A novel approach to offering additional genomic findings-A protocol to test a two-step approach in the healthcare system

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing

Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50-95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450-$1700 (US$300-$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

Offering and Returning Secondary Findings in the Context of Exome Sequencing for Hearing Loss: Clinicians' Views and Experiences

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding whether and under which circumstances secondary findings (SF) should be offered in the pediatric context. Although studies have examined patient perspectives on receiving SF, little research has been conducted examining the experiences of clinicians offering SF to parents of newborns receiving genomic sequencing for a recently diagnosed medical condition.

METHODS

To address this, we conducted qualitative interviews exploring the views and experiences of 12 clinicians who offered SF to parents of infants who had diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) to identify the cause of their hearing loss. Interviews explored clinicians' accounts of parents' choices and decision-making about receiving SF, their views on whether and when to offer SF, their experiences returning SF, and any ethical challenges they encountered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported parents who declined all SF often felt finding out about future conditions unrelated to their child's hearing loss may be unhelpful, or even harmful, or were overwhelmed by their child's diagnosis. Clinicians also reported that some parents chose SF because they felt obliged to, even if they did not want to receive them. They explained that while some parents experienced decision-making regarding SF as positive, for others, this process was challenging or distressing. While clinicians generally agreed SF should be offered, mainly to promote parental choice, most felt SF should be offered after disclosing diagnostic results, primarily to avoid overwhelming parents. Clinicians encountered several ethical challenges, including balancing parental autonomy with non-maleficence, wanting to report or not report certain SF, and questioning whether parents can make an autonomous choice regarding SF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings, which are novel as they relate to parents of young infants with a recent diagnosis of hearing loss, add new insights into clinicians' and parents' decision-making regarding SF in pediatrics.

Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. Inconclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

My Research Results: a program to facilitate return of clinically actionable genomic research findings

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: When and for whom?

As the use of genomic sequencing (GS) in the prenatal setting becomes more widespread, laboratories and clinicians will be tasked with making decisions about whether to offer incidental and secondary findings to expectant parents and, if so, which ones. Unfortunately, few guidelines or position statements issued by professional bodies address the return of secondary findings specifically in the context of prenatal GS, nor do they offer clear guidance on whether, and which types of incidental findings should be reported. Laboratories and clinicians will also need to navigate other challenges, such as how to obtain sufficiently informed consent, workload burdens for both laboratories and clinicians, and funding. Here we discuss these, and other challenges associated with offering incidental and secondary findings in the context of prenatal GS. We outline existing guidelines for return of these findings, prenatally and in children. We review the existing literature on stakeholder perspectives on return of incidental and secondary findings and discuss the main practical and ethical challenges that require consideration. We then propose a framework to help guide decision-making, suggesting a baseline routine analysis, with additional layers of analysis that could be offered, according to local laboratory policy, with additional opt-in consent from the parents.

Making community voices heard in a research-health service alliance, the evolving role of the Community Advisory Group: a case study from the members' perspective

BACKGROUND

The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (the Alliance) is a collaboration of leading hospitals, research and academic organisations, supported by its member organisations and the Victorian Government. The Alliance was set up by its members in 2013 to steer the translation of genomics, making it an integral part of health care in Victoria, Australia. The Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed soon after, to give input and advice across the program. This was to ensure consideration of community values, perspectives and priorities, and knowledge translation for patient care. The CAG was charged with providing a strong community voice for the duration of the program. Appointed members were experienced consumer advocates with developed connections to the community.

MAIN BODY

The Alliance progressed from an initial Demonstration Project (2013-2015) to a multifaceted program (2016-2020). The CAG worked strategically to help address complex issues, for example, communication, privacy, informed consent, ethics, patient experience, measurement and evaluation standards and policies, data storage and re-use of genomic data. Many aspects of translating genomics into routine care have been tackled, such as communicating with patients invited to have genomic testing, or their caregivers, and obtaining informed consent, clinical questions across 16 areas of health care, training and education of health and laboratory professionals, genomic data management and data-sharing. Evidence generated around clinical utility and cost-effectiveness led to government funding of testing for complex genetic conditions in children.

CONCLUSION

The CAG activities, recorded in a CAG-inspired Activity register, span the full spectrum of information sharing and consultation to co-design and partnership. The CAG were involved at multiple levels of participation and in all tiers of activity including governance, development of policies and procedures, program planning and evaluation. Working relationships were built up and a level of trust instilled to advance the Alliance work program in ensuring an effective patient-care model of delivery of genomics. CAG input into project deliverables has been tangible. Less tangible contributions included presentations at external meetings and conferences, direct interactions at meetings with Alliance members, interactions with visitors and external experts, taking part in consultations with experts, state and federal government.

Introducing Edna: A trainee chatbot designed to support communication about additional (secondary) genomic findings

OBJECTIVE

To support informed decision-making about reanalysis of clinical genomic data for risk of preventable conditions ('additional findings') by developing a chatbot (electronic genetic resource, 'eDNA').

METHODS

Interactions in pre-test genetic counseling sessions (13.5 h) about additional findings were characterized using proponent, thematic and semantic analyses of transcripts. We then wrote interfaces to draw supplementary data from external genetics applications. To create Edna, this content was programmed using a chatbot framework which interacts with patients via speech-to-text.

RESULTS

Conditions, terms, explanations of concepts, and key factors to consider in decision making were all encoded into chatbot conversations emulating counseling session flows. Patient agency can be enhanced by prompted consideration of the personal and familial implications of testing. Similarly, health literacy can be broadened through explanation of genetic conditions and terminology. Novel aspects include sentiment analysis and collection of family history. Medical advice and the impact of existing genetic conditions were deemed inappropriate for inclusion.

CONCLUSION

Edna's successful development represents a movement towards accessible, acceptable and well-supported digital health processes for patients to make informed decisions for additional findings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Edna complements genetic counseling by collecting and providing genomic information before or after pre-test consultations.

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Evaluating the resource implications of different service delivery models for offering additional genomic findings

PURPOSE

To evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.

METHODS

Data from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.

RESULTS

For the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375-US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794-US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41-51%.

CONCLUSION

Resources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.