The Genetic Counseling Definition Task Force of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) developed the following definition of genetic counseling that was approved by the NSGC Board of Directors: Genetic counseling is the process of helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease. This process integrates the following: Interpretation of family and medical histories to assess the chance of disease occurrence or recurrence. Education about inheritance, testing, management, prevention, resources and research. Counseling to promote informed choices and adaptation to the risk or condition. The definition was approved after a peer review process with input from the NSGC membership, genetic professional organizations, the NSGC legal counsel, and leaders of several national genetic advocacy groups.

Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.

Key Points Question Can population-level genomic screening identify those at risk for disease? Findings In this cross-sectional study of an unselected population cohort of 50 726 adults who underwent exome sequencing, pathogenic and likely pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were found in a higher proportion of patients than was previously reported. Meaning Current methods to identify BRCA1/2 variant carriers may not be sufficient as a screening tool; population genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer may better identify patients at high risk and provide an intervention opportunity to reduce mortality and morbidity.

IMPORTANCEThe use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial.OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016.INTERVENTIONS Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, −5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival.RESULTS Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (−4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (−2.3 points) (mean difference, −1.9 points [95% CI, −2.8 to −0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, −1.0 mg [95% CI, −2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects.

Objective. There are limited data on the effects of financial distress (FD) on overall suffering and quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer (AdCa). In this cross-sectional study, we examined the frequency of FD and its correlates in AdCa. Patients and Methods. We interviewed 149 patients, 77 at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and 72 at a general public hospital (GPH). AdCa completed a self-rated FD (subjective experience of distress attributed to financial problems) numeric rating scale (0 5 best, 10 5 worst) and validated questionnaires assessing symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), psychosocial distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]). Results. The patients' median age was 60 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.6-61.5 years); 74 (50%) were female; 48 of 77 at CCC (62%) versus 13 of 72 at GPH (18%) were white; 21 of 77 (27%) versus 32 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were black; and 7 of 77 (9%) versus 27 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were Hispanic (p , .0001). FD was present in 65 of 75 at CCC (86%; 95% CI: 76%-93%) versus 65 of 72 at GPH (90%; 95% CI: 81%-96%; p 5 .45). The median intensity of FD at CCC and GPH was 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7) versus 8 (IQR: 3-10), respectively (p 5 .0003). FD was reported as more severe than physical distress, distress about physical functioning, social/family distress, and emotional distress by 45 (30%), 46 (31%), 64 (43%), and 55 (37%) AdCa, respectively (all significantly worse for patients at GPH) (p , .05). AdCa reported that FD was affecting their general well-being (0 5 not at all, 10 5 very much) with a median score of 5 (IQR: 1-8). FD correlated (Spearman correlation) with FACT-G (r 5 20.23, p 5 .0057); HADS-anxiety (r 5 .27, p 5 .0014), ESAS-anxiety (r 5 .2, p 5 .0151), and ESAS-depression (r 5 .18, p 5 .0336). Conclusion. FD was very frequent in both groups, but median intensity was double among GPH patients. More than 30% of AdCa rated FD to be more severe than physical, family, and emotional distress. More research is needed to better characterize FD and its correlates in AdCa and possible interventions. The Oncologist 2015;20:1092-1098 Implications for Practice: Financial distress is an important and common factor contributing to the suffering of advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. It should be suspected in patients with persistent, refractory symptom expression. Early identification, measurement, and documentation will allow clinical teams to develop interventions to improve financial distress and its impact on quality of life of advanced cancer patients.