Background There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk‐stratified (risk‐tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. Objectives To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. Method Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. Results Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk‐stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high‐risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low‐risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. Conclusions Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk‐stratified cancer screening.

Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212-21. ©2016 AACR.

We aimed to determine capacity and readiness of Australian clinical genetic healthcare professionals to provide genomic medicine. An online survey was administered to individuals with genetic counseling or clinical genetics qualifications in Australia. Data collected included: education, certification, continuing professional development (CPD), employment, and genetic versus genomic clinical practice. Of the estimated 630 clinical genetic healthcare professionals in Australia, 354 completed the survey (56.2% response rate). Explanatory interviews were conducted with 5.5% of the genetic counselor respondents. Those working clinically reported being involved in aspects of whole exome or genome sequencing (48.6% genetic counselors, 88.6% clinical geneticists). Most genetic counselors (74.2%) and clinical geneticists (87.0%) had attended genomics CPD in the last two years, with 61.0% and 39.1% self‐funding, respectively. Genetic counselors desire broad involvement in genomics, including understanding classifying and interpreting results to better counsel patients. The majority of respondents (89.9%) were satisfied with their job and 91.6% planned to work in genetics until retirement. However, 14.1% of the genetic counselors in clinical roles and 24.6% of the clinical geneticists planned to retire within 10 years. This is the first national audit of clinical genetic healthcare professionals, revealing the Australian workforce is motivated and prepared to embrace new models to deliver genomic medicine but consideration of education and training is required to meet demand.

The aim of this research was to understand how genomics-based personal melanoma risk information impacts psychological and emotional health outcomes in the general population. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 103) completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire, 3 months after receiving personal melanoma genomic risk information. Mean scores for MICRA items and subscales were stratified by genomic risk group (low, average, high), gender, education, age, and family history of melanoma. P values were obtained from t-tests and analysis of variance tests. We found that overall, participants (mean age: 53 years, range: 21-69; 52% female) had a total MICRA mean score of 18.6 (standard deviation: 11.1, range: 1-70; possible range: 0-105). The high genomic risk group had higher mean scores for the total (24.2, F = 6.7, P = 0.0019), distress (3.3, F = 9.4, P = 0.0002) and uncertainty (8.5, F = 6.5, P = 0.0021) subscales compared with average (17.6, 1.1, and 4.5, respectively) and low-risk groups (14.1, 0.5, and 2.5, respectively). Positive experiences scores were consistent across risk groups. In conclusion, MICRA scores for the total, distress and uncertainty subscales in our study were relatively low overall, but people who receive a high genomic risk result may benefit from increased support following testing.

Personalized melanoma genomic risk information can prompt risk-appropriate discussions about skin cancer prevention and skin examinations with family and health professionals. Sharing this information with others might increase its impact on melanoma prevention and skin examination behaviours, and this process could be used to encourage healthy behaviour change within families.

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants' satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.

BackgroundAs part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient’s genomic risk of melanoma.AimUsing this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process.Design & settingSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs.MethodThe interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically.ResultsGPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors.ConclusionThese findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.

No abstract