Perspectives on Spanish language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions from the Spanish-speaking population.

Genetic counselors (GCs) provide risk assessment, education, and counseling about the genetic contribution to disease. To do so, they must effectively communicate, build rapport, and help patients make the best decisions for themselves and their families. Language barriers add a complex layer to this patient-provider dynamic. While interpreters serve as a primary solution when a patient and GC speak different languages, issues have been documented with these sessions, such as misinterpreted genetic terminology (Gutierrez et al., 2017). Having a GC with concordant language skills may help address these barriers. The purpose of this study was to assess Spanish-speaking patients' perspectives on communication, decision-making, and the interpersonal relationship developed with a bilingual GC in language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions. Spanish-speaking patients, ages 18 or older, seen by a Spanish-speaking GC at a California public, safety-net hospital were eligible to participate in this study. Nine participants were interviewed via telephone by the bilingual researcher using a semi-structured interview guide to assess three domains: communication, decision-making, and interpersonal relationship. Analyses of interview transcripts identified themes within these three areas of focus: (1) participants felt all explanations were clear and they were not afraid to ask questions in the session, (2) participants experienced preference-concordant decision making, and (3) participants felt empowered and supported by the GC. Participants suggested that GCs working with Spanish-speaking patients in the future should consider group counseling sessions, engaging in outreach efforts to educate the Spanish-speaking community about genetics, and increasing the number of GCs who speak Spanish. These results demonstrate the positive experiences of Spanish-speaking patients in language concordant cancer genetic counseling sessions and further support the need for recruitment of Spanish-speaking individuals into the profession. Future research should further assess the experience of Spanish-speaking patients in language concordant sessions and address the role of cultural concordance in sessions.

Determining the clinical validity of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility genes using the Clinical Genome Resource Clinical Validity Framework.

PURPOSE: Gene-disease associations implicated in hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility were evaluated using the ClinGen Clinical Validity framework. METHODS: Forty-two gene-disease pairs were assessed for strength of evidence supporting an association with hereditary colorectal cancer and/or polyposis. Genetic and experimental evidence supporting each gene-disease relationship was curated independently by two trained biocurators. Evidence was reviewed with experts and assigned a final clinical validity classification. RESULTS: Of all gene-disease pairs evaluated, 14/42 (33.3%) were Definitive, 1/42 (2.4%) were Strong, 6/42 (14.3%) were Moderate, 18/42 (42.9%) were Limited, and 3/42 (7.1%) were either No Reported Evidence, Disputed, or Refuted. Of panels in the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry, 4/26 (~15.4%) contain genes with Limited clinical evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and laboratory diagnosticians should note that <60% of the genes on clinically available panels have Strong or Definitive evidence of association with hereditary colon cancer or polyposis, and >40% have only Moderate, Limited, Disputed, or Refuted evidence. Continuing to expand the structured assessment of the clinical relevance of genes listed on hereditary cancer testing panels will help clinicians and diagnostic laboratories focus the communication of genetic testing results on clinically significant genes.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Several genes on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility test panels have not been systematically examined for strength of association with disease. We employed the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) clinical validity framework to assess the strength of evidence between selected genes and breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-one genes offered on cancer panel testing were selected for evaluation. The strength of gene-disease relationship was systematically evaluated and a clinical validity classification of either Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Refuted, Disputed, or No Reported Evidence was assigned. RESULTS: Definitive clinical validity classifications were made for 10/31 and 10/32 gene-disease pairs for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Two genes had a Moderate classification whereas, 6/31 and 6/32 genes had Limited classifications for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Contradictory evidence resulted in Disputed or Refuted assertions for 9/31 genes for breast and 4/32 genes for ovarian cancer. No Reported Evidence of disease association was asserted for 5/31 genes for breast and 11/32 for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of gene-disease association using the ClinGen clinical validity framework revealed a wide range of classifications. This information should aid laboratories in tailoring appropriate gene panels and assist health-care providers in interpreting results from panel testing.