Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study

Attitudes towards disclosure of familial genetic risk in a Mediterranean island population - A survey of the Maltese population

Germline genetic testing has implications that extend beyond the individual patient to relatives, particularly for high-penetrance variants implicated in hereditary cancer or neurodegenerative syndromes. Many countries encourage patient-led communication to inform at-risk relatives, although the efficacy and uptake of this approach varies. Alternative scenarios envisage direct contact mediated by clinicians. The familial disclosure of sensitive genetic information is also determined by complex socio-ethnic factors. To date, no study has explored whether relatives would want to be informed of familial genetic risk and their preferences on different methods of communication in Malta. We thus used a published instrument that utilizes hypothetical scenario methodology to survey the attitudes of the Maltese population (n = 334) to receiving genetic information from family members. Two vignettes on Huntington's disease and colorectal cancer were presented. We also explored preferences towards the communication of genetic risk, confidentiality, and disclosure policies. Our preliminary results show that most respondents want to be informed of their increased risk by a family member or a clinician and would opt to receive confirmatory genetic testing. Most respondents preferred being informed of genetic risk by a close relative, but in the case of non-disclosure would want to be informed by a clinician. Most respondents expressed preference in favour of the introduction of registries, legislative change and sharing of contact details to address cases of nondisclosure. Our findings contribute further to evidence that supports, in selected hypothetical scenarios, an envisioned change in disclosure of genetic data policy by the public that is different from current practice to date.

Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes

PURPOSE

Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling.

METHODS

We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care.

RESULTS

Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (ps > 0.20).

CONCLUSION

Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.

Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress.

Objective

To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023.

Intervention

Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret.

Results

A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling.

Conclusions and Relevance

In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the multi-ethnic population of the United Arab Emirates on genomic medicine and genetic testing

INTRODUCTION

The adoption and implementation of genomic medicine and pharmacogenomics (PGx) in healthcare systems have been very slow and limited worldwide. Major barriers to knowledge translation into clinical practice lie in the level of literacy of the public of genetics and genomics. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) multi-ethnic communities toward genomic medicine and genetic testing.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study using validated questionnaires was distributed to the participants. Descriptive statistics were performed, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with knowledge of genomics.

RESULTS

757 individuals completed the survey. Only 7% of the participants had a good knowledge level in genetics and genomics (95% CI 5.3-9.0%). However, 76.9% of the participants were willing to take a genetic test if their relatives had a genetic disease. In addition, the majority indicated that they would disclose their genetic test results to their spouses (61.5%) and siblings (53.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study sets the stage for the stakeholders to plan health promotion and educational campaigns to improve the genomic literacy of the community of the UAE as part of their efforts for implementing precision and personalized medicine in the country.

Experience with a nurse-driven genetic counseling pathway of Italian women with uninformative BRCA test result

Several models of genetic counseling have been proposed to tackle the increasing volume of individuals requiring access to BRCA testing. Few data are available on patient experience and retention of information with nurse-driven genetic counseling. We evaluated the experience and retention of information in women with an uninformative BRCA test result and who were not considered at high risk due to their personal/family history of cancer who underwent geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling and who received their test result by phone. Women who received an uninformative BRCA test result between May 2017 and September 2019 were administered a questionnaire exploring experience with genetic counseling and retention of information provided. Of 366 eligible women, 299 (273 breast cancer patients and 26 women without breast cancer) completed the interview. Overall, 280 women (93.6%) positively valued their experience with genetic counseling and 287 (96.0%) considered it helpful with 57.5% of them feeling reassured for themselves and their family. Information on the clinical implications of the test result was correctly retained and women acted accordingly. Overall, 252 women (87.8%) accurately reported their test result as normal/negative. Only 67 (22.4%) recognized that despite a normal BRCA test result, a low probability of a hereditary syndrome remains. Most women showed a poor ability to estimate cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and in the general population. Geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling process for women with uninformative BRCA test result is associated with a positive patient experience and an adequate retention of information concerning the management of their personal and familial cancer risk. The design and implementation of nurse-driven genetic counseling models may contribute to efficient and timely access to BRCA genetic testing.

Telehealth in genetic counselling consultations: the impact of COVID-19 in a Portuguese genetic healthcare service

The already increasing use of telemedicine in the last few years has risen significantly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. With a fast implementation, it is important to understand the experience of genetic counselling patients using telehealth. To this end, we developed a study to understand the impact of the pandemic on genetics consultations, using a mixed-method approach through a questionnaire to collect the patients' opinions. The largest group included in the study was 26-45 years old (65%), and 33.6% had completed year 12 of secondary education. Due to the impact of the pandemic, we observed an increase of 84.5% in teleconsultations. The participants' satisfaction was quite significant, 67.3% felt comfortable discussing personal and family health, 53.6% were well-enlightened, and 59.1% did not find it difficult to build a doctor-patient relationship. However, 64.5% of our participants indicated using the service only for subsequent consultations but supported the idea of continuing with telemedicine in the future. Undoubtedly, this service is essential for better quality and healthcare support. The professionals involved must be increasingly trained to provide adequate genetic counselling and comfort to the patient. Training automatically influences the improvement of the service regarding the barriers encountered and consequently provides a better experience and satisfaction to the patient and their families.

Remote vs in-person BRCA1/2 non-carriers test disclosure: patients' choice during Covid-19 pandemic restriction

During Covid-19 pandemic most hospitals have restricted in-person delivery of non-essential healthcare services, including genetic testing delivery, to slow the spread of the virus. Our Onco-Genetic Service also faced this challenging period and had to re-organize its clinical practice with the use of tele-health. Aim of the present paper is to understand whether and how Covid-19-related changes in medical practice influenced patients' satisfaction about the health service provided. 125 BRCA1/2 non carriers (109/125, 87.2% female and 16/125, 12.8% male) in Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari were enrolled. All participants were asked to choose whether they prefer in-person or remote post-test counselling session. Basing on patients' choice, two groups of subjects were composed. One week after the post-test counselling session, participants were phone called and asked to complete: a socio-demographic form, a brief structured interview about their Covid-19 related worries and their satisfaction with the health service provided, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fear of Covid-19 scale. Qualitative information about patients' choice were also collected. No significant difference about patients' satisfaction with the health service provided emerged between groups. Patients who preferred remote post-test counselling had higher anxiety, worries and fear-of Covid-19 than the others. All remote-counselling subjects preferred tele-genetics because of Covid-19 security, would choose it again and would recommend it to others. Cancer tele-genetics offers good guarantees of comfort and efficacy, but patients' choices are related to personal and psychological variables. The use of tele-genetics has to be a patient's choice.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Patient-Reported Outcomes following Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs) are real-world evidence that can help capture patient experiences and perspectives regarding a clinical intervention such as genetic testing. Objective: To identify and capture methods and qualitative PRO themes among studies reporting PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome. Methods: A systematic review was conducted via PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Yale University’s TRIP Medical Databases on articles published by April 2021. Results: We identified 24 studies published between 1996 and 2021 representing 4279 participants that reported PROs following genetic testing for FH, breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome. Studies collected and reported PROs from validated PROM instruments (n = 12; 50%), validated surveys (n = 7; 26%), and interviews (n = 10; 42%). PRO themes ranged across all collection methods (e.g., psychological, knowledge, coping and satisfaction, concern about stigma/discrimination, etc.). Conclusions: Important gaps identified include (1) most studies (n = 18; 75%) reported PROs following genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer, and (2) populations reporting PROs overall were largely of White/Caucasian/Northern European/Anglo-Saxon descent. We offer recommendations and describe real-world implications for the field moving forward.

Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: Patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult-onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as 'telehealth' in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in-person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well-received by patients.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

Patients' and professionals' perspective of non-in-person visits in hereditary cancer: predictors and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

To identify predictors of patient acceptance of non-in-person cancer genetic visits before and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the preferences of health-care professionals.

METHODS

Prospective multicenter cohort study (N = 578, 1 February 2018-20 April 2019) and recontacted during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020. Health-care professionals participated in May 2020. Association of personality traits and clinical factors with acceptance was assessed with multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Before COVID-19, videoconference was more accepted than telephone-based visits (28% vs. 16% pretest, 30% vs. 19% post-test). Predictors for telephone visits were age (pretest, odds ratio [OR] 10-year increment = 0.79; post-test OR 10Y = 0.78); disclosure of panel testing (OR = 0.60), positive results (OR = 0.52), low conscientiousness group (OR = 2.87), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.93). Predictors for videoconference were age (pretest, OR 10Y = 0.73; post-test, OR 10Y = 0.75), educational level (pretest: OR = 1.61), low neuroticism (pretest, OR = 1.72), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.96). Patients' reported acceptance for non-in-person visits after COVID-19 increased to 92% for the pretest and 85% for the post-test. Health-care professionals only preferred non-in-person visits for disclosure of negative results (83%).

CONCLUSION

These new delivery models need to recognize challenges associated with age and the psychological characteristics of the population and embrace health-care professionals' preferences.

Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer

In a sample of individuals with ovarian cancer, we aimed to (a) identify factors associated with the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing, (b) identify factors associated with cancer genetics knowledge, and (c) summarize patient-reported recommendations to improve the genetic counseling and multigene panel testing process. Eligible participants in this secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data were English-speaking adults with ovarian cancer. Psychosocial impact was assessed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Knowledge of cancer genetics was assessed using the KnowGene scale. Significant predictors of MICRA and KnowGene scores were identified using multiple regression. Open-ended survey item responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Eighty-seven participants met eligibility criteria. A positive genetic test result was associated with greater adverse psychosocial impact (B = 1.13, p = 0.002). Older age (B = - 0.07, p = 0.044) and being a member of a minority racial or ethnic group (B = - 3.075, p = 0.033) were associated with lower knowledge, while a personal history of at least one other type of cancer (B = 1.975, p = 0.015) was associated with higher knowledge. In open-ended item responses, participants wanted clinicians to assist with family communication, improve result disclosure, and enhance patient and family understanding of results. A subset of individuals with ovarian cancer who receive a positive genetic test result may be at risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes. Tailored cancer genetics education is necessary to promote the equitable uptake of targeted ovarian cancer treatment and risk-reducing therapies. Interventions to enhance patient-clinician communication in this setting are a research priority.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of telephone vs in-person genetic counseling in BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Individuals with identified pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene can benefit from cancer risk-reducing strategies. In the recent years, there has been an increase in the demand of genetic services. In light of the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, alternatives to face-to-face consultations have had to be considered and adopted, including telemedicine. Informed consent is necessary for genetic testing. Studies have suggested that increased levels of cancer-specific distress may impair the patient's ability to retain information, therefore, providing informed consent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer if telephone genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing is non-inferior to in-person genetic counseling for the outcomes of cancer-specific distress and genetic knowledge. Databases of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SciELO, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, Clinicaltrials.gov, EU clinical trials register were accessed to identify any published or unpublished relevant literature. Random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis. Four studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of the results. Three studies were included in the quantitative synthesis of the results. Telephone genetic counseling was non-inferior compared to in-person genetic counseling for the outcomes of cancer-specific distress and genetic knowledge. Sensitivity analysis corroborated the main results. Telephone genetic counseling for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing may be an alternative model of delivering genetic services in front of the increased demand/or when required by social context. However, the paucity of the evidence prevents from drawing strong conclusions regarding the generalizability of these results. Further research is needed to strengthen the conclusions.

Considerations for the Telephone Disclosure of Genetic Test Results to Patients With Cancer

I would like to thank Cantril, Moore, and Yan (2019) for their informative article on patient preferences for the disclosure of a breast cancer diagnosis in the December issue of the Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing. The findings of Cantril et al.'s (2019) study suggest that patients prefer in-person disclosure. Additional patient priorities included knowing the results of tests quickly, having those results disclosed by an expert with a sensitive touch, and having a clear understanding of the next steps in the treatment plan.

Pre-injury Comorbidities Are Associated With Functional Impairment and Post-concussive Symptoms at 3- and 6-Months After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study

Introduction: Over 70% of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are classified as mild (mTBI), which present heterogeneously. Associations between pre-injury comorbidities and outcomes are not well-understood, and understanding their status as risk factors may improve mTBI management and prognostication. Methods: mTBI subjects (GCS 13-15) from TRACK-TBI Pilot completing 3- and 6-month functional [Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE)] and post-concussive outcomes [Acute Concussion Evaluation (ACE) physical/cognitive/sleep/emotional subdomains] were extracted. Pre-injury comorbidities >10% incidence were included in regressions for functional disability (GOSE ≤ 6) and post-concussive symptoms by subdomain. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (B) were reported. Significance was assessed at p < 0.0083 (Bonferroni correction). Results: In 260 subjects sustaining blunt mTBI, mean age was 44.0-years and 70.4% were male. Baseline comorbidities >10% incidence included psychiatric-30.0%, cardiac (hypertension)-23.8%, cardiac (structural/valvular/ischemic)-20.4%, gastrointestinal-15.8%, pulmonary-15.0%, and headache/migraine-11.5%. At 3- and 6-months separately, 30.8% had GOSE ≤ 6. At 3-months, psychiatric (GOSE ≤ 6: OR = 2.75, 95% CI [1.44-5.27]; ACE-physical: B = 1.06 [0.38-1.73]; ACE-cognitive: B = 0.72 [0.26-1.17]; ACE-sleep: B = 0.46 [0.17-0.75]; ACE-emotional: B = 0.64 [0.25-1.03]), headache/migraine (GOSE ≤ 6: OR = 4.10 [1.67-10.07]; ACE-sleep: B = 0.57 [0.15-1.00]; ACE-emotional: B = 0.92 [0.35-1.49]), and gastrointestinal history (ACE-physical: B = 1.25 [0.41-2.10]) were multivariable predictors of worse outcomes. At 6-months, psychiatric (GOSE ≤ 6: OR = 2.57 [1.38-4.77]; ACE-physical: B = 1.38 [0.68-2.09]; ACE-cognitive: B = 0.74 [0.28-1.20]; ACE-sleep: B = 0.51 [0.20-0.83]; ACE-emotional: B = 0.93 [0.53-1.33]), and headache/migraine history (ACE-physical: B = 1.81 [0.79-2.84]) predicted worse outcomes. Conclusions: Pre-injury psychiatric and pre-injury headache/migraine symptoms are risk factors for worse functional and post-concussive outcomes at 3- and 6-months post-mTBI. mTBI patients presenting to acute care should be evaluated for psychiatric and headache/migraine history, with lower thresholds for providing TBI education/resources, surveillance, and follow-up/referrals. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01565551.