Genetic counseling, 2030: An on-demand service tailored to the needs of a price conscious, genetically literate, and busy world

Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges.

Beyond multiple choice: Clinical simulation as a rigorous and inclusive method for assessing genetic counseling competencies

Educational use of clinical simulation is a way for students to immerse themselves within a realistic yet safe and structured environment as they practice clinical skills. It is widely used in healthcare training and evaluation, and there are best practices for design, implementation, debriefing, and assessment. An increasing number of genetic counseling graduate programs use simulation in various ways, ranging from role-plays to working with professional simulated/standardized patient (SP) actors. At this time, there is very little consistency across programs, research on the approaches, and standards by which simulation is incorporated into training. Simulation is an understudied but promising approach for genetic counselor (GC) education and assessment. After graduation, GCs demonstrate their competence as entry-level providers through American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) multiple-choice examination (MCE), along with their participatory clinical encounters from graduate training. Data from genetic counseling and other professions highlight the limitations and biases of MCEs, suggesting they not only fail to accurately capture competency, but also that they disadvantage underrepresented individuals from entering the field. In addition, MCEs are limited as a tool for assessing nuanced counseling and communication skills, as compared to more quantitative scientific knowledge. We propose that innovative, evidence-based approaches such as simulation have the potential to not only enhance learning, but also to allow GCs to better demonstrate competency during training and in relation to the board examination. Collaborative approaches, research, and funding are needed to further explore the viability of routinely incorporating simulation into GC training and assessment.

The Potential of Meta-Proteomics and Artificial Intelligence to Establish the Next Generation of Probiotics for Personalized Healthcare

The symbiosis of probiotic bacteria with humans has rendered various health benefits while providing nutrition and a suitable environment for their survival. However, the probiotics must survive unfavorable gut conditions to exert beneficial effects. The intrinsic resistance of probiotics to survive harsh conditions results from a myriad of proteins. Interaction of microbial proteins with the host is indispensable for modulating the gut microbiome, such as interaction with cell receptors and protective action against pathogens. The complex interplay of proteins should be unraveled by utilizing metaproteomic strategies. The contribution of probiotics to health is now widely accepted. However, due to the inconsistency of generalized probiotics, contemporary research toward precision probiotics has gained momentum for customized treatment. This review explores the application of metaproteomics and AI/ML algorithms in resolving multiomics data analysis and in silico prediction of microbial features for screening specific beneficial probiotic organisms. Implementing these integrative strategies could augment the potential of precision probiotics for personalized healthcare.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores

Advances in genomics have enabled the development of polygenic scores (PGS), sometimes called polygenic risk scores, in the context of multifactorial diseases and disorders such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and schizophrenia. PGS estimate an individual's genetic predisposition, as compared to other members of a population, for conditions which are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is significant interest in using genetic risk prediction afforded through PGS in public health, clinical care, and research settings, yet many acknowledge the need to thoughtfully consider and address ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To contribute to this effort, this paper reports on a narrative review of the literature, with the aim of identifying and categorizing ELSI relating to genetic risk prediction in the context of multifactorial disease, which have been raised by scholars in the field. Ninety-two articles, spanning from 1977 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria for this study. Identified ELSI included potential benefits, challenges and risks that focused on concerns about interpretation and use, and ethical obligations to maximize benefits, minimize risks, promote justice, and support autonomy. This research will support geneticists, clinicians, genetic counselors, patients, patient advocates, and policymakers in recognizing and addressing ethical concerns associated with PGS; it will also guide future empirical and normative research.

Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have generated considerable scholarly attention and public intrigue. Although the current consumer genetic testing regime relies on the reporting of individual variants of interest to consumers, there has recently been interest in the possibility of integrating polygenic scores (PGS), which aggregate genetic liability for disease across the entire genome. While PGS have thus far been extensively explored as clinical and public health tools, the use of PGS in consumer genetic testing has not yet received systematic attention, even though they are already in use for some consumer genetic tests. In this narrative review, we highlight the ethical, legal, and social implications of the use of PGS in DTC genetic tests and synthesize existing solutions to these concerns. We organize these concerns into three domains: (1) industry variation; (2) privacy and commercialization; and (3) patient safety and risk. While previously expressed concerns in these domains will remain relevant, the emergence of PGS-based DTC genetic tests raises challenges that will require novel approaches.

Hospital-based ovarian cancer patient traceback program results in minimal genetic testing uptake

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of hospital-based genetic counseling and testing (GC/T) Traceback for Ovarian Cancer (OC) patients, as proposed by the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute.

METHODS

Living patients with OC were sent a letter explaining the availability of guideline-supported GC/T for at least BRCA1/2 and surrogates of deceased patients were called on the telephone. Outcomes of contact attempts were systematically recorded and statistically described.

RESULTS

598 Traceback-eligible OC patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2016 were identified (163 presumed-living and 435 deceased). Two living patients called our office and scheduled an appointment for GC/T after receiving a letter. For surrogates of prior patients, successful contact occurred in 25% of call attempts. Fourteen individuals (2 living patients and 12 surrogates) underwent genetic counseling. Of those 14, 10 individuals consented to genetic testing and 5 followed through with sample collection. None of these individuals had pathogenic variants (PVs). When surrogate call notes were reviewed, 58% reflected positive responses to contact, however 42% were noted to have negative or indifferent responses, which were most common among spouses. Total time spent for hospital-based Traceback was 109 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, hospital-based Traceback via letter and telephone contact of surrogates is time-intensive and results in minimal uptake of GC/T. To practically execute this type of outreach program, health systems should consider collection of alternative contact information to allow for electronic communication of patient surrogates. Our study also underscores the importance of timely GC/T while patients are in active cancer care.

Patient Interactions With an Automated Conversational Agent Delivering Pretest Genetics Education: Descriptive Study

Background

Cancer genetic testing to assess an individual’s cancer risk and to enable genomics-informed cancer treatment has grown exponentially in the past decade. Because of this continued growth and a shortage of health care workers, there is a need for automated strategies that provide high-quality genetics services to patients to reduce the clinical demand for genetics providers. Conversational agents have shown promise in managing mental health, pain, and other chronic conditions and are increasingly being used in cancer genetic services. However, research on how patients interact with these agents to satisfy their information needs is limited.

Objective

Our primary aim is to assess user interactions with a conversational agent for pretest genetics education.

Methods

We conducted a feasibility study of user interactions with a conversational agent who delivers pretest genetics education to primary care patients without cancer who are eligible for cancer genetic evaluation. The conversational agent provided scripted content similar to that delivered in a pretest genetic counseling visit for cancer genetic testing. Outside of a core set of information delivered to all patients, users were able to navigate within the chat to request additional content in their areas of interest. An artificial intelligence–based preprogrammed library was also established to allow users to ask open-ended questions to the conversational agent. Transcripts of the interactions were recorded. Here, we describe the information selected, time spent to complete the chat, and use of the open-ended question feature. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative measures, and thematic analyses were used for qualitative responses.

Results

We invited 103 patients to participate, of which 88.3% (91/103) were offered access to the conversational agent, 39% (36/91) started the chat, and 32% (30/91) completed the chat. Most users who completed the chat indicated that they wanted to continue with genetic testing (21/30, 70%), few were unsure (9/30, 30%), and no patient declined to move forward with testing. Those who decided to test spent an average of 10 (SD 2.57) minutes on the chat, selected an average of 1.87 (SD 1.2) additional pieces of information, and generally did not ask open-ended questions. Those who were unsure spent 4 more minutes on average (mean 14.1, SD 7.41; P=.03) on the chat, selected an average of 3.67 (SD 2.9) additional pieces of information, and asked at least one open-ended question.

Conclusions

The pretest chat provided enough information for most patients to decide on cancer genetic testing, as indicated by the small number of open-ended questions. A subset of participants were still unsure about receiving genetic testing and may require additional education or interpersonal support before making a testing decision. Conversational agents have the potential to become a scalable alternative for pretest genetics education, reducing the clinical demand on genetics providers.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Utilization and uptake of clinical genetics services in high-income countries: A scoping review

Ongoing rapid growth in the need for genetic services has the potential to severely strain the capacity of the clinical genetics workforce to deliver this care. Unfortunately, assessments of the scale of this health policy challenge and potential solutions are hampered by the lack of a consolidated evidence base on the growth in genetic service utilization. To enable health policy research and strategic planning by health systems in this area, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on the utilization and uptake of clinical genetics services in high-income countries published between 2010 and 2018. One-hundred-and-ninety-five unique studies were included in the review. Most focused on cancer (85/195; 44%) and prenatal care (50/195; 26%), which are consistently the two areas with the greatest volume of genetic service utilization in both the United States and other high-income countries. Utilization and uptake rates varied considerably and were influenced by contextual factors including health system characteristics, provider knowledge, and patient preferences. Moreover, growth in genetic service utilization appears to be driven to a significant degree by technological advances and the integration of new tests into clinical care. Our review highlights both the policy challenge posed by the rapid growth in the utilization of genetic services and the variability in this trend across clinical indications and health systems.

Democratizing genomics: Leveraging software to make genetics an integral part of routine care

Genetic testing can provide definitive molecular diagnoses and guide clinical management decisions from preconception through adulthood. Innovative solutions for scaling clinical genomics services are necessary if they are to transition from a niche specialty to a routine part of patient care. The expertise of specialists, like genetic counselors and medical geneticists, has traditionally been relied upon to facilitate testing and follow-up, and while ideal, this approach is limited in its ability to integrate genetics into primary care. As individuals, payors, and providers increasingly realize the value of genetics in mainstream medicine, several implementation challenges need to be overcome. These include electronic health record integration, patient and provider education, tools to stay abreast of guidelines, and simplification of the test ordering process. Currently, no single platform offers a holistic view of genetic testing that streamlines the entire process across specialties that begins with identifying at-risk patients in mainstream care settings, providing pretest education, facilitating consent and test ordering, and following up as a "genetic companion" for ongoing management. We describe our vision for using software that includes clinical-grade chatbots and decision support tools, with direct access to genetic counselors and pharmacists within a modular, integrated, end-to-end testing journey.

Evolving Roles of Genetic Counselors in the Clinical Laboratory

Genetic counselors (GCs) possess several core competencies that provide direct benefit in the clinical laboratory setting. Communication with clients about complex information such as test methodology or results and the skills of facilitation and translation of complex information were recognized as important skills early in the establishment of GCs in laboratories. The clinical expertise of GCs serves as the background and experience from which they facilitate complex laboratory cases. Early roles for GCs in the laboratory also included result reporting, case management, and test development. The scope of roles has broadened to include management, business development, education, telemedicine, research, and variant interpretation. With increasing value being placed on genetic counseling skills both in and outside of a clinical laboratory, the roles and positions of GCs will likely continue to expand.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.