PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.
PURPOSE: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. RESULTS: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P = .04), state anxiety (P = .03), depression (P = .04), and uncertainty (P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P = .05) and cancer-specific distress (P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. CONCLUSION: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Laurie E Steffen; Barbara H Brumbach; Wendy Kohlmann; Ruofei Du; Ji-Hyun Lee; Amanda Gammon; Karin Butler; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis M Deapen; Paul Abrahamse; Irina Bondarenko; Yun Li; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Karin M Butler; Marc D Schwartz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kenneth M Boucher; Lisa M Pappas; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Sandra L Edwards; Antoinette M Stroup; Saundra S Buys; Kristina G Flores; Rebecca A Campo Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Steven J Katz; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; M Chandler Mcleod; Lauren P Wallner; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Allison W Kurian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Arwen H Pieterse; Alexandra M van Dulmen; Frits A Beemer; Jozien M Bensing; Margreet G E M Ausems Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2007-02-13 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Barbara B Biesecker; William Klein; Katie L Lewis; Tyler C Fisher; Martha Frances Wright; Leslie G Biesecker; Paul K Han Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Rachel A Pozzar; Fangxin Hong; Niya Xiong; Jill E Stopfer; Manan M Nayak; Meghan Underhill-Blazey Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Gennady Bratslavsky; Neil Mendhiratta; Michael Daneshvar; James Brugarolas; Mark W Ball; Adam Metwalli; Katherine L Nathanson; Phillip M Pierorazio; Ronald S Boris; Eric A Singer; Maria I Carlo; Mary B Daly; Elizabeth P Henske; Colette Hyatt; Lindsay Middleton; Gloria Morris; Anhyo Jeong; Vivek Narayan; W Kimryn Rathmell; Ulka Vaishampayan; Bruce H Lee; Dena Battle; Michael J Hall; Khaled Hafez; Michael A S Jewett; Christina Karamboulas; Sumanta K Pal; A Ari Hakimi; Alexander Kutikov; Othon Iliopoulos; W Marston Linehan; Eric Jonasch; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Brian Shuch Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Fabienne Lesueur; Douglas F Easton; Anne-Laure Renault; Sean V Tavtigian; Jonine L Bernstein; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Rosalind A Eeles; Dijana Plaseska-Karanfia; Lidia Feliubadaló; Banu Arun; Natalie Herold; Beatrix Versmold; Rita Katharina Schmutzler; Tú Nguyen-Dumont; Melissa C Southey; Leila Dorling; Alison M Dunning; Paola Ghiorzo; Bruna Samia Dalmasso; Eve Cavaciuti; Dorothée Le Gal; Nicholas J Roberts; Mev Dominguez-Valentin; Matti Rookus; Alexander M R Taylor; Alisa M Goldstein; David E Goldgar; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Nadine Andrieu Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Cara N Cacioppo; Brian L Egleston; Dominique Fetzer; Colleen Burke Sands; Syeda A Raza; Neeraja Reddy Malleda; Elisabeth McCarty Wood; India Rittenburg; Julianne Childs; David Cho; Martha Hosford; Tina Khair; Jamil Khatri; Lydia Komarnicky; Trina Poretta; Fahd Rahman; Satish Shah; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Susan M Domchek; Angela R Bradbury Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.452