Original research article INTRODUCTION Multiplex (i.e., multigene) panels including both high-and moderate-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes are currently being used in clinical practice despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling and delivery. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The inclusion of genes with varying penetrance and clinical utility has raised concerns. 7 There are both advantages and disadvantages of multigene testing (as opposed to traditional phenotype-driven sequential testing), presenting challenges to patient education and informed decision making.3,7-10 The advantages and disadvantages of testing options must be shared with patients so they can make an informed decision regarding genetic testing. 8,[11][12][13][14] Traditional comprehensive models for pretest counseling and informed consent could be associated with information overload and poor informed decision making. 7,15 In addition, multiplex testing has the potential to increase anxiety, uncertainty, and the adoption of inappropriate screening procedures or risk-reducing surgeries. 3,7 Effective genetic education and counseling could minimize these risks and enhance adaptive responses to receiving multiplex results. 13This study has several aims. First, we sought to obtain patient feedback regarding the tiered-binned model for informed consent and counseling for multiplex testing among patients with a personal or family history of breast cancer. Second, we sought to begin to evaluate patient uptake of testing after pretest counseling and to evaluate informed decision making with the tiered-binned model. Third, we sought to begin to explore short-term cognitive and affective outcomes in clinical populations to better understand the potential risks, benefits, and utilities of incorporating multiplex genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility assessment in clinical care. Purpose: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.Methods: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed preand posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. Results:Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre-(76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirtythree patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. Conclusion:Some pati...

Purpose Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing. Materials and Methods BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing. Results Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene. Conclusion Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Background While there is increasing interest in sharing genetic research results with participants, how best to communicate the risks, benefits and limitations of research results remains unclear. Methods Participants who received genetic research results answered open and closed‐ended questions about their experiences receiving results and interest in and advantages and disadvantages of a web‐based alternative to genetic counseling. Results 107 BRCA1/2 negative women with a personal or family history of breast cancer consented to receive genetic research results and 82% completed survey items about their experience. Most participants reported there was nothing they disliked (74%) or would change (85%) about their predisclosure or disclosure session (78% and 89%). They most frequently reported liking the genetic counselor and learning new information. Only 24% and 26% would not be willing to complete predisclosure counseling or disclosure of results by a web‐based alternative, respectively. The most frequently reported advantages included convenience and reduced time. Disadvantages included not being able to ask questions, the risk of misunderstanding and the impersonal nature of the encounter. Conclusion Most participants receiving genetic research results report high satisfaction with telephone genetic counseling, but some may be willing to consider self‐directed web alternatives for both predisclosure genetic education and return of results.

No abstract