Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: 'Another piece of the pie'

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: a systematic review of stakeholders' perspectives, attitudes, and experiences

Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) are statistical methods estimating part of an individual's genetic susceptibility to various disease phenotypes. Their potential clinical applications to enhance the prediction, prevention, and risk management of complex conditions motivate current research efforts worldwide. While a growing body of literature has highlighted the scientific and ethical limitations of PRS, the technology's clinical translation will present both opportunities and challenges for the stakeholders involved. Here, a mixed-method systematic review of empirical studies was performed to gather evidence on the perspectives, attitudes, and experiences of healthcare providers, patients, and the public regarding the use of PRS in healthcare settings. The PRISMA reporting protocol was followed and 24 articles were included. Three major themes were identified. First, we reported on participants' familiarity with the test, including their knowledge, understanding, and education on PRS' clinical use. The second theme collects stakeholders' motivations for taking the test and their perspectives on sensitive issues related to the return of results. Participants' normative stances regarding the appropriate use of PRS, their benefits, and harms were presented in the third theme. The findings underscore significant knowledge gaps and challenges in the clinical interpretation of PRS among healthcare providers. On the other hand, the provision of genetic counseling benefitted patients' understanding of PRS results and in most cases, no psychosocial burden was reported. Finally, the review highlights that stakeholders' perspectives on the clinical use of PRS are highly context-dependent, shaped by population characteristics, disease type, and social factors, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches across diverse healthcare settings.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

The role of polygenic risk scores in breast cancer risk perception and decision-making

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Attitudes

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A ‘personalised breast cancer risk assessment’ combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners’ (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs’: (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July–August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training—preferably using online learning formats—was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs.

METHODS

Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021).

RESULTS

In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

The Clinical and Psychosocial Outcomes for Women Who Received Unexpected Clinically Actionable Germline Information Identified through Research: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Comparative Study

Background Research identifying and returning clinically actionable germline variants offer a new avenue of access to genetic information. The psychosocial and clinical outcomes for women who have received this ‘genome-first care’ delivering hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk information outside of clinical genetics services are unknown. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case-control study compared outcomes between women who did (cases; group 1) and did not (controls; group 2) receive clinically actionable genetic information from a research cohort in Victoria, Australia. Participants completed an online survey examining cancer risk perception and worry, and group 1 also completed distress and adaptation measures. Group 1 participants subsequently completed a semi structured interview. Results: Forty-five participants (group 1) and 96 (group 2) completed the online survey, and 31 group 1 participants were interviewed. There were no demographic differences between groups 1 and 2, although more of group 1 participants had children (p = 0.03). Group 1 reported significantly higher breast cancer risk perception (p < 0.001) compared to group 2, and higher cancer worry than group 2 (p < 0.001). Some group 1 participants described how receiving their genetic information heightened their cancer risk perception and exacerbated their cancer worry while waiting for risk-reducing surgery. Group 1 participants reported a MICRA mean score of 27.4 (SD 11.8, range 9−56; possible range 0−95), and an adaptation score of 2.9 (SD = 1.1). Conclusion: There were no adverse psychological outcomes amongst women who received clinically actionable germline information through a model of ‘genome-first’ care compared to those who did not. These findings support the return of clinically actionable research results to research participants.