Psychological impact of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results for advances cancer patients

Objective Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) is increasingly used to personalize treatments, providing hope, but potentially disappointment, for patients. We explored psychological outcomes in patients with advanced, incurable cancer, after receiving CTGP results. Methods Participants with advanced, incurable cancer (n = 560, mean age 56, 43% university educated) in this longitudinal substudy of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (MoST), completed questionnaires before and after receiving CGP results. MoST participants, recruited from Australian oncology clinics, undergo CTGP, and if there are actionable findings, are offered treatment in a related therapeutic trial if available. Results Patients who received actionable results, (n = 356, 64%) had lower gene-related distress (MICRA) (p \u3c 0.001) and Impact of Events scores (p = 0.039) than patients with non-actionable results. Those with actionable results offered ensured access to tailored treatment (n = 151) reported lower anxiety (p = 0.002) and depressive symptoms (p = 0.01) and greater hope (p = 0.002) than those not offered. Positive attitudes towards uncertainty and higher self-efficacy for coping with results were associated with lower psychological distress and uncertainty, and higher hope and satisfaction with the decision to have CTGP (ps=0.001–0.047). Those with higher knowledge reported greater anxiety (p = 0.034). Conclusion Receiving a non-actionable CTGP result, or an actionable result without ensured access to treatment, may cause increased distress in advanced cancer patients. Coping style was also associated with distress. Practice implications Pre-testing assessment and counseling addressing attitudes toward uncertainty and self-efficacy, and post-CTGP result support for patients receiving a non-actionable result or who receive an actionable results without ensured access to treatment, may benefit patients

Psychological outcomes in advanced cancer patients after receiving genomic tumor profiling results

Background: Comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CGP) offers hope for personalized treatment for cancer patients when other treatment options have been exhausted. However, receipt of nonactionable or ambiguous results could be an ongoing source of distress. We investigated patterns of hope, anxiety, depression, and CGP-specific anxiety in advanced cancer patients after receiving CGP results and 2–3months later. Method: Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal psychosocial substudy, embedded in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program, and had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient and accessible tissue for CGP. At T0 (before receiving CGP results), 1,431 participants completed sociodemographic, disease and psychosocial measures. At T1 (1–4 weeks after receiving CGP results) and T2 (2–3 months post-T1), 374 participants completed psychological outcome measures. Predictors of outcomes at T2 were identified using multinomial logistic regression. Results: Approximately 75% of participants did not experience significant hopelessness or distress at T1 and T2.Hope decreased by T2, yet general anxiety and CGP-specific anxiety also decreased. Receiving actionable results did not impact psychological outcomes at T2. At T2, lower hope, and higher anxiety, depression and CGP-specific anxiety were associated with lower self-efficacy. Psychological and demo-graphic factors (age, socioeconomic status, language, medical occupation, urban living, family history of cancer) independently predicted one or more psychological trajectories. Worse health status and perceived susceptibility to cancer progression predicted hope and anxiety trajectories. Conclusion: Further research on interventions to best support patients undergoing CGP with high anxiety, hopelessness, fear of cancer progression, and poorer health is urgently needed

Advanced cancer patient preferences for receiving molecular profiling results

Objective: This study aimed to discern preferences for receiving somatic molecular profiling (MP) results in cancer patients who have given consent to undergo testing. Methods: We conducted a mixed‐methods study to explore patients’ views on which MP results they would like to receive and why. Advanced cancer patients (n=1299) completed questionnaires after giving consent to participate in a parent genomics study and undergoing MP. A subset of patients (n=20) participated in qualitative interviews. Results: Almost all (96%) participants were interested in receiving results which would direct cancer treatment (i.e. were actionable). A smaller majority wanted to access results which were not actionable (64%) or were variants of unknown significance (60%). Most (86%) were interested in finding out about germline findings, though not as a priority. Themes identified in interview data were: 1) Cancer is the focus; 2) Trust in clinicians; and 3) Respect for a right not to know. Conclusions: The majority of advanced cancer patients undergoing MP prioritised results which would lead to treatment options. They trusted their oncologists to help them navigate the results return process. While there was interest in knowing about other results, this was a lesser priority. Nevertheless, given high levels of interest in receiving all results, ethical aspects of not providing uninformative results requires further research, including a consideration of patient rationales for desiring this information and what health professionals can and should do to support patients in the absence of meaningful information being available. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

Objectives: Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients’ motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results. Methods: Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality. Results: 182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm. Conclusions: Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families. Practice Implications: Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours. © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

Validation of the multidimensional impact of Cancer Risk Assessment Questionnaire to assess impact of waiting for genome sequencing results

Objective To determine whether the existing Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale, which assesses impact of receiving genetic test results on individuals being assessed for cancer risk, can be successfully adapted to cancer patients experiencing prolonged waiting for results of germline genome sequencing (GS). Methods Patients previously diagnosed with likely hereditary cancer (n = 250) who were waiting for germline GS results completed questionnaires 3 months after baseline. We adapted the MICRA to measure anxiety associated with waiting for results, and assessed factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and construct validation. Results Factor analysis revealed four factors: distress, positive experience, family support and uncertainty. Internal consistency for each sub-scale was high with the values of Cronbach\u27s alpha for the distress, positive experiences, family support and uncertainty sub-scales 0.92, 0.88, 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Test–retest reliability was poor, with intra-class correlations of 0.53, 0.13, 0.33 and 0.52 for the four factors, respectively. Construct validation showed large correlations between the MICRA distress and uncertainty sub-scale scores and the Impact of Events score intrusion (0.42 and 0.62, respectively) and IES avoidant thinking sub-scales (0.40 and 0.58, respectively) but not the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale sub-scales. Conclusions The adapted MICRA identified test-related anxiety and uncertainty in a population of cancer patients waiting for germline GS results. Results suggest that the distress and uncertainty sub-scales of the adapted measure are most useful in this context

Does undertaking genome sequencing prompt actual and planned lifestyle-related behavior change in cancer patients and survivors? A qualitative study

Background: In order for genomic testing to fulfil its promise of helping cancer patients and survivors to prevent future disease, it is important to consider its behavioral impact and outcomes. This study explored the factors that participants perceived would impact lifestyle-related behavioral intentions following genome sequencing (GS). Methods: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted to explore behavioral intentions with a purposive subsample of 24 adults with a past or current cancer of likely heritable aetiology who undertook germline GS as part of a larger genetic study (RisC). Participants were interviewed 12 months following their consent to a longitudinal psychosocial sub-study of RisC (PiGeOn study), before receipt of results. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Analysis revealed 3 main themes: past prompts, barriers, and motivators to behavior change. The primary goal for behavioral change was to be healthy for oneself and one\u27s family. Past experience of cancer facilitated positive modifications to lifestyle, such as increased exercise and healthy diet, higher prioritization of mental health and well-being, and regular health check-ups and tests. Maintaining these changes, however, was difficult for some due to daily commitments and lack of self-control. Limited knowledge and perceived inevitability of developing cancer due to genetic predisposition were recognized as barriers to making lifestyle changes. Concurrently, future receipt of actionable results was perceived as a powerful driver of behavior change. Conclusion: Understanding barriers and facilitators to behavior intention and patients’ attitudes to recommended lifestyle change in the context of genomic testing can be useful for health care professionals, to guide their discussions of behavioral change

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study

Purpose The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach. Results We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment. Conclusion Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results

Cancer patient experience of uncertainty while waiting for genome sequencing results

There is limited knowledge about cancer patients’ experiences of uncertainty while waiting for genome sequencing results, and whether prolonged uncertainty contributes to psychological factors in this context. To investigate uncertainty in patients with a cancer of likely hereditary origin while waiting for genome sequencing results, we collected questionnaire and interview data at baseline, and at three and 12 months follow up (prior to receiving results). Participants (N = 353) had negative attitudes towards uncertainty (M = 4.03, SD 0.68) at baseline, and low levels of uncertainty at three (M = 8.23, SD 7.37) and 12 months (M = 7.95, SD 7.64). Uncertainty about genome sequencing did not change significantly over time [t(210) = 0.660, p = 0.510]. Greater perceived susceptibility for cancer [r(348) = 0.14, p \u3c 0.01], fear of cancer recurrence [r(348) = 0.19, p \u3c 0.01], perceived importance of genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.24, p \u3c 0.01], intention to change behavior if a gene variant indicating risk is found [r(349) = 0.29, p \u3c 0.01], perceived ability to cope with results [r(349) = 0.36, p \u3c 0.01], and satisfaction with decision to have genome sequencing [r(350) = 0.52, p \u3c 0.01] were significantly correlated with negative attitudes towards uncertainty at baseline. Multiple primary cancer diagnoses [B = −2.364 [−4.238, −0.491], p = 0.014], lower perceived ability to cope with results [B = −0.1.881 [−3.403, −0.359], p = 0.016] at baseline, greater anxiety about genome sequencing (avoidance) [B = 0.347 [0.148, 0.546], p = 0.0012] at 3 months, and greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing [B = 0.494 [0.267, 0.721] p = 0.000] at 3 months significantly predicted greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 12 months. Greater perceived uncertainty about genome sequencing at 3 months significantly predicted greater anxiety (avoidance) about genome sequencing at 12 months [B = 0.291 [0.072, 0.509], p = 0.009]. Semi-structured interviews revealed that while participants were motivated to pursue genome sequencing as a strategy to reduce their illness and risk uncertainty, genome sequencing generated additional practical, scientific and personal uncertainties. Some uncertainties were consistently discussed over the 12 months, while others emerged over time. Similarly, some uncertainty coping strategies were consistent over time, while others emerged while patients waited for their genome sequencing results. This study demonstrates the complexity of uncertainty generated by genome sequencing for cancer patients and provides further support for the inter-relationship between uncertainty and anxiety. Helping patients manage their uncertainty may ameliorate psychological morbidity

Effectively communicating comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results: Mitigating uncertainty for advanced cancer patients

Objective: To understand advanced cancer patients’ experience of uncertainty when receiving comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results, and their perceptions of how healthcare provider (HCP) communication impacts uncertainty. Methods: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews with advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CTGP results. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, using an inductive approach. Results: We identified three themes that illustrate patient experience of uncertainties when receiving CTGP results: 1. Type and degree of uncertainty fluctuates along with changing illness circumstances and the nature of the CTGP results; 2. HCPs’ co-ordination of care and communication shapes uncertainty, with immediate, clearer and simpler information promoting certainty; and 3. Patients felt that communicating results to reduce relatives’ uncertainty is important, with patients choosing the time and process for achieving this and desiring HCPs support. Conclusion: Oncology patients are confronted with an array of uncertainties. Clear, simple communication from HCPs about results and their implications, and support to manage uncertainty, will be of benefit. Practice implications: If CTGP is to become routine clinical practice, clear communication will be crucial in reducing uncertainty. Awareness of potential uncertainties experienced by patients when receiving results, will assist HCPs to address uncertainties, reduce uncertainty where possible, and offer targeted support to patients struggling with uncertainty

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients\u27 preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes