Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

Impact of the American Society of Breast Surgeons' Guidelines on Genetic Testing and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Rates

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the American Society of Breast Surgeons' (ASBrS) guideline to offer genetic testing (GT) to all patients with breast cancer (BC) impacted contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates. We sought to describe the trends of GT and CPM rates and to determine predictors of CPM uptake.

METHODS

After retrospective review of two prospectively maintained institutional databases, we identified patients with unilateral stage 0-III BC who underwent surgery between January 2016 and July 2020. Trends in GT and CPM rates were described and multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with CPM utilization.

RESULTS

Among 6062 women identified, 3242 (53.4%) had GT. From January 2016 to July 2020, GT rates increased significantly from 46.3% to 70.1% (p < 0.001), but were not impacted by release of the guidelines. The proportion of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs) detected in BC-related genes did not change significantly (p = 0.115). Overall, 782/6062 (12.9%) patients underwent CPM. There was no significant change in the CPM rate (p = 0.527), including before (p =0.298) and after (p = 0.220) guideline release. The factors significantly associated with increased CPM rates were PVs in a BC-related gene, increasing number of relatives with BC, first-degree relative with ovarian cancer, younger age, and cT2-3 tumors (all p < 0.05). Conversely, GT alone did not impact CPM (adjusted odds ratio 1.152, 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.55; p = 0.350 untested compared with GT with negative results).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing GT rates, CPM rates were stable over time and were not associated with GT, indicating that offering GT to more patients does not necessarily increase CPM rates.

Impact of a Genetic Diagnosis for a Child's Autism on Parental Perceptions

Genetic testing is recommended as part of an autism assessment, and most parents support genetic testing for their minor children. However, the impact on parents of receiving a monogenetic/ copy number variant diagnosis for autism in their child is not well understood. To explore this, we surveyed and interviewed parents of children in the SPARK study, a study of autism that includes genetic testing. Surveys were administered one month before and one and 12 months after parents received their child's genetic result. Interviews were conducted approximately one month after results disclosure. A genetic diagnosis (GD) for their child appeared to reduce parents' sense of self-blame and feelings of guilt, and this impact was relatively stable. The data also indicate a modest impact on parents' actions related to the condition, perceptions of themselves, and some aspects of life planning for their child, as measured by quantitative instruments at one month and 12 months after receipt of results. Other measures of parental identity and expectations for their child, in contrast, showed little change following receipt of genetic findings. Overall, parents who were told that no GD was identified showed minimal changes in their responses over time. These results suggest a discernable but relatively limited impact of genetic test results on parents of children with autism. These results should be reassuring to clinicians caring for children with autism and are consistent with studies in other areas of medicine that have suggested that genetic results tend to have fewer effects-negative or positive-than were anticipated.

Understanding and issues related to next-generation sequencing among educated laypersons in India

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is being widely used for preconception carrier screening of couples, newborn screening, and personalized and preventive treatments, although its knowledge is still limited in laypersons. In this study, we have assessed the understanding, attitudes, and concerns related to NGS in 103 educated laypersons in India. The study participants were contacted by a combination of methods, including offline and online platforms. An information sheet was provided to them detailing the basics of DNA and the use of NGS in identifying genetic disorders with the possible types of results. Those participants who answered all the questions were included in the study. The participants in this study demonstrated a good general understanding of the information sheet (80.3% average correct response). We also observed that the majority wished to know the results of secondary findings related to actionable and unactionable conditions. Most of them wanted to sequence all their genes in their body, given a chance, and they had a general willingness to share the results with their relatives. The majority also felt that they would be better prepared mentally if they had a genetic diagnosis and would take necessary health measures as directed by their physician. About half of them felt that knowing the result may cause them distress. About half of them also wished to undergo prenatal testing based on an uncertain result, which stresses the need for better education about the limitations of NGS.

Familial communication and cascade testing following elective genomic testing

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

Engaging adolescents and young adults in decisions about return of genomic research results: study protocol for a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

To protect minors' future autonomy, professional organizations have historically discouraged returning predictive adult-onset genetic test results and carrier status to children. Recent clinical guidance diverges from this norm, suggesting that when minors have genomic sequencing performed for clinical purposes, parents and children should have the opportunity to learn secondary findings, including for some adult-onset conditions. While parents can currently opt in or out of receiving their child's secondary findings, the American Society of Human Genetics Workgroup on Pediatric Genetic and Genomic Testing suggests including adolescents in the decision-making process. However, it is not clear what factors young people consider when given the opportunity to learn genetic findings for themselves. In this manuscript, we report on the methods for a clinical trial that examines adolescents', young adults', and their parents' decisions about learning genomic information for the adolescent or young adult.

METHODS

We are enrolling assenting (ages 13-17) adolescents and consenting (ages 18-21) young adults in a prospective genomic screening study to assess the choices they make about receiving individual genomic results. Participants use an online tool to indicate whether they want to learn their personal genetic risk for specific preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions, as well as carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. We are examining (1) how choices differ between adolescent and young adult cohorts (as well as between adolescents/young adults and parents) and (2) decisional conflict and stability across study timepoints. Results are returned based on participants' choices. Qualitative interviews with a subset of participants explore decisional stability, adolescent/young adult engagement with parents in decision-making, and the impact of learning pathogenic/likely pathogenic and autosomal recessive carrier results.

DISCUSSION

This study explores decision making and decision stability between adolescents and parents (where applicable), as well as the ethical implications and impact of return of clinical-grade genetic research results to adolescents and young adults. The results of this study will contribute empirical evidence to support best practices and guidance on engaging young people in genomic research studies and clinical care that offer return of results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04481061. Registered 22 July 2020.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants

Introduction

Returning research-based genetic results (gRoR) to participants in nephrology research can improve care; however, the practice raises implementational questions and no established guidelines for this process currently exist. Nephrologists' views on this issue can inform the process but are understudied.

Methods

We developed a conceptual workflow for gRoR from literature and experience, covering aspects such as which results to return, how, and by whom. We surveyed US nephrologists to gauge their views on the workflow and anticipated barriers and collected participants' demographics, including professional backgrounds.

Results

A total of 201 adult and pediatric nephrologists completed the survey. Most of them agreed that all diagnostic kidney-related results (93%), secondary findings (80%), and kidney-related risk variants (83%) should be returned. No significant differences were found between adult and pediatric nephrologists' responses, except that 48% of adult nephrologists versus 26% of pediatric nephrologists supported returning polygenic risk scores (PRS) (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine percent wanted to know about research results before clinical confirmation. Most of them (63%) believed a genetic counselor should return clinically confirmed results. Key barriers included the cost of clinical validation (77%) and the unavailability of genetic counseling services (63%). Facilitators included educational resources on genetic kidney diseases (91%), a referral list of experts (89%), and clear clinical care guidelines (89%). We discuss findings' implications and provide "points to consider."

Conclusion

There is significant interest in gRoR among nephrologists; however, logistical and economic concerns need addressing. Identified facilitators can help large nephrology studies planning to return genetic results to participants.

Receiving a Pathogenic Variant in a Population Breast Cancer Screening Trial: A Mixed Method Study

INTRODUCTION

Risk-based breast cancer screening aims to address persistent high morbidity and mortality. This study examined the experience of participants in the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (WISDOM) trial who received a pathogenic variant in one of nine high or moderate penetrance breast cancer genes.

METHODS

Participants completed a brief survey (n = 181) immediately following the results disclosure and 1 year later. Descriptive statistics were computed and comparisons between participants at different risk levels were performed using Fisher's exact and McNemar's tests. Analysis of qualitative interviews (n = 42) at 2-4 weeks and 6 months post-results disclosure compared responses at the 2 time points and explained and elaborated on the survey data.

RESULTS

66.3% of survey respondents felt very or moderately prepared to receive genomic results. At the T1 survey, 80.7% of participants had shared the genetic result with a blood relative, increasing to 88.4% at T2; providing information and encouraging cascade testing were the most common reasons for sharing. Communication with a blood relative, other healthcare providers beyond the primary care provider, and cascade testing were higher for participants with a high risk than low or moderate risk genomic finding. Qualitative interviews elucidated varied reasons why participants felt (un)prepared for the results, including whether or not they had a family history of breast cancer, and illustrated the complexity of decision-making about sharing results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most participants communicated results with family members and healthcare providers in accordance with their risk level, questions remain about how to adequately prepare individuals to receive pathogenic results, ensure timely and accessible follow-up care, and facilitate genetic counseling and cascade testing of at-risk relatives in the setting of population risk-based screening.

Additional findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: A qualitative study of recipient perspectives

PURPOSE

Participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project, a clinical/research initiative delivered through the UK National Health Service, were offered screening for "additional findings" (AFs): pathogenic/likely pathogenic secondary findings in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia or a cancer predisposition syndrome. Understanding the psychological and behavioral responses to secondary findings can inform the clinical utility of a search and disclose policy.

METHODS

Thirty-two adult AF recipients took part in semi-structured interviews analyzed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes were constructed: cognitive responses to an AF, emotional and psychological responses, personal control, perceived risk of AF-associated disease, and family implications. Many participants had misunderstood or incompletely remembered consent for AFs, and most were surprised or shocked to receive an AF. Although many ultimately appreciated knowing about the risk conferred, some struggled to make sense of their disease risk, which complicated decision making about risk management, particularly for women with a BRCA AF. Recipients sought control through seeking clinical evaluation and information, and informing relatives. Difficulties with conceptualizing risk and lack of AF-associated disease family history meant that some hesitated to inform relatives.

CONCLUSION

Genome sequencing programs offering secondary findings require attention to consent processes. Post-disclosure care should aim to promote recipients' perceived personal control.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

Most people share genetic test results with relatives even if the findings are normal: Family communication in a diverse population

PURPOSE

With increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations.

METHODS

Using mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings.

RESULTS

Most participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication.

Interventions to support patients with sharing genetic test results with at-risk relatives: a synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM)

Whilst the finding of heritable susceptibility to disease was once relatively rare, mainstreaming of genetic testing has resulted in a steady increase. Patients are often encouraged to share their genetic test results with relevant relatives, but relatives may not receive this information, leaving them without knowledge of their own risk. Therefore, strategies to help communicate such information are important. This review aimed to explore the efficacy of existing interventions to improve the sharing of genetic test results. A synthesis without meta-analysis design was used. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and AMED was conducted, and five studies were identified worldwide. Data were extracted for each study regarding study aim, participant characteristics, condition, intervention details, comparison, study duration, outcome measures, theory and behaviour change techniques used. Limited efficacy and application of theory was found. Knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy were not increased in any intervention. No gender differences in communication behaviour were encountered in interventions that recruited men and women. Two studies reported an evaluation of acceptability, which showed that the interventions were well received by patients and health professionals. No study reported the involvement of the target population in any phase of intervention development. Given the lack of health psychology-informed interventions in this area of clinical genetics, we recommend genetic health professionals, health psychologists and patients collaborate on all stages of future interventions that involve the cascading of genetic health information within families. We also provide guidance regarding use of theory and intervention elements for future intervention development.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

What patients want to know about genetic testing for kidney disease

Previously, genetic kidney disease was often recognised when family members shared clinical features. Now, many genetic kidney diseases are diagnosed when testing demonstrates a pathogenic variant in a gene associated with the disease. Detection of a genetic variant also identifies the mode of inheritance, and suggests family members at risk. The genetic diagnosis has additional advantages for patients and their doctors even when no specific treatment is available since it often indicates likely complications in other organs, the clinical course, and management strategies. Generally, informed consent is required for genetic testing because the result provides "certainty" with implications for the patient, and their family, and possibly for employment, and for life and medical insurance, as well as having social, ethical, and financial consequences. Patients want to be provided with a copy of their genetic test result in a format that is comprehensible and to have the result explained. Their at-risk family members should be sought out and offered genetic testing too. Patients who allow the sharing of their anonymised results in registries help advance everyone's understanding of these diseases and expedite a diagnosis in other families. Patient Support Groups not only help normalise the disease but also educate patients, and update them on recent advances and new treatments. Some registries encourage patients to themselves submit their genetic variants, clinical features and response to treatment. More and more often, patients may volunteer for clinical trials of novel therapies including some that depend on a genetic diagnosis or variant type.

Engaging Adolescents and Young Adults in Decisions About Return of Genomic Research Results: a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol

Background

To protect minors' future autonomy, professional organizations have historically discouraged returning predictive adult-onset genetic test results and carrier status to children. Recent clinical guidance diverges from this norm, suggesting that when minors have genomic sequencing performed for clinical purposes, parents and children should have the opportunity to learn secondary findings, including for some adult-onset conditions. While parents can currently opt in or out of receiving their child's secondary findings, the American Society of Human Genetics Workgroup on Pediatric Genetic and Genomic Testing suggests including adolescents in the decision-making process. However, it is not clear what factors young people consider when given the opportunity to learn genetic findings for themselves. We are examining adolescents', young adults', and parents' (if applicable) decisions about learning genomic information for the adolescent.

Methods

We are enrolling assenting (ages 13-17) adolescents and consenting (ages 18-21) young adults in a prospective genomic screening study to assess the choices they make about receiving individual genomic results. Participants use an online tool to indicate whether they want to learn their personal genetic risk for specific preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions, as well as carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. We are examining 1) how choices differ between adolescent and young adult cohorts (as well as between adolescents/young adults and parents) and 2) decisional conflict and stability across study timepoints. Results are returned based on participants' choices. Qualitative interviews with a subset of participants explore decisional stability, adolescent/young adult engagement with parents in decision-making, and the impact of learning pathogenic/likely pathogenic and carrier results.

Discussion

This study explores decision making and decision stability between adolescents and parents (where applicable), as well as the ethical implications and impact of return of clinical-grade genetic research results to adolescents and young adults. The results of this study will contribute empirical evidence to support best practices and guidance on engaging young people in genetic research studies and clinical care that offer return of results.

A pragmatic clinical trial of cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE

We compared new cases detected per index case in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) families with or without an identifiable monogenic etiology.

METHODS

We enrolled 52 FH probands with a pathogenic variant (FHg+) in LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9 and 73 probands without such a variant (FHg-). After direct contact by the study team, family members (FMs) of FHg+ probands could opt-in for genetic testing and FMs of FHg- probands were asked to provide a lipid profile. New cases were defined as presence of a pathogenic variant in FHg+ families and as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥155 mg/dL in FHg- families.

RESULTS

Of 71 FHg+ probands seen by a genetic counselor, 52 consented and identified 253 FMs (111 consented and were tested, yielding 48 new cases). Of 101 FHg- probands who received counseling, 73 consented and identified 295 FMs (63 consented and were tested, yielding 17 new cases). New case detection per index case was significantly greater in FHg+ than in FHg- families (0.92 vs 0.23), a result of higher cascade testing uptake (43.9 vs 21.4%) and yield (43.2 vs 27.0%) in the former.

CONCLUSION

New case detection rate was significantly higher in FH families with a monogenic etiology than in those without such an etiology owing to greater uptake and yield of cascade testing.

Understanding the Patient Experience of Receiving Clinically Actionable Genetic Results from the MyCode Community Health Initiative, a Population-Based Genomic Screening Initiative

Understanding unselected individuals’ experiences receiving genetic results through population genomic screening is critical to advancing clinical utility and improving population health. We conducted qualitative interviews with individuals who received clinically actionable genetic results via the MyCode© Genomic Screening and Counseling program. We purposively sampled cohorts to seek diversity in result-related disease risk (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular) and in personal or family history of related diseases. Transcripts were analyzed using a two-step inductive coding process of broad thematic analysis followed by in-depth coding of each theme. Four thematic domains identified across all cohorts were examined: process assessment, psychosocial response, behavioral change due to the genetic result, and family communication. Coding of 63 interviews among 60 participants revealed that participants were satisfied with the results disclosure process, initially experienced a range of positive, neutral, and negative psychological reactions to results, adjusted positively to results over time, undertook clinically indicated actions in response to results, and communicated results with relatives to whom they felt emotionally close. Our findings of generally favorable responses to receiving clinically actionable genetic results via a genomic screening program may assuage fear of patient distress in such programs and guide additional biobanks, genomic screening programs, and research studies.

The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives

Although multiple factors can influence the uptake of cascade genetic testing, the impact of proband indication has not been studied. We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study comparing cascade genetic testing rates among relatives of probands who received either diagnostic germline testing or non-indication-based proactive screening via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) and/or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The proportion of probands with a medically actionable (positive) finding were calculated based on genes associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 conditions, HCS genes, and FH genes. Among probands with a positive finding, cascade testing rates and influencing factors were assessed. A total of 270,715 probands were eligible for inclusion in the study (diagnostic n = 254,281,93.9%; proactive n = 16,434, 6.1%). A positive result in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition was identified in 10,520 diagnostic probands (4.1%) and 337 proactive probands (2.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 3,305 diagnostic probands (31.4%) and 36 proactive probands (10.7%) (p < 0.0001). A positive result in an HCS gene was returned to 23,272 diagnostic probands (9.4%) and 970 proactive probands (6.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 6,611 diagnostic probands (28.4%) and 89 proactive probands (9.2%) (p < 0.0001). Cascade testing due to a positive result in an HCS gene was more commonly pursued when the diagnostic proband was White, had a finding in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition, or had a personal history of cancer, or when the proactive proband was female. A positive result in an FH gene was returned to 1,647 diagnostic probands (25.3%) and 67 proactive probands (0.62%), leading to cascade testing among families of 360 diagnostic probands (21.9%) and 4 proactive probands (6.0%) (p < 0.01). Consistently higher rates of cascade testing among families of diagnostic probands may be due to a perceived urgency because of personal or family history of disease. Due to the proven clinical benefit of cascade testing, further research on obstacles to systematic implementation and uptake of testing for relatives of any proband with a medically actionable variant is warranted.