Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are a well‐recognized source of uncertainty in genomic medicine. Despite the existence of straightforward clinical management recommendations, patients report feeling anxiety, worry, and uncertainty in response to VUS. We report the first structured analysis of patient perspectives of VUS‐related uncertainty in genome sequencing using Han's taxonomy of genomic uncertainty. We conducted in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 11 patients to elicit their thoughts regarding implications of the result for themselves and their family members. Patients' primary concern with VUS‐related uncertainty involved personal and practical issues as they directly inform health‐care decisions. Patients demonstrated good understanding of the epistemic nature of VUS uncertainty—that information about such variant is currently unknown. However, between‐provider discordance in explanations of the implication of this uncertainty for patients' diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy was a major contributor to the overall experience of uncertainty. Strategies for uncertainty reduction involved periodically checking back for reclassification and receiving concordant and clear recommendation from providers. Other proactive strategies of uncertainty reduction—such as information seeking and reading the genetic test report—were not helpful. Collectively, these findings offer previously unreported insight into uncertainty management strategies used by patients which have the potential to guide clinical management practices.

Patients' understanding of a genetic variant of unknown clinical significance (VUS) is likely to influence beliefs about risk implications, consequent medical decisions, and other actions such as involvement in research. We interviewed 26 self-selected participants with a clinically identified VUS before they enrolled into a VUS reclassification study. Semi-structured interviews addressed topics including motivation to get genetic test, experience with the VUS result, affective responses to receiving VUS, and perceived effect of VUS and reclassification on medical care. We found that family and personal history of disease were the most prevalent motivators for getting a genetic test. Participants demonstrated mixed understanding of VUS. Most expressed negative effect on learning of their VUS result and uncertainty about its impact on clinical management. Most expected reclassification efforts to benefit their family members but not themselves. Some expressed distrust of their providers following a VUS result. Participation in the VUS reclassification study appeared to be motivated by four factors for patients with VUS-negative effect about VUS, uncertainty about its impact on clinical management, concern for family members' well-being, and to advance science. Perhaps the direct acknowledgement and appraisal of uncertainty as a means of coping was missing in some pre-test counseling experienced by our participants and thus they were not psychologically prepared for atypical VUS results. The finding of VUS-induced provider distrust suggests a need for careful consideration of appropriate pre- and post-test counseling about VUS.

Improper medical use of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) remains a concern in hereditary cancer genetic testing. The goal of this study was to assess the association between pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP), VUS, and benign and likely benign (B/LB) genetic test results and cancer‐related surgical and screening management. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were conducted from 1946 to August 26, 2020. Eligible studies included individuals with cancer genetic test result and surgical or screening management outcomes. We reviewed 885 abstracts and 22 studies that reported relevant surgical and screening outcomes were included. Meta‐analysis revealed significantly higher surgical rates among individuals with P/LP than among those with VUS for therapeutic mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 7.35, 95% CI, 4.14–13.64), prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 3.05, 95% CI, 1.5–6.19), and oophorectomy (OR = 6.46, 95% CI, 3.64–11.44). There were no significant differences in therapeutic mastectomy, or breast conservation or lumpectomy rates between individuals with P/LP and VUS, or in any outcomes between patients with VUS and B/LB. Studies evaluating screening outcomes were limited, and results were conflicting. Comprehensive analysis do not indicate that a significant number of individuals with VUS results undergo inappropriate clinical management.

BACKGROUND: Genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) remain suboptimal. The authors evaluated the feasibility of using a screening tool at a breast imaging center to increase HBOC assessment referrals. METHODS: A brief questionnaire based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network HBOC genetic counseling referral guidelines was developed and added to the standard intake forms of patients undergoing mammography at a community breast imaging center from 2012 through 2015. Patients who met the criteria in the guidelines were referred for genetic counseling. RESULTS: A total of 34,851 patients were screened during the study period, and 1246 (4%) patients were found to be eligible for referral; 245 of these patients made a genetic counseling appointment, and 142 patients received genetic counseling. Forty patients (28%) had a personal history of breast cancer but were not previously tested. Following counseling, 105 patients were tested for BRCA1/2. Eight patients (8%) tested positive for a pathogenic mutation and nine (9%) had a variant of unknown significance. Although they tested negative, many patients met the criteria to add breast magnetic resonance imaging to their screening due to greater than 20% lifetime breast cancer risk based on their family cancer history. This study led to improved clinical risk management in 67% of the patients who underwent genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that large-scale screening of patients for HBOC syndromes at time of breast imaging is practical and highly feasible. The screening tool identified women with actionable BRCA1/2 mutations and mutation-negative but high-risk women, leading to significant changes in their risk management; these women would otherwise have been missed.