Relatively little is known about experiences of individuals with a pathogenic variant in a moderately penetrant breast cancer gene, particularly those without a personal history of cancer. The WISDOM trial is testing a model of risk-based breast cancer screening that integrates genomic (nine genes and polygenic risk) and other risk factors. In the context of an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study of WISDOM, we conducted qualitative interviews at two timepoints post-result disclosure with 22 ATM and CHEK2 carriers. Results disclosure and interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis framework. We found that participants minimized the significance of their results in comparison to BRCA; were surprised but not alarmed by the results in the absence of family history; did not fundamentally change their perception of their breast cancer risk despite the new genomic information; exhibited variable responses to WISDOM's screening and risk reduction recommendations; and shared test results with family but did not strongly encourage cascade testing. Participants viewed the results as having limited utility and responded accordingly. Our study offers important insights into how genetic test results for moderate-risk genes are received, understood, and acted upon in population screening context.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter-mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patients ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow-up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters transmission of complex genetic concepts.

Objective

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

Methods

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

Curriculum

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

Conclusion

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

Practice implications

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.