Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Purpose Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. Methods Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. Results In this model, tier 1 “indispensable” information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is “binned” into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. Conclusion A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in‐person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in‐person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in‐person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in‐person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in‐person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer‐specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer‐specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in‐person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in‐person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in‐person disclosure should be honored when possible.

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.

No abstract