Biomedical subjects

Jason L Vassy

Publications and source records attributed to Jason L Vassy.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Development and pilot testing of a prostate cancer polygenic risk report.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are increasingly being incorporated into clinical care, yet optimal strategies for communicating PRS results to patients and clinicians remain undefined. Effective report design is critical to ensure comprehension and appropriate use, particularly for complex conditions such as prostate cancer where screening decisions are nuanced. We developed and pilot tested patient-facing materials to communicate integrated polygenic and monogenic risk for prostate cancer in the context of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We designed a summary report and accompanying Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to communicate prostate cancer genetic risk within the Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS). Materials were developed through an iterative, multidisciplinary process informed by existing literature on genomic risk communication. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a national sample of eight men eligible for prostate cancer screening to evaluate comprehension, interpretation of visual elements, perceived usefulness, and preferences for improvement. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants generally found the summary report and FAQ page understandable and visually engaging. Graphical displays of absolute risk, particularly pictograph arrays, facilitated comprehension and helped contextualize risk. Visual cues such as color and bold formatting effectively directed attention to key information, with red coloring perceived as particularly salient for high-risk results. In contrast, more complex visualizations, including bell curves and incidence curves, were frequently misunderstood or not interpreted as intended. Participants expressed a desire for clearer guidance regarding next steps and additional accessible information, suggesting supplementary resources such as hyperlinks or QR codes. Concerns about readability included small font size and high text density. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative pilot study, patient-facing materials for communicating prostate cancer PRS were generally well received, with specific design features such as simple visualizations and clear formatting enhancing understanding. Findings highlight the importance of intuitive risk displays and actionable guidance in PRS reporting. These results provide practical insights to inform the design of genomic risk reports as PRS-based prostate cancer screening approaches move toward clinical implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05926102; date of registry: July 3, 2023.

Aged↗

PubMed2025

Primary care providers' perspectives on receiving opportunistic genomic results from a national study: The Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study.

PURPOSE: Patients are increasingly obtaining genetic health information and integrating it into their care with the help of their primary care provider (PCP). However, PCPs may not be adequately prepared to effectively utilize genetic results. Across the Veterans Health Administration health system, the Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results-Familial Hypercholesterolemia (MVP-ROAR-FH) Study clinically confirms and returns genetic results associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), identified in a national biobank program. METHODS: PCPs who received their patient's genetic results through the MVP-ROAR-FH study were invited to participate in semistructured interviews, which explored PCPs' familiarity with FH, how the results affected medical management, and suggestions for process improvement. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis and constant comparison methods to identify key themes. RESULTS: Interviews with 9 PCPs revealed varied levels of familiarity with genetic testing and FH. Most PCPs did not distinguish FH from common high cholesterol issues and already used similar treatment approaches. Many PCPs did not recall receiving results from the MVP-ROAR-FH study. Alerts in medical records were deemed effective for communicating results. PCPs valued genetics in informing patient care and identifying at-risk family members but noted several implementation barriers, such as additional workload and unclear medical management benefits. Recommendations for improving results disclosure included simplifying the genetic testing report and associated support documents. CONCLUSION: The study represents the first investigation into PCPs' experiences with receiving genetic test results from a biobank linked to a national healthcare system. Results suggest that PCPs generally view genetic testing as beneficial, although they may not significantly alter medical management. PCPs expressed that integrating genetics into routine care may be burdensome and require additional training, which may not be practical. The study underscores the need for accessible genetic information, which could be aided by specialized support roles or different clinical specialties assisting with incorporating genetic results into patient care.

Humans↗

PubMed2022

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Clinical Decision-Making↗