Search

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is a key strategy to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, among vulnerable groups such as cancer patients. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is limiting vaccination uptake in this population as in others. This study aimed to synthesise the emerging literature on vaccine hesitancy in this population and in Oncology health professionals, reasons for and factors associated with hesitancy, and interventions that address hesitancy. METHODS: A rapid review was undertaken PubMed, Ovid and Google across all years up to October 2021 for articles in English, from any country or region, addressing the above issues. Individual case studies, opinion pieces, commentary articles and conference abstracts were excluded. Article screening, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted by two authors. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible articles were identified. Reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates varied from 76.7 % to 3.9 %, with a mean of 38.4 %. A large international study (n > 20,000) reported a more conservative hesitancy rate of 19 %. Six broad, common reasons for hesitancy were identified. Oncologist advice was valued by patients. DISCUSSION: Vaccine hesitancy remains a significant concern in the oncology context. Oncologists are key to addressing hesitancy and providing tailored advice to cancer patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Where possible, patients appreciate personalised, tailored information about vaccination which addresses its interaction with cancer and its treatment. Education programmes for oncologists to support effective communication in this context are needed. Webinars and peer-to-peer counselling may be useful but remain to be proven.

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.

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: To determine whether the existing Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale, which assesses impact of receiving genetic test results on individuals being assessed for cancer risk, can be successfully adapted to cancer patients experiencing prolonged waiting for results of germline genome sequencing (GS). METHODS: Patients previously diagnosed with likely hereditary cancer (n = 250) who were waiting for germline GS results completed questionnaires 3 months after baseline. We adapted the MICRA to measure anxiety associated with waiting for results, and assessed factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validation. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed four factors: distress, positive experience, family support and uncertainty. Internal consistency for each sub-scale was high with the values of Cronbach's alpha for the distress, positive experiences, family support and uncertainty sub-scales 0.92, 0.88, 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Test-retest reliability was poor, with intra-class correlations of 0.53, 0.13, 0.33 and 0.52 for the four factors, respectively. Construct validation showed large correlations between the MICRA distress and uncertainty sub-scale scores and the Impact of Events score intrusion (0.42 and 0.62, respectively) and IES avoidant thinking sub-scales (0.40 and 0.58, respectively) but not the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale sub-scales. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted MICRA identified test-related anxiety and uncertainty in a population of cancer patients waiting for germline GS results. Results suggest that the distress and uncertainty sub-scales of the adapted measure are most useful in this context.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients' motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results. METHODS: Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality. RESULTS: 182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.

Cancer-related illness uncertainty has been associated with poorer psychological outcomes for patients. While some cancer patients believe obtaining genomic information will reduce their illness uncertainty, the complexity of genomics has the potential to compound illness uncertainty. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely heritable origin immediately following their decision to have germline genome sequencing. Participant (N = 348) negative attitudes toward uncertainty were associated with higher satisfaction with decision to have germline genome sequencing and greater fear of cancer recurrence. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a subset of participant (N = 20) revealed the following four themes: (a) germline genome sequencing to reduce illness uncertainty; (b) germline genome sequencing to reduce uncertainty related to relatives' risk; (c) uncertainty generated by germline genome sequencing; and (d) resilience and coping with uncertainty. This study demonstrated the complexity of uncertainty in germline genome sequencing in cancer patients. These results provide genomic healthcare professionals with important information about cancer patient's motivation to pursue germline genome sequencing, the specific uncertainties generated by germline genome sequencing, and how cancer patients cope with uncertainty.

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.

While genomics provides new clinical opportunities, its complexity generates uncertainties. This systematic review aimed to summarize what is currently known about the experience of uncertainty for adult patients undergoing cancer genomic testing. A search of five databases (2001 to 2018) yielded 6508 records. After removing duplicates, abstract/title screening, and assessment of full articles, ten studies were included for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative studies were subjected to thematic analysis, and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Cancer genomic results reduced uncertainty for patients regarding treatment decisions but did not reduce uncertainty in the risk context. Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis revealed four themes: (1) coexisting uncertainties, (2) factors influencing uncertainty, (3) outcomes of uncertainty, and (4) coping with uncertainty. Uncertainty can motivate, or be a barrier to, pursuing cancer genomic testing. Appraisal of uncertainty influences the patient experience of uncertainty, the outcome of uncertainty for patients, as well as the coping strategies utilized. While this systematic review found that appraisal of uncertainty is important to the patients' experience of uncertainty in the cancer genomic context, more mixed methods longitudinal research is needed to address the complexities that contribute to patient uncertainty across the process.

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.

Introduction: Root resorption is an undesirable consequence of orthodontic tooth movement. The severity is unpredictable, and, despite extensive research, the etiology remains unknown. Torque has been acknowledged as a risk factor for root resorption. The aims of the study were to evaluate and quantify the extent of root resorption after the application of 2.5° and 15° of buccal root torque for 4 weeks. Methods: Fifteen patients requiring bilateral extraction of their maxillary first premolars for orthodontic treatment were recruited to the study. By using a standardized experimental protocol, the right and left premolars were randomly subjected to either 2.5° or 15° of buccal root torque. At the end of the 4-week experimental period, the premolars were extracted. A volumetric analysis of root resorption was performed by using microcomputed tomography and measured with specially designed software. Results: Overall, the amounts of root resorption were comparable after the application of 2.5° or 15° of buccal root torque (P = 0.59). There was a significant difference between the 2 force levels only at the apical region (P = 0.034). More root resorption occurred in areas of compression than in areas of tension. The variables of age and sex were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Root resorption was evident after 4 weeks of buccal root torque application. More root resorption was seen at the apical region than at the middle and cervical regions. Higher magnitudes of torque might cause more root resorption, particularly in the apical region. As shown in previous studies, the etiology of root resorption is multi-factorial and cannot be explained by mechanical factors alone. Copyright © 2011 by the American Association of Orthodontists.