Esplin, Ed

Abstract Purpose Elective genomic sequencing (EGS) returns monogenic disease findings in multiple genes, including potentially novel variants, and may also provide participants with carrier status, pharmacogenomic and other health-related information. The PeopleSeq Study assessed participants’ motivations for and concerns about EGS and the associated clinical and psychosocial outcomes across diverse EGS providers. Methods We administered a shared questionnaire to participants who chose to undergo EGS via 18 academic, clinical, or commercial EGS platforms. Results We enrolled 1575 participants, of whom 1147 (72.8%) completed a questionnaire after receiving their EGS results. A majority (60.3%) of the participants who completed a post-result questionnaire self-reported receiving results they assessed as important, including negative findings, and 75.9% reported a form of health-related utility. Among a subset (19.4%) who shared their EGS reports, 16.6% (37 of n =223) received a monogenic finding and self-reported results deemed “important” were consistent with EGS reports. Most participants (74.1%) discussed their results with their family, but fewer discussed their results with a healthcare provider other than the site team (41.7%) or had one or more medical visits as a direct result of their EGS testing (23.1%). Participants expressed diverse motivations for EGS, with 91.4% expressing interest in their personal disease risk and 54% who expressed quasi-indication-based motivations related to family medical history. Individuals motivated by family history reported important results at a significantly higher rate. Conclusions Early adopters of EGS are motivated by general interest in their health as well as quasi-indication-based considerations such as family history. A majority of participants learned results they considered medically important, but a much smaller segment engaged healthcare providers with their results.

817 Background: Universal germline sequencing is increasingly utilized in practice, but existing evidence and guidelines are based on studies in predominantly white populations. This study aims to compare the prevalence of genetic alterations in white vs underrepresented minority (URM) populations and assess incremental findings discovered with universal testing beyond current guidelines. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study analyzed genetic alterations in white and URM cohorts with primary GI malignancies receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers between April 2018 and April 2025. Patients underwent germline sequencing using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform targeting over 80 genes. We compared the distribution of results between white and URM populations. Concordance with NCCN testing guidelines and incremental findings were assessed. Results: A total of 1128 patients were studied, of which 758 were white and 370 were URM, (47.6% Hispanic, 22.7% Black, 13.8% Asian, 10.5% American Indian, 0.8% Pacific Islander, and 6.8% other). Pathogenic variants (PGV) were more common in the white population (16.1% vs 9.2% P < 0.001). Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were more common in the URM population (53.2 vs 43.5%, P<0.001). A total of 156 patients were found to have a PGV. PGVs outside primary cancer genes were more common in white patients (57.4% vs. 32.4%; p=0.0241). Incremental findings from universal testing were higher in white patients (66.4% vs 35.3%; p=0.0011). Conclusions: This study reveals a significant difference in the prevalence of PGV and VUS between white and URM patients with primary GI malignancies. The higher rate of PGVs in white patients and VUS in URM patients highlights potential inequities in both detection and interpretation of genetic results. These findings emphasize the need for broader representation in genetic databases to ensure equitable access to precision oncology. Screening guidelines met by patients with PGV. White (N=122) URM (N=34) Total (N=156) p value Did they meet NCCN testing guidelines for their primary cancer? 0.0991 Yes 87 (71.3%) 29 (85.3%) 116 (74.4%) No 35 (28.7%) 5 (14.7%) 40 (25.6%) Was the PGV outside of the primary genes recommended for their primary cancer? 0.0241 Yes 70 (57.4%) 11 (32.4%) 81 (51.9%) No 47 (38.5%) 22 (64.7%) 69 (44.2%) Incremental Finding 0.0011 Yes 81 (66.4%) 12 (35.3%) 93 (59.6%) No 41 (33.6%) 22 (64.7%) 63 (40.4%)