Risk perception and intended behavior change after uninformative genetic results for adult-onset hereditary conditions in unselected patients.

Population genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions may improve disease management and morbidity but most individuals will receive uninformative results that do not indicate higher risk for disease. Investigation into subsequent psychosocial health and behaviors is necessary to inform population screening feasibility, effectiveness, and cost considerations. We conducted a prospective survey study of unselected University of Washington Medicine patients enrolled in a genetic research study screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes. Survey questions adapted from the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) questionnaire and designed to understand perceived disease risk change and planned health behaviors were administered after receipt of results. Overall, 2761 people received uninformative results and 1352 (49%) completed survey items. Respondents averaged 41 years old, 62% were female, and 56% were Non-Hispanic Asian. Results from the FACToR instrument showed mean (SD) scores of 0.92 (1.34), 7.63 (3.95), 1.65 (2.23), and 0.77 (1.50) for negative emotions, positive emotions, uncertainty, and privacy concerns, respectively, suggesting minimal psychosocial harms from genetic screening. Overall, 12.2% and 9.6% of survey respondents believed that their risk of cancer or heart disease, respectively, had changed after receiving their uninformative genetic screening results. Further, 8.5% of respondents planned to make healthcare changes and 9.1% other behavior changes. Future work is needed to assess observed behavior changes attributable to uninformative screening results and if small changes in behavior among this population have large downstream impacts.

Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors. METHODS: We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

Extended Family Outreach in Hereditary Cancer Using Web-Based Genealogy, Direct-to-Consumer Ancestry Genetics, and Social Media: Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of the ConnectMyVariant Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Cascade screening, defined as helping at-risk relatives get targeted genetic testing of familial variants for dominant hereditary cancer syndromes, is a proven component of cancer prevention; however, its uptake is low. We developed and conducted a pilot study of the ConnectMyVariant intervention, in which participants received support to contact at-risk relatives that extended beyond first-degree relatives and encourage relatives to obtain genetic testing and connect with others having the same variant through email and social media. The support that participants received included listening to participants' needs, assisting with documentary genealogy to find common ancestors, facilitating direct-to-consumer DNA testing and interpretation, and assisting with database searches. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess intervention feasibility, motivations for participating, and engagement among ConnectMyVariant participants and their families. METHODS: We used a mixed methods design including both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. First, we considered intervention feasibility by characterizing recruitment and retention using multiple recruitment mechanisms, including web-based advertising, dissemination of invitations with positive test results, provider recruitment, snowball sampling, and recruitment through web-based social networks and research studies. Second, we characterized participants' motivations, concerns, and engagement through project documentation of participant engagement in outreach activities and qualitative analysis of participant communications. We used an inductive qualitative data analysis approach to analyze emails, free-text notes, and other communications generated with participants as part of the ConnectMyVariant intervention. RESULTS: We identified 84 prospective participants using different recruitment mechanisms; 57 participants were ultimately enrolled in the study for varying lengths of time. With respect to motivations for engaging in the intervention, participants were most interested in activities relating to genealogy and communication with others who had their specific variants. Although there was a desire to find others with the same variant and prevent cancer, more participants expressed an interest in learning about their genealogy and family health history, with prevention in relatives considered a natural side effect of outreach. Concerns about participation included whether relatives would be open to communication, how to go about it, and whether others with a specific variant would be motivated to help find common ancestors. We observed that ConnectMyVariant participants engaged in 6 primary activities to identify and communicate with at-risk relatives: sharing family history, family member testing, direct-to-consumer genealogy genetic testing analysis, contacting (distant) relatives, documentary genealogy, and expanding variant groups or outreach. Participants who connected with others who had the same variant were more likely to engage with several extended family outreach activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that there is an interest in extended family outreach as a mechanism to improve cascade screening for hereditary cancer prevention. Additional research to systematically evaluate the outcomes of such outreach may be challenging but is warranted.

Diagnostic yield of genetic screening in a diverse, community-ascertained cohort.

BACKGROUND: Population screening for genetic risk of adult-onset preventable conditions has been proposed as an attractive public health intervention. Screening unselected individuals can identify many individuals who will not be identified through current genetic testing guidelines. METHODS: We sought to evaluate enrollment in and diagnostic yield of population genetic screening in a resource-limited setting among a diverse population. We developed a low-cost, short-read next-generation sequencing panel of 25 genes that had 98.4% sensitivity and 99.98% specificity compared to diagnostic panels. We used email invitations to recruit a diverse cohort of patients in the University of Washington Medical Center system unselected for personal or family history of hereditary disease. Participants were sent a saliva collection kit in the mail with instructions on kit use and return. Results were returned using a secure online portal. Enrollment and diagnostic yield were assessed overall and across race and ethnicity groups. RESULTS: Overall, 40,857 people were invited and 2889 (7.1%) enrolled. Enrollment varied across race and ethnicity groups, with the lowest enrollment among African American individuals (3.3%) and the highest among Multiracial or Other Race individuals (13.0%). Of 2864 enrollees who received screening results, 106 actionable variants were identified in 103 individuals (3.6%). Of those who screened positive, 30.1% already knew about their results from prior genetic testing. The diagnostic yield was 74 new, actionable genetic findings (2.6%). The addition of more recently identified cancer risk genes increased the diagnostic yield of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening can identify additional individuals that could benefit from prevention, but challenges in recruitment and sample collection will reduce actual enrollment and yield. These challenges should not be overlooked in intervention planning or in cost and benefit analysis.