This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI’s expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. Methods: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. Results: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform—in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution’s support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. Conclusions: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS: This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS: The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION: GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.