McGuire, Amy L

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.

ABSTRACT Background Decision‐making (DM) dynamics between adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, parents, and oncologists remain underexplored in diverse populations. We examined cancer treatment DM preferences among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of AYAs and their parents. Procedure We surveyed AYAs with cancer ( n = 75) and their parents ( n = 52) participating in the Texas KidsCanSeq study. Among AYA‐parent pairs, we compared preferred and actual treatment DM roles. We explored associations among DM roles, having pediatric‐to‐adult care transition discussions, and clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We report AYAs’ and parents’ preferences for involvement in shared decision‐making (SDM) with oncologists about cancer treatment. Results AYAs’ DM role preferences varied: 44% preferred to equally share DM with parents, 31% preferred AYA‐led DM, and 25% preferred parent‐led DM. Parents who preferred parent‐led DM had younger AYAs than parents who preferred equally shared DM ( p = 0.011). For actual DM, 48% of AYAs reported DM was equally shared, 24% reported DM was AYA‐led, and 28% reported DM was parent‐led. Most AYAs had their preferred role (73%). AYAs’ actual role did not significantly differ from their own or their parents’ preferences (both p > 0.05). Approximately half of AYAs reported recent pediatric‐to‐adult care transition discussions. AYAs’ DM preferences and participation in transition discussions did not significantly differ along clinical or sociodemographic characteristics (all p > 0.05). AYAs and parents perceived high importance across all aspects of SDM with oncologists. Conclusion In this diverse study population, AYAs desired engagement in treatment DM and SDM. Although specific role preferences varied, opportunities existed to increase discussion around pediatric‐to‐adult care transition.

AbstractObjectiveA common concern of utilizing prenatal advanced genetic testing is that a result of uncertain clinical significance will increase patient anxiety. However, prenatal ultrasound may also yield findings of uncertain significance, such as ‘soft markers’ for fetal aneuploidy, or findings with variable prognosis, such as mild ventriculomegaly. In this study we compared risk perception following uncertain test results from each modality.MethodsA single survey with repeated measures design was administered to 133 pregnant women. It included ‘intolerance of uncertainty’ questions, two hypothetical scenarios involving prenatal ultrasound or advanced genetic testing, and response questions. The primary outcome was risk perception score.ResultsRisk perception did not vary significantly between ultrasound and genetic scenarios (p = 0.17). The genetic scenario scored a higher accuracy (p = 0.04) but lower sense of empowerment (p = 0.01). Furthermore, patients were more likely to seek additional testing after an ultrasound than after genetic testing (p = 0.05). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes including perception of life‐altering consequences and hypothetical worry, anxiety, confusion, or medical care decisions.ConclusionsOur data suggest that uncertain findings on prenatal genetic testing do not elicit a higher perception of risk or anxiety when compared to ultrasound findings of comparable uncertainty. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.