Responsibility, culpability, and parental views on genomic testing for seriously ill children

Genomic sequencing in diverse and underserved pediatric populations: Parent perspectives on understanding, uncertainty, psychosocial impact, and personal utility of results

PURPOSE

Limited evidence evaluates parents' perceptions of their child's clinical genome-scale sequencing (GS) results, particularly among individuals from medically underserved groups. Five Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium studies performed GS in children with suspected genetic conditions with high proportions of individuals from underserved groups to address this evidence gap.

METHODS

Parents completed surveys of perceived understanding, personal utility, and test-related distress after GS result disclosure. We assessed outcomes' associations with child- and parent-related factors: child age; type of GS finding; and parent health literacy, numeracy, and education.

RESULTS

A total of 1763 parents completed surveys; 83% met "underserved" criteria based on race, ethnicity, and risk factors for barriers to access. We observed high perceived understanding and personal utility and low test-related distress. Outcomes were associated with the type of GS finding; parents of children with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic finding endorsed higher personal utility and more test-related distress than those whose children had a variant of uncertain significance or normal finding. Personal utility was higher in parents who met the criteria for "underserved."

CONCLUSION

Our findings shed light on correlates of parents' cognitive and emotional responses to their child's GS findings and emphasize the need for tailored support in disclosure discussions.

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes.

RESULTS

We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible.

CONCLUSION

Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences.

PROSPERO

CRD42023444890.

Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents

PURPOSE

Professional guidelines recommend engaging adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in medical decision making (DM), including whether to undergo genomic sequencing (GS). We explored DM around GS and attitudes after return of GS results among a diverse group of AYAs with cancer and their parents.

METHODS

We surveyed AYAs with cancer (n = 75) and their parents (n = 52) 6 months after receiving GS results through the Texas KidsCanSeq study. We analyzed AYAs' DM role in GS research enrollment and their satisfaction with that role. We compared AYAs' and parents' self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the AYA's GS results.

RESULTS

Most AYAs reported equally sharing DM with their parents (55%) or leading DM (36%) about GS research. Compared with their cancer care DM role, 56% of AYAs reported the same level of involvement in GS research DM, whereas 32% were more involved, and 13% were less involved (P = .011). AYAs were satisfied (99%) with their DM role regarding GS study participation. AYAs and parents had similar self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the GS results.

CONCLUSION

Our results support engaging AYAs in DM about GS research and provide insights into AYAs' DM preferences and positive attitudes toward GS.

Molecular autopsy by proxy: relevance for genetic counseling in rare genetic disorders

Background

Rare genetic disorders may result in death before a definitive clinical diagnosis is established.

Aim

This study aims to outline the processes and challenges in managing, from a genetic perspective, couples who lost children affected by rare genetic disorders.

Results

Six couples who experienced child loss due to rare genetic disorders, seen by the primary author at genetic evaluation and counseling sessions, were retrospectively analyzed. Four out of 6 couples reported consanguinity. Exome and genome sequencing were performed for the parents. Carrier status of two rare lethal metabolic disorders was confirmed in one consanguineous couple. Three couples were carriers of 3 other rare diseases. Variants of LYST, MPV17, HEXB, ITGB4, CD3E, ASPM, TK2, COL11A2, and LAMB3 genes were identified. Six out of 10 were pathogenic variants, out of which 4 correlated with the demised children's phenotypes. One couple was negative for pathogenic variants. The last couple did not undergo genetic testing since they were beyond the fertile window.

Conclusion

Appropriate parental genetic evaluation and counseling are mandatory for selecting the right genetic test to certify the diagnosis postmortem, by virtue of molecular autopsy by proxy. Clarifying a rare disorder diagnosis can help couples to avoid recurrence and plan early for their next pregnancies.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results

PURPOSE

We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context.

METHODS

We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency.

RESULTS

We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94).

CONCLUSION

Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

The psychological impact of genetic testing in childhood cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Cancer predisposition syndromes are being more frequently recognized in the etiology of pediatric oncology and genetic-related technologies are evolving rapidly, leading to an increasing availability of genetic testing for families. This systematic review assessed the psychological impact of genetic testing on children and parents in the context of childhood cancer.

METHODS

Searches were performed using three databases (Web of Science, Pubmed and Embase) to identify relevant empirical studies. Following Cochrane guidelines, we screened 3838 articles and identified 18 eligible studies, representing the perspectives of children and/or parents.

RESULTS

The included studies described the impact of genetic testing in different contexts (e.g. predictive testing and diagnostic testing) and in different subgroups, (e.g. carriers and non-carriers). Overall, the studies did not identify clinically-relevant long-term increases in negative emotions (depression, anxiety, distress, uncertainty, guilt) as a result of genetic testing. Negative emotions were typically time-limited and generally occurred in families with particular characteristics (e.g. those with a history of multiple cancer diagnoses, families receiving an unfavorable result for one child and a favorable result in siblings, and those with pre-existing mental health difficulties). Positive emotions (hopefulness, relief and peace of mind) were also reported. Knowing their genetic risk status appeared to help to foster empowerment among families, regardless of the result and any associated emotions.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing in pediatric oncology does not appear to cause significant additional harm and can lead to positive outcomes. Clinicians need to be especially attentive when counseling families at increased risk of distress.

Parent Quality of Life After Disclosure of Pediatric Oncology Germline Sequencing Results

PURPOSE

To characterize parents' quality of life (QoL) after germline genomic sequencing for their children with cancer.

METHODS

Participants were n = 104 parents of children with cancer enrolled in a prospective study of clinical tumor and germline genomic sequencing. Parents completed surveys at study consent (T0), before disclosure of their child's germline results (T1), and again ≥5 weeks after results disclosure (T2). Bivariate associations with QoL were examined, followed by a multivariable regression model predicting parents' psychological distress.

RESULTS

At T2, parental distress significantly differed by their children's germline result type (positive, uncertain, negative; P = .038), parent relationship status (P = .04), predisclosure genetics knowledge (P = .006), and predisclosure worry about sequencing (P < .001). Specifically, parents of children with positive (ie, pathogenic or likely pathogenic) results experienced greater distress than those of children with negative results (P = .029), as did parents who were single, more knowledgeable about genetics, and with greater worry. In the adjusted regression model, a positive germline result remained significantly associated with parents' lower QoL at T2 follow-up (F [4,92] = 9.95; P < .001; R2 = .30; β = .19; P = .031).

CONCLUSION

Germline genomic sequencing for children with cancer is associated with distress among parents when revealing an underlying cancer predisposition among their affected children. Genetic education and counseling before and after germline sequencing may help attenuate this impact on QoL by addressing parents' concerns about test results and their health implications. Assessing parents' worry early in the testing process may also aid in identifying those most likely in need of psychosocial support.

Framing the Family: A Qualitative Exploration of Factors That Shape Family-Level Experience of Pediatric Genomic Sequencing

Families of children with rare and undiagnosed conditions face many psychosocial and logistical challenges that may affect their approach to decisions about their child's care and their family's well-being. As genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly incorporated into pediatric diagnostic workups, assessing the family-level characteristics that shape the experience of pediatric GS is crucial to understanding how families approach decision-making about the test and how they incorporate the results into their family life. We conducted semi-structured interviews with parents and other primary caregivers of pediatric patients who were evaluated for a suspected genetic condition and who were recommended to have GS (n = 20) or who had recently completed GS (n = 21). We analyzed qualitative data using multiple rounds of thematic analysis. We organized our thematic findings into three domains of factors that influence the family-level experience of GS: (1) family structure and dynamics; (2) parental identity, relationships, and philosophies; and (3) social and cultural differences. Participants conceptualized their child's family in various ways, ranging from nuclear biological family to support networks made up of friends and communities. Our findings can inform the design and interpretation of preference research to advance family-level value assessment of GS as well as genetic counseling for families.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project

PURPOSE

Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision.

RESULTS

Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision.

CONCLUSION

Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Genetic predisposition to cancers in children and adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Childhood cancer is rare, but it remains the leading cause of disease-related mortality among children 1-14 years of age. As exposure to environmental factors is lower in children, inherited genetic factors become an important player in the cause of childhood cancer. This review highlights the current knowledge and approach for cancer predisposition syndromes in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current literature suggests that 10-18% of paediatric cancer patients have an underlying genetic susceptibility to their disease. With better knowledge and technology, more genes and syndromes are being discovered, allowing tailored treatment and surveillance for the probands and their families.Studies have demonstrated that focused surveillance can detect early malignancies and increase overall survival in several cancer predisposition syndromes. Various approaches have been proposed to refine early tumour detection strategies while minimizing the burden on patients and families. Newer therapeutic strategies are being investigated to treat, or even prevent, tumours in children with cancer predisposition.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes the current knowledge about different cancer predisposition syndromes, focusing on the diagnosis, genetic counselling, surveillance and future directions.

The social value of genomic sequencing for disadvantaged families facing rare disease

This study explores parental expectations and value-making processes in respect to pediatric clinical genomic sequencing for socially disadvantaged families. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic observations with parents of children with undiagnosed physical and/or intellectual differences seeking to find whether these differences have a genetic etiology, we explore expectations and parental assessments of the value of genomic sequencing within the context of an ongoing research study. We demonstrate how the value of sequencing to parents goes well beyond finding diagnostic results or receiving prescriptive guidance as to the best care and treatment of their child; instead, value is co-created by parents, clinicians, and genetic counsellors throughout the enrollment and return of results process. Parents in our study found that clinicians and genetic counsellors repeatedly reenforce that parents need to lower their expectations and be prepared to wait for genetic science to provide more definitive answers. At the same time, parents experience that clinical teams validate parents for having made a good choice in their undertaking of genomic sequencing and, no matter the result, that they are not to blame for their child's symptoms. The experience of many parents (although not all) is that genomic science reduces or removes their sense of guilt for their child's condition, providing a platform that affirms them as "good parents." Moreover, rather than being voiceless and isolated, socially disadvantaged parents who enter into diagnostic sequencing find themselves in a familial-biosocial framework wherein they are co-partners in a socially and biologically authoritative vision of the future.

Parental Hopes and Understandings of the Value of Prenatal Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing: A Qualitative Analysis

Objective: To provide qualitative empirical data on parental expectations of diagnostic prenatal genomic sequencing and the value of the results to families.

Methods: We interviewed 15 families—mothers and/or fathers—who had had prenatal genomic sequencing about their expectations and their respective evaluations of the benefits of genomic sequencing.

Results: Families’ hopes for genetic sequencing clustered around three themes: hoping to identify the cause of the fetal anomaly in a terminated pregnancy; hopes for guidance as to the likely outcome of current pregnancy; and hopes for information to support future family planning. In addition, hopes were discussed in terms of the potential for results to be beneficial in acquiring greater knowledge, while at the same time recognizing that new knowledge may raise more questions. Assessment of the value of sequencing largely mirrored these expectations when positive results seen. Negative results can also be seen as valuable in ruling out a genetic cause and in providing certainty that families had done everything that they could to know about the cause of fetal demise.

Conclusion: It would appear that with guidance from genetic counsellors, families were largely able to navigate the many uncertainties of prenatal genomic sequencing and thus see themselves as benefitting from sequencing. However, support structures are essential to guide them through their expectations and interpretations of results to minimize possible harms. Engaging in the process of genomic sequencing was seen as beneficial in of itself to families who would otherwise be left without any options to seek diagnostic answers.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Toward the diagnosis of rare childhood genetic diseases: what do parents value most?

Genomic testing is becoming routine for diagnosing rare childhood genetic disease. Evidence underlying sustainable implementation is limited, focusing on short-term endpoints such as diagnostic yield, unable to fully characterize patient and family valued outcomes. Although genomic testing is becoming widely available, evidentiary and outcomes uncertainty persist as key challenges for implementation. We examine whether the current evidence base reflects public tolerance for uncertainty for genomics to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. We conducted focus groups with general population parents in Vancouver, Canada, and Oxford, United Kingdom, to discuss expectations and concerns related to genomic testing to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. Applying a purposive sampling technique, recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three parents participated across four focus groups. Participants valued causal diagnoses alongside management strategies to improve patient health and wellbeing. Further, participants valued expanding the evidence base to reduce evidentiary uncertainty while ensuring security of information. Willingness to pay out of pocket for testing reflected perceived familial health benefit. Diagnostic yield fails to fully capture valued outcomes, and efforts to resolve uncertainty better reflect public priorities. Evaluations of genomic testing that fully integrate valued endpoints are necessary to ensure consistency with best practices and public willingness to accept the uncertain familial benefit.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

METHODS

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

RESULTS

CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Hope versus reality: Parent expectations of genomic testing

OBJECTIVE

Genomics is increasingly used for diagnostic testing in children. This study describes the expectations of parents whose child received genomic testing and whether or not they were met.

METHODS

A diverse stratified, purposive sample of parents of 22 children in New York City was interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Genomic test results were positive, negative, or uncertain.

RESULTS

Parents expressed their expectations in narrative and numeric fashion. Parents expected that their child's test would have a direct effect on their child's diagnosis. Some believed that results would be definitive, while others recognized testing limitations. Expectations reflected parents' hope to find a diagnosis and led to disappointment when results were uninformative or did not impact clinical management.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest pre-test genetic counseling emphasize the low likelihood of actionable results; however, parents' expectations of genomics' diagnostic capabilities are strongly rooted in their need to end the diagnostic odyssey and may be difficult to manage.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Parents' hope for a resolution and effective treatment for their child is a powerful context in which genetic counseling is heard. Clinicians who provide genomic testing should continue to acknowledge parents' preconceptions. Additional research in other settings will help understand how to best address and manage parent expectations of genomic medicine.

Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) in the care of pediatric patients with one or more congenital anomalies (CA) with onset prior to age 1 year or developmental delay (DD) or intellectual disability (ID) with onset prior to age 18 years.

METHODS

The Pediatric Exome/Genome Sequencing Evidence-Based Guideline Work Group (n = 10) used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework based on the recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) systematic review, and an Ontario Health Technology Assessment to develop and present evidence summaries and health-care recommendations. The document underwent extensive internal and external peer review, and public comment, before approval by the ACMG Board of Directors.

RESULTS

The literature supports the clinical utility and desirable effects of ES/GS on active and long-term clinical management of patients with CA/DD/ID, and on family-focused and reproductive outcomes with relatively few harms. Compared with standard genetic testing, ES/GS has a higher diagnostic yield and may be more cost-effective when ordered early in the diagnostic evaluation.

CONCLUSION

We strongly recommend that ES/GS be considered as a first- or second-tier test for patients with CA/DD/ID.

Knowledge Is Power: Benefits, Risks, Hopes, and Decision-Making Reported by Parents Consenting to Next-Generation Sequencing for Children and Adolescents with Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To qualitatively describe parent perspectives of next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS) for their children with cancer, including perceived benefits, risks, hopes/expectations, and decision-making process when consenting or not consenting to NGS and prior to result disclosure.

DATA SOURCES

Qualitative interviews were used.

CONCLUSION

Altruism is an important factor in parents consenting to NGS testing, as well as making sense of their child's cancer and legacy building. Parents described realistic hopes and expectations associated with NGS participation. Although parents endorsed the likelihood of no medical benefit, those consenting to NGS felt there was no reason not to participate. Parents declining participation expressed avoidance of worry and parent guilt if a germline variant were to be disclosed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

As NGS evolves into a component of the routine diagnostic workup for pediatric cancer patients, genetic nurses play a role in conducting informed consent conversations and ensuring that patients and families have realistic hopes and expectations associated with NGS.

Utility of Genetic Testing from the Perspective of Parents/Caregivers: A Scoping Review

In genomics, perceived and personal utility have been proposed as constructs of value that include the subjective meanings and uses of genetic testing. Precisely what constitutes these constructs of utility and how they vary by stakeholder perspective remains unresolved. To advance methods for measuring the value of genetic testing in child health, we conducted a scoping review of the literature to characterize utility from the perspective of parents/caregivers. Peer reviewed literature that included empiric findings from parents/caregivers who received genetic test results for an index child and was written in English from 2016-2020 was included. Identified concepts of utility were coded according to Kohler's construct of personal utility. Of 2142 abstracts screened, 33 met inclusion criteria. Studies reflected a range of genetic test types; the majority of testing was pursued for children with developmental or neurodevelopmental concerns. Coding resulted in 15 elements of utility that mapped to Kohler's four domains of personal utility (affective, cognitive, behavioural and social) and one additional medical management domain. An adapted construct of utility for parents/caregivers may enable specific and standardized strategies for researchers to use to generate evidence of the post-test value of genetic testing. In turn, this will contribute to emerging methods for health technology assessment and policy decision making for genomics in child health.

A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants

Rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing recently became feasible for infants in intensive care units (ICUs). However, research regarding parents' perceived utility, adequacy of consent, and potential harms and benefits is lacking. Herein we report results of parental surveys of these domains from the second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health (NSIGHT2) study, a randomized, controlled trial of rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing of infants in regional ICUs. More than 90% of parents reported feeling adequately informed to consent to diagnostic genomic sequencing. Despite only 23% (27) of 117 infants receiving genomic diagnoses, 97% (156) of 161 parents reported that testing was at least somewhat useful and 50.3% (88/161) reported no decisional regret (median 0, mean 10, range 0-100). Five of 117 families (4.3%) reported harm. Upon follow-up, one (1%) confirmed harm to child and parent related to negative results/no diagnosis, two (2%) reported stress or confusion, and two (2%) denied harm. In 81% (89) of 111 infants, families and clinicians agreed that genomic results were useful. Of the families for whom clinicians perceived harm from genomic testing, no parents reported harm. Positive tests/genomic diagnosis were more frequently perceived to be useful by parents, to benefit their infant, and to help manage potential symptoms (p < .05). In summary, the large majority of parents felt that first-tier, rapid, diagnostic genomic sequencing was beneficial for infants lacking etiologic diagnoses in ICUs. Most parents in this study perceived being adequately informed to consent, understood their child's results, and denied regret or harm from undergoing sequencing.

Cancer patients' views and understanding of genome sequencing: a qualitative study

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.