first cancer diagnosis was not significantly different from non-carriers. Only 10/17 (59%) pedigrees met classical or Chompret criteria for LFS. In summary, germline TP53 mutations are not rare in adult patients with sarcoma, with implications for screening, surveillance, treatment and genetic counselling of carriers and family members.

BACKGROUND: Sarcomas are rare, often fatal malignancies of connective tissues that can occur in genetic predisposition syndromes or result from carcinogen exposure. Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is not known to contribute to any recognised familial cancer syndrome comprising sarcomas, but is known to be associated with a variety of second cancers, including sarcomas. This study describes the prevalence of HL in families affected by sarcoma. METHODS: The International Sarcoma Kindred Study (ISKS) is a prospective cohort of 561 families ascertained via a proband with adult-onset sarcoma. Cancer-specific standardised incidence ratios (SIR) for multiple primary malignancies in probands were estimated. Clinical characteristics of individuals reporting both sarcoma and HL were described. Standardised incidence ratios for the occurrence of cancer in ISKS families were also estimated. RESULTS: Multiple primary cancers were reported in 16% of probands, significantly higher than in the general population. The risk of HL in probands was increased 15.8-fold (95%CI 7.9-31.6) and increased risks were also seen for breast cancer (SIR 2.9, 95%CI 1.9-4.4) and thyroid cancer (SIR 8.4, 95%CI 4.2-16.8). In 8 probands with both HL and sarcoma, the diagnosis of HL preceded that of sarcoma in 7 cases, and occurred synchronously in one case. Only 3 cases of sarcoma occurred in or close to prior radiotherapy fields. The overall incidence of HL in the ISKS cohort was not significantly increased by comparison with age- and gender-specific population estimates (SIR 1.63, 95%CI 1.05-2.43), suggesting that the association between HL and sarcomas did not extend to other family members. The age of onset of non-sarcoma, non-HL cancers in families affected by both HL and sarcoma was younger than the general population (56.2 y vs 65.6 y, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The basis for the association between HL and sarcomas may include the carcinogenic effects of therapy combined with excellent survival rates for