Search

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are personalized assessments of disease risk based on the cumulative effect of common low-risk genetic variants. PRS have been shown to accurately predict women's breast cancer risk and are likely to be incorporated into personalized breast cancer risk management programs. However, there are few studies investigating the individual impact of receiving a breast cancer PRS. Existing studies have not demonstrated significant changes in perceived risk or risk management behaviors after receipt of polygenic risk information. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women with a family history of breast cancer construct breast cancer risk perceptions after receipt of a breast cancer PRS. Unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer who had not previously received genetic counseling regarding their breast cancer risk were invited to participate in this study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who attended a familial cancer clinic in the Australian states of Victoria and Tasmania. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Women's lived experience played a significant role in the construction and maintenance of their breast cancer risk perception. Women's pre-existing risk perceptions were informed by their family history and their knowledge that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease. Knowing that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease enabled most women to integrate genetic information with their pre-existing notions of risk. Women reported that the information they received was consistent with their existing notions of personal risk and screening advice. Therefore, the PRS did not lead to a change in perceived risk or risk management behaviors for most women. The results of this study provide insight into how polygenic risk information is integrated with pre-existing notions of risk, which will inform its implementation into clinical practice.

Background: Cigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer. Methods: A stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: This study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination. Trial registration: The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN (ACTRN12621000154808) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

Purpose: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). Method(s): Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. Result(s): Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing-specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing-positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. Conclusion(s): The outcomes of the study provide insight into women's responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.Copyright © 2021, Crown.

Background: Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk. Method(s): We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy. Result(s): Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, P = 0.11 x 10-2), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect. Conclusion(s): Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers.Copyright © 2021, The Author(s).

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.Copyright © 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

The increasing use of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and other pathogenic variants in the management of women with breast and ovarian cancer necessitates increased genetic literacy in oncology healthcare professionals. This pilot study aimed to evaluate an online training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in Australian oncology healthcare professionals tasked with discussing and coordinating mainstream genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients. A training website with embedded videos was developed. This study assesses the website's acceptability and user-friendliness; suggestions for improvement were also elicited. Oncology healthcare professionals were recruited through relevant professional organisations, invited to the study by email, asked to work through the website and then complete an online questionnaire. Thirty-two oncology healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire after viewing the website. Nearly all participants were satisfied with the information contained in the program (very satisfied: n = 14/32, 44%, satisfied: n = 17/32, 53%, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: n = 1/32, 3%) and reported that they had gained new skills (n = 29/32, 91%) and had increased confidence (n = 29/31, 94%) in communicating with breast and ovarian cancer patients about genetic testing. More than 93% (28/30) of participants endorsed the online program as clearly presented, informative, relevant and useful. This pilot study demonstrated high feasibility and acceptability of the training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in oncology healthcare professionals discussing genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients. Further evidence from a randomised trial is needed to evaluate effects on changing clinical practice, improving patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.Copyright © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Background: Epidemiological studies provide strong evidence for a role of endogenous sex hormones in the aetiology of breast cancer. The aim of this analysis was to identify genetic variants that are associated with urinary sex-hormone levels and breast cancer risk. Method(s): We carried out a genome-wide association study of urinary oestrone-3-glucuronide and pregnanediol-3-glucuronide levels in 560 premenopausal women, with additional analysis of progesterone levels in 298 premenopausal women. To test for the association with breast cancer risk, we carried out follow-up genotyping in 90,916 cases and 89,893 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. All women were of European ancestry. Result(s): For pregnanediol-3-glucuronide, there were no genome-wide significant associations; for oestrone-3-glucuronide, we identified a single peak mapping to the CYP3A locus, annotated by rs45446698. The minor rs45446698-C allele was associated with lower oestrone-3-glucuronide (-49.2%, 95% CI -56.1% to -41.1%, P = 3.1 x 10-18); in follow-up analyses, rs45446698-C was also associated with lower progesterone (-26.7%, 95% CI -39.4% to -11.6%, P = 0.001) and reduced risk of oestrogen and progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.82-0.91, P = 6.9 x 10-8). Conclusion(s): The CYP3A7*1C allele is associated with reduced risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer possibly mediated via an effect on the metabolism of endogenous sex hormones in premenopausal women.Copyright © 2021, The Author(s).

Given the progressively widespread use of genetic testing for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 in breast and ovarian cancer patients, there is an urgent need for increased genetic literacy in oncology healthcare professionals. This pilot study aimed to evaluate an online training intervention to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in oncology healthcare professionals discussing the genetic testing process including results with breast and ovarian cancer patients. A training website with embedded videos was developed (www.mainstreamgenetictesting.com.au). In this pilot study the website's acceptability, user-friendliness, and satisfaction were assessed and suggestions for improvement were elicited. Oncology healthcare professionals were recruited through several relevant professional organisations, invited to the study by email and asked to work through the website and then complete an online questionnaire. The target sample size for this pilot study was 20 participants. Thirty-two oncology healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire after viewing the website. Nearly all participants were satisfied with the information contained in the program(44%=very satisfied, 53%=satisfied, 3% = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) and reported that they had gained new skills (94%) and had increased competence (93%) in communicating with breast and ovarian cancer patients about genetic testing. Most participants endorsed the online intervention as clearly presented, informative, relevant and useful (> 90%). In conclusion, this pilot study demonstrated high feasibility and acceptability of the training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in oncology healthcare professionals discussing genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients. It can now be tested in a randomised trial for its efficacy in leading to practice change and impacting on patient outcomes.

Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors offer a survival advantage to women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer who have a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). Yet, rates of genetic testing among this population have remained persistently low. A national, centralized telephone genetic counseling service was established in January 2016 in Australia to improve access to genetic services and facilitate BRCA1/2 testing for this population to inform treatment. Medical oncologists can refer their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to this service for genetic testing. This study aimed to explore oncologists’ experiences of using this telephone genetic counseling service for their patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. A qualitative approach using semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken with Australian oncologists who had referred patients to the telephone genetic counseling service. Sixteen oncologists participated and described referring patients to the telephone genetic counseling service due to the timeliness of obtaining a genetic counseling appointment and BRCA1/2 test results. They also reported this service offered convenience for patients living in regional or rural areas who then did not have to travel for an appointment with a clinical genetics service. Many oncologists noted the importance of in-person genetic counseling for patients who received positive BRCA1/2 results. Areas for improvement identified by the oncologists related to communication issues between the service and the patient. Overall, findings suggest that oncologists perceived telephone genetic counseling as an acceptable and useful healthcare service for patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Moreover, they perceived telephone genetic counseling to be efficient, delivering convenient genetic counseling to patients.

The increasing use of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and other pathogenic variants in the management of women with breast and ovarian cancer necessitates increased genetic literacy in oncology healthcare professionals. This pilot study aimed to evaluate an online training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in Australian oncology healthcare professionals tasked with discussing and coordinating mainstream genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients. A training website with embedded videos was developed. This study assesses the website’s acceptability and user-friendliness; suggestions for improvement were also elicited. Oncology healthcare professionals were recruited through relevant professional organisations, invited to the study by email, asked to work through the website and then complete an online questionnaire. Thirty-two oncology healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire after viewing the website. Nearly all participants were satisfied with the information contained in the program (very satisfied: n = 14/32, 44%, satisfied: n = 17/32, 53%, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: n = 1/32, 3%) and reported that they had gained new skills (n = 29/32, 91%) and had increased confidence (n = 29/31, 94%) in communicating with breast and ovarian cancer patients about genetic testing. More than 93% (28/30) of participants endorsed the online program as clearly presented, informative, relevant and useful. This pilot study demonstrated high feasibility and acceptability of the training program to increase genetic literacy and communication skills in oncology healthcare professionals discussing genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients. Further evidence from a randomised trial is needed to evaluate effects on changing clinical practice, improving patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

Objective: This study explored family communication about undertaking genomic sequencing, and intentions to communicate pertinent heritable results to family members. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with cancer patients (n = 53) and their relatives (n = 20) who underwent germline genome sequencing or molecular tumor testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Key themes relevant to family communication about undertaking sequencing included: perceiving family member interest, delaying discussion until results were received, having shared capacity to understand and cope, and having open communication in the family. Intended communication subsequent to receiving results was affected by: disease severity, risk management options, degree of closeness in the family, sense of responsibility, and potential adverse impacts on family. Resource and support needs varied based on the complexity of test results, health professionals’ availability, and disease severity. Unique subthemes were identified for specific subgroups. Conclusion: Current findings support the need to assess the impact and resource needs specific to each clinical application of genomic sequencing. Practice implications: Increasingly sophisticated and complex clinical genomic sequencing warrants development of family-centered interventions and resources to facilitate preference-sensitive communication about genomic sequencing, including disseminating relevant information to family members.

The vast majority of studies assessing communication of BRCA1/2 results with relatives and family uptake of BRCA1/2 testing have been conducted in Western societies, and a dearth of studies have been conducted in Asia among relatives of diverse carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline variants. This study aimed to present rates of BRCA1/2 result disclosure by probands and probands’ motivators and barriers of family communication and predictive testing uptake among eligible relatives. It also examined patterns of disclosure and testing uptake among different types of relatives. Eighty-seven carriers with either breast or ovarian cancer, who had previously been found to be carriers of a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2, were interviewed over the phone using a semi-structured interview guide. Fifty-six percent of patients were Chinese, 21% were Indian, and 23% were Malay. It was found that 62.0% of eligible first- and second-degree relatives were informed by the proband about the testing result and that 11.5% of eligible first- and second-degree relatives had genetic testing. First-degree relatives were more likely to have been informed and tested compared to second-degree relatives, as were sisters compared to brothers. The low rates of family communication and testing uptake documented in this study suggest that interventions should focus on encouraging probands to inform male and second-degree relatives and targeting such relatives to increase informed decisions and accessibility to testing. Promotion strategies should be culturally sensitive to optimize outcomes.

Objectives: Germline genome sequencing (GS) is becoming mainstream in cancer diagnosis and risk management. Identifying knowledge gaps and determinants of health behavior change intentions will enable effective targeting of educational and management strategies to translate genomic findings into improved cancer outcomes. Methods: Probands diagnosed with cancer of likely genetic origin that consented to but not yet undergone GS, and their biological relatives, completed a cross-sectional questionnaire assessing GS knowledge and hypothetical intention to change behaviors. Results: Probands (n = 348; 57% university educated) and relatives (n = 213; 38% university educated) had moderate GS knowledge levels, with greater knowledge associated with higher education. Both populations reported high behavioral change intentions, significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and greater perceived importance of GS (p < 0.001), and for probands: being from English-speaking households (p = 0.003), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.01) and greater self-efficacy (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Increasing GS knowledge will enable realistic participant expectations surrounding germline GS. Actual behavior change should be monitored to determine whether increased cancer risk knowledge results in altered cancer-related behavior and ultimately, cancer outcomes. Practice implications: Educational resources should target specific populations to ensure informed decision-making and expectation management. Support tools facilitating and maintaining behavioral change may be needed to achieve improved cancer patient outcomes.

Objective: Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) substantially reduces ovarian cancer risk in women with pathogenic gene variants and is generally recommended by age 34–45 years. Natural menopause is a vulnerable period for mood disturbance, but the risk of depression and anxiety in the first 12 months after RRBSO and potential modifying effect of hormone therapy are uncertain. Methods: Prospective controlled observational study of 95 premenopausal women planning RRBSO and a Comparison group of 99 premenopausal women who retained their ovaries,- 95% of whom were at population level risk of ovarian cancer. Clinically significant symptoms of depression and anxiety were measured using standardised instruments at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Chi-square tests and adjusted logistic regression models compared differences between groups. Results: Baseline symptoms and previous depression or anxiety did not differ between groups. At 3 months after RRBSO clinically significant depressive symptoms were doubled (14.5% vs 27.1%, p = 0.010), which persisted at 12 months. Depressive symptoms were stable in comparisons. At 3 months after RRBSO, clinically significant anxiety symptoms almost trebled (6.1% vs 17.7%, p = 0.014) before plateauing at 6 months and returning to baseline at 12 months. Compared to comparisons, RRBSO participants were at 3.0-fold increased risk of chronic depressive symptoms (Wald 95% CI 1.27–7.26), 2.3-fold increased risk of incident depression (95% Wald CI 1.08–5.13) and 2.0-fold increase of incident anxiety (Wald 95% CI 0.78–5.00). Depression and anxiety were slightly more common in Hormone Therapy users after RRBSO vs non-users. Conclusions: RRBSO leads to a rapid increase in clinically significant depressive and anxiety symptoms despite Hormone Therapy use.

Marfan syndrome (MFS) is an autosomal dominantly inherited connective tissue disorder. Aortic dilatation/dissection and ectopia lentis are the most severe features, which affect physical functioning and psychological well-being. In Aboriginal Australians, there is little psychosocial research on genetic conditions. This study explored the physical, psychological, and practical impacts of MFS on Aboriginal Australians. Eighteen (8 affected and 10 unaffected) members of a large Aboriginal Australian family with MFS participated in an ethically approved study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. All individuals reported challenges from MFS, negatively affecting day-to-day living. Severe vision impairment was perceived as the greatest challenge, contributing to feelings of stigma and exclusion. With aging, concerns shifted toward cardiac complications. The unpredictability of lens dislocation and aortic dissection was reported to be psychologically challenging. Participants described MFS-related barriers to obtaining and retaining employment, especially following cardiac surgery; with consequential psychological and financial hardships. Participants articulated that their cultural drive to support the ill and respectfully mourn the deceased, regardless of distance, resulted in a significant financial burden. Additionally, when hospitalization and/or funerals occurred, financially solvent individuals were expected to share resources, without any expectation of repayment or reciprocity (i.e., ‘demand sharing’, common in Aboriginal Australian culture). This study documents the nature and pervasiveness of uncertainty for both affected and unaffected members of an MFS family. Many reported challenges are consistent with other MFS cohorts (including stigma, social exclusion, and unemployment). However, our findings suggest that cultural values may exacerbate the financial costs of MFS for Aboriginal Australia

Hereditary breast cancer is associated with known genetic changes: either variants that affect function in a few rare genes or an ever-increasing number of common genomic risk variants, which combine to produce a cumulative effect, known as a polygenic risk (PR) score. While the clinical validity and utility of PR scores are still being determined, the communication of PR is a new challenge for genetic health professionals. This study investigated how PR scores are discussed in the familial cancer clinic compared with a previous study assessing the communication of monogenic risk (MR) for breast cancer. Sixty-five PR consultations between genetic health professionals and women at familial risk of breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using a methodology adapted from the MR study. Analysis of consultations shows that while there were similarities in communicating MR and PR, the complexity and novelty of the polygenic information influenced the style of counseling used by genetic health professionals toward a teaching model of genetic counseling, rather than a patient-centered approach. In particular, compared to MR consultations, in PR consultations significantly fewer counselees (a) were asked about their reasons for attending genetic counseling; or (b) had their information preferences, decision-making style, medical knowledge, understanding, or concerns checked. In conclusion, it is anticipated that PR scores will become part of standard clinical practice. Thus, it will be important for all genetic health professionals to be appropriately educated so that they can tailor their communication to meet patient needs.

Purpose: To prospectively assess patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior of women choosing to receive (receivers) or decline (decliners) their breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS). Methods: Women either unaffected or affected by breast cancer and from families with no identified pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk gene were invited to receive their PRS. All participants completed a questionnaire at study enrollment. Receivers completed questionnaires at two weeks and 12 months after receiving their PRS, and decliners a second questionnaire at 12 months post study enrollment. Results: Of the 208 participants, 165 (79%) received their PRS. Among receivers, there were no changes in anxiety or distress following testing. However, compared to women with a low PRS, those with a high PRS reported greater genetic testing–specific distress, perceived risk, decisional regret, and less genetic testing–positive response. At 12 months, breast screening and uptake of risk-reducing strategies were consistent with current Australian guidelines of breast cancer risk management. Reasons for declining PRS included being unable to attend the appointment in person and concerns over potential emotional response. Conclusion: The outcomes of the study provide insight into women’s responses to receiving PRS and highlight the issues that need to be addressed in the associated model of genetic counseling.

Introduction People of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) ancestry are more likely than unselected populations to have a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant, which cause a significantly increased risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. Three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, referred to as BRCA-Jewish founder mutations (B-JFM), account for >90% of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in people of AJ ancestry. Current practice of identifying eligible individuals for BRCA testing based on personal and/or family history has been shown to miss at least 50% of people who have one of these variants. Here we describe the protocol of the JeneScreen study-a study established to develop and evaluate two different population-based B-JFM screening programmes, offered to people of Jewish ancestry in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. Methods and analysis To rmeasure the acceptability of population-based B-JFM screening in Australia, two screening programmes using different methodologies have been developed. The Sydney JeneScreen programme provides information and obtains informed consent by way of an online tool. The Melbourne JeneScreen programme does this by way of community sessions attended in person. Participants complete questionnaires to measure clinical and psychosocial outcomes at baseline, and for those who have testing, 2 weeks postresult. Participants who decline testing are sent a questionnaire regarding reasons for declining. Participants with a B-JFM are sent questionnaires 12-month and 24-month post-Testing. The questionnaires incorporate validated scales, which measure anxiety, decisional conflict and regret, and test-related distress and positive experiences, and other items specifically developed or adapted for the study. These measures will be assessed for each programme and the two population-based B-JFM screening methods will be compared. Ethics and dissemination Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the South Eastern Area Health Service Human Re

Purpose: Fear of cancer recurrence/occurrence (FCR/O) is prevalent and associated with poorer psychological outcomes but can also motivate individuals to pursue genomic information about cancer risk. Guided by Protection Motivation Theory, this study investigated FCR/O prevalence and associated factors among probands previously diagnosed with a cancer of likely heritable origin, and their relatives, who had agreed to have germline genome sequencing. Methods: Three hundred and forty-eight probands and 167 relatives completed the Concerns about Recurrence Questionnaire (adapted for occurrence for some relatives) within 1 month of agreeing to undertake genome sequencing. Linear regressions investigated demographic, disease, attitude and behavioral associations with FCR/O. Results: Probands demonstrated greater FCR compared to relatives. In probands, greater FCR was associated with being female, non-English speaking at home, less time since diagnosis, greater intention to change behavior if gene variant found, lower perceived ability to cope with results, higher perceived susceptibility to having a recurrence, and more negative attitudes towards uncertainty. For relatives with cancer, greater FCR was associated with being male, greater intention to change behavior if a gene variant found, and higher perceived susceptibility to recurrence. In relatives without cancer, greater FCO was associated with not having had genetic testing prior to this study, lower perceived ability to cope with results, and higher perceived susceptibility to developing cancer. Conclusion: Current findings on FCR/O prevalence and associated demographic and attitudinal variables in those who pursue genomic risk information might be used to target interventions that can prevent adverse psychological outcomes in vulnerable patients.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

Purpose: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly used to guide cancer therapy. This study aimed to characterise oncologists' experiences and needs when utilising genomic results. Materials and Methods: An electronic survey distributed nation-wide to practising medical oncologists in Australia explored oncologists' experiences with consenting, interpreting and communicating CGP results to patients. Results: The survey was completed by 108 of 333 oncologists (32%) and most respondents (n = 97, 90%) had referred patients for CGP. Using a 100-point visual analogue scale score [VAS], where higher values indicate greater confidence, most oncologists were confident consenting patients for referral [median 75 (Interquartile range, IQR: 53-85), discussing CGP results (median VAS: 70, IQR: 51-80), but significantly less confident discussing secondary germline findings (median VAS: 56, IQR 30-70, p < 0.001). Confidence with pursuing therapies based on CGP results increased with clinical experience (mean VAS increases by 4.8 per 5 years of experience, p < 0.001). Most oncologists (N = 68, 63%) reported wanting assistance with interpretation of CGP and patient-centric resources to aid communication with patients. Conclusions: Oncologists are integrating genomics into clinical care, but only display moderate confidence in communication and changing management accordingly. The development of patient- and clinician- targeted resources may assist with routine utilisation of CGP results in cancer care.

Objective: To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting. Method(s): Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5). Result(s): Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques. Conclusion(s): Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women. Practice implications: Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V.