A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

How do members of the public expect to use variants of uncertain significance in their health care? A population-based survey.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can generate complex results, including variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In general, VUS should not inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the public's expected management of VUS. METHODS: An online, hypothetical survey was conducted among members of the Canadian public preceded by an educational video. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 arms, VUS or pathogenic variant in a colorectal cancer gene, and asked which types of health services they expected to use for this result. Expected health service use was compared between randomization arms, and associations between participants' sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and medical history were explored. RESULTS: Among 1003 respondents (completion rate 60%), more participants expected to use each type of health service for a pathogenic variant than for a VUS. However, a considerable proportion of participants expected to request monitoring (73.4%) and consult health care providers (60.9%) for a VUS. There was evidence to support associations between expectation to use health services for a VUS with family history of genetic disease, family history of cancer, education, and attitudes toward health care and technology. CONCLUSION: Many participants expected to use health services for a VUS in a colorectal cancer predisposition gene, suggesting a potential disconnect between patients' expectations for VUS management and guideline-recommended care.

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care.

PURPOSE: Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. RESULTS: In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

PARC report: a health-systems focus on reimbursement and patient access to pharmacogenomics testing.

Pharmacogenomics test coverage and reimbursement are major obstacles to clinical uptake. Several early adopter programs have been successfully initiated through dedicated investments by federal and institutional research funding. As a result of research endeavors, evidence has grown sufficiently to support development of pharmacogenomics guidelines. However, clinical uptake is still limited. Third-party payer support plays an important role in increasing adoption, which to date has been limited to reactive single-gene testing. Access to and interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing are driving demand for increasing healthcare providers and third-party awareness of this burgeoning field. Pharmacogenomics implementation models developed by early adopters promise to expand patient access and options, as testing continues to increase due to growing consumer interest and falling test prices.

PARC report: a perspective on the state of clinical pharmacogenomics testing.

In this Perspective, the authors discuss the state of pharmacogenomics testing addressing a number of advances, challenges and barriers, including legal ramifications, changes to the regulatory landscape, coverage of testing and the implications of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on the provision of care to patients. Patient attitudes toward pharmacogenomics testing and associated costs will play an increasingly important role in test acquisition and subsequent utilization in a clinical setting. Additional key steps needed include: further research trials demonstrating clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, evidence review to better integrate genomic information into clinical practice guidelines in target therapeutic areas to help providers identify patients that may benefit from pharmacogenetic testing and engagement with payers to create a path to reimbursement for pharmacogenetic tests that currently have sufficient evidence of clinical utility. Increased adoption of testing by payers and improved reimbursement practices will be needed to overcome barriers, especially as the healthcare landscape continues to shift toward a system of value-based care.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.

Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results.

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results.

Guidelines recommend patients be informed of their incidental results (IR) when undergoing genomic sequencing (GS), yet there are limited tools to support patients' decisions about learning IR. The aim of this study is to develop and test the usability of a decision aid (DA) to guide patients' selection of IR, and to describe patients' preferences for learning IR following use of the DA. We developed and evaluated a DA using an iterative, mixed-methods process consisting of (1) prototype development, (2) feasibility testing, (3) cognitive interviews, (4) design and programming, and (5) usability testing. We created an interactive online DA called the Genomics ADvISER, a genomics decision AiD about Incidental SEquencing Results. The Genomics ADvISER begins with an educational whiteboard video, and then engages users in a values clarification exercise, knowledge quiz and final choice step, based on a 'binning' framework. Participants found the DA acceptable and intuitive to use. They were enthusiastic towards GS and IR; all selected multiple categories of IR. The Genomics ADvISER is a new patient-centered tool to support the clinical delivery of incidental GS results. The Genomics ADvISER fills critical care gaps, given the health care system's limited genomics expertise and capacity to convey the large volume of IR and their myriad of implications.

Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03244202; Pre-results.

Utility of prospective pathologic evaluation to inform clinical genetic testing for hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) resulting from fumarate hydratase (FH) mutations may present with skin, uterine, and renal tumors, with each having unique pathologic features. This study investigated the association between prospectively identified suspicious pathology (SP) and FH mutations when patients were referred for genetic testing. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved cohort study of patients receiving FH testing from 2008 to 2013. SP was defined as a report of HLRCC histologic features identified during a prospective pathologic assessment. The association between SP and FH mutations was analyzed. RESULTS: FH testing was performed in 29 patients with a median age of 37 years; 15 (52%) were female, and 18 (62%) were white. Pathologists reported SP from kidney tumors (11 of 18), leiomyomas (9 of 15: uterus [n = 8] and bladder [n = 1]), and metastatic tumors (3 of 6) in 23 of 39 associated specimens (59%) from 21 of the 29 patients (72%). Patients with SP were younger (35 vs 51 years; P = .010), and those with kidney tumors more often had stage pT3 or higher renal cell carcinoma than those without SP (100% vs 33%; P = .006). FH mutations were present in 8 patients with SP (38%) and in 1 patient without SP (13%; P = .37); 7 of these patients had kidney cancer (n for SP = 7), all with N1 disease. Analyzing SP by tissue type identified only SP from renal tumors as being significantly associated with positive testing for an FH mutation (P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: SP from kidney tumors was statistically associated with FH mutations. An expert pathologic assessment of renal tumors will facilitate the clinical identification of HLRCC cases, and this will result in genetic testing and targeted cancer screening for patients and at-risk family members. Cancer 2017;123:2452-58. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

"I Don't Want to Be an Ostrich": Managing Mothers' Uncertainty during BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling.

Families who face genetic disease risk must learn how to grapple with complicated uncertainties about their health and future on a long-term basis. Women who undergo BRCA 1/2 genetic testing describe uncertainty related to personal risk as well as their loved ones', particularly daughters', risk. The genetic counseling setting is a prime opportunity for practitioners to help mothers manage uncertainty in the moment but also once they leave a session. Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT) helps to illuminate the various types of uncertainty women encounter and the important role of communication in uncertainty management. Informed by UMT, we conducted a thematic analysis of 16 genetic counseling sessions between practitioners and mothers at risk for, or carriers of, a BRCA1/2 mutation. Five themes emerged that represent communication strategies used to manage uncertainty: 1) addresses myths, misunderstandings, or misconceptions; 2) introduces uncertainty related to science; 3) encourages information seeking or sharing about family medical history; 4) reaffirms or validates previous behavior or decisions; and 5) minimizes the probability of personal risk or family members' risk. Findings illustrate the critical role of genetic counseling for families in managing emotionally challenging risk-related uncertainty. The analysis may prove beneficial to not only genetic counseling practice but generations of families at high risk for cancer who must learn strategic approaches to managing a complex web of uncertainty that can challenge them for a lifetime.

Educational and Psychosocial Support Needs in Lynch Syndrome: Implementation and Assessment of an Educational Workshop and Support Group.

Few reports of educational and counseling support resources exist for Lynch syndrome (LS), a disorder requiring multi-organ cancer screening and specialized medical care throughout adult life. Here we describe the development and efficacy of two resources designed to address this need, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Clinical Genetics Service annual Lynch Syndrome Educational Workshop (LSEW), and a quarterly Lynch Syndrome Patient Advocacy Network (LSPAN) support group. The LSEW and LSPAN were implemented beginning in 2012. Participant survey data evaluating satisfaction, clarity, and unmet needs for each event were retrospectively analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Annual LSEW attendance ranged from 53 to 75 total participants. LSEW year 1 participants indicated a need for a support group, and preferred in-person meetings at a frequency of every 3-6 months. For LSEW year 2-5 participants, >96 % reported satisfaction with the LSEW, and >82 % expressed interest in secure online support. Common themes for improvement included increased time for question and answer sessions and additional introductory genetics education. Responding LSPAN participants (n = 57 total survey responses in 11 meetings) found the meetings helpful (100 %), information clear (91 %), and presence of a genetic counselor useful (67 %). Desired discussion topics included coping with stress and anxiety, development of a support network, family communication about LS, genetic testing decisions, and bereavement. Following genetic counseling, a need exists for ongoing educational and emotional support in LS. Implementation of resources such as the LSEW and LSPAN is feasible and perceived as helpful by participants.

Outcome of genetic evaluation of patients with kidney cancer referred for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients with kidney cancer referred for evaluation at a high-volume genetics service at a comprehensive cancer center and identify factors associated with positive tests for hereditary cancer syndromes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients referred to the Clinical Genetics Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center was performed, and patients with a personal history of kidney cancer were identified. Patient and disease characteristics were reviewed. In all, 4 variables including age at diagnosis of kidney tumor, presence of syndromic manifestations, family history of kidney cancer, and number of primary malignancies were evaluated for association with positive test results in 2 groups: patients tested for renal cell carcinoma syndromes and Lynch syndrome. Guidance for genetic testing strategy in patients with kidney cancer is provided. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2012, 120 patients with a history of kidney cancer were evaluated by the Clinical Genetics Service. The mean age at kidney cancer diagnosis was 52 years (interquartile range: 42-63), with 57% being women. A family history of kidney cancer was reported by 39 patients (33%). Time between diagnosis of first cancer and genetic consultation was <1 year in 54%, 2 to 5 years in 23%, and>5 years in the remaining 23%. Overall, 95 patients were tested for genetic abnormalities with 27 (28%) testing positive. Testing for renal cell carcinoma (RCC)-related syndromes was performed on 43 patients, with 13 testing positive (30%). Lynch syndrome testing was positive in 9 patients (32%) after 28 were tested. In RCC-associated syndromes, young age of diagnosis was associated with positive test results. Conversely, syndromic manifestations and increasing number of primary malignancies were associated with positive Lynch testing. CONCLUSIONS: The discovery of inherited kidney cancer syndromes has provided a unique opportunity to identify patients at increased risk for cancer. Factors associated with positive genetic testing are unique to different syndromes. These data suggest that in kidney cancer patients evaluated for hereditary cancer syndromes, young age is associated with diagnosis of RCC syndromes, whereas syndromic manifestations and multiple primaries are found in Lynch syndrome. These results, along with clinical awareness, may be useful for practicing urologists to select patients with kidney cancer to refer for genetic counseling.

Preliminary validation of a consumer-oriented colorectal cancer risk assessment tool compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait.

PURPOSE: This study examines the analytic validity of a software tool designed to provide individuals with risk assessments for colorectal cancer based on personal health and family history information. The software is compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (MFHP). METHODS: An algorithm for risk assessment was created using accepted colorectal risk assessment guidelines and programmed into a software tool (MFHP). Risk assessments derived from 150 pedigrees using the MFHP tool were compared with "gold standard" risk assessments developed by three expert cancer genetic counselors. RESULTS: Genetic counselor risk assessments showed substantial, but not perfect, agreement. MFHP risk assessments for colorectal cancer yielded a sensitivity for colorectal cancer risk of 81% (95% confidence interval: 54-96%) and specificity of 90% (95% confidence interval: 83-94%), as compared with genetic counselor pedigree review. The positive predictive value for risk for MFHP was 48% (95% confidence interval: 29-68%), whereas the negative predictive value was 98% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Agreement between MFHP and genetic counselor pedigree review was moderate (κ = 0.54). CONCLUSION: The analytic validity of the MFHP colorectal cancer risk assessment software is similar to those of other types of screening tools used in primary care. Future investigations should explore the clinical validity and utility of the software in diverse population groups.Genet Med 17 9, 753-756.

Assessment of individuals with BRCA1 and BRCA2 large rearrangements in high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families.

BRCA1/2 large rearrangement (LR) testing has been available to patients since 2006. Three existing models commonly used in cancer genetics clinical and research settings (BRCAPRO, Penn II and Myriad II) have not been assessed for their performance in predicting the presence of BRCA1/2 large genomic rearrangements in patients who do not have mutations detectable by the traditional Sanger sequencing approach. This study sought to determine if there is an optimal pre-test probability "cut off" value, calculated using these models, to optimize detection of large rearrangements (LRs). Our cohort consisted of 3,301 probands seen for genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 clinical testing from September 2006 to September 2011. A detailed personal and three-generation family history, including self-reported ethnicity, was taken as part of our standard clinical practice. We applied the BRCAPRO, Penn II, and Myriad II models to the probands with LRs. In our cohort of 3,301 probands, 150 carried a non-Ashkenazi mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Seventeen unrelated probands carried a private BRCA1/2 LR (17/150, 11.3 % of all detectable non-AJ mutations). At a pre-test probability cutoff of 10 %, all three empiric risk models would have failed to identify almost 30 % of probands with LRs. Our study shows that BRCA1/2 LR testing should be offered to all women who meet criteria for BRCA1/2 sequence analysis.