Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard

Genomic Screening at a Single Health System

Importance

Completion of the Human Genome Project prompted predictions that genomics would transform medicine, including through genomic screening that identifies potentially medically actionable findings that could prevent disease, detect it earlier, or treat it better. However, genomic screening remains anchored in research and largely unavailable as part of routine care.

Objective

To summarize 11 years of experience with genomic screening and explore the landscape of genomic screening efforts.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was based in Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative, a genomic screening program in a rural Pennsylvania health care system in which patient-participants exomes are analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Genomic screen-positive rates were evaluated and stratified by condition type (cancer, cardiovascular, other) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 designation. The proportion of participants previously unaware of their genomic result was assessed. Other large-scale population-based genomic screening efforts with genomic results disclosure were compiled from public resources.

Results

A total of 354 957 patients participated in Geisinger's genomic screening program (median [IQR] age, 54 [36-69] years; 194 037 [59.7%] assigned female sex at birth). As of June 2024, 175 500 participants had exome sequencing available for analysis, and 5934 participants (3.4%) had a pathogenic variant in 81 genes known to increase risk for disease. Between 2013 and July 2024, 5119 results were disclosed to 5052 eligible participants, with 2267 (44.2%) associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, 2031 (39.7%) with risk for cancer, and 821 (16.0%) with risk for other conditions. Most results (3040 [59.4%]) were in genes outside of those with a CDC Tier 1 designation. Nearly 90% of participants (4425 [87.6%]) were unaware of their genomic risk prior to disclosure. In a survey of large-scale biobanks with genomic and electronic health record (EHR) data, only 25.0% (6 of 24) disclosed potentially actionable genomic results.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large, genomics-informed cohort study from a single health system, 1 in 30 participants had a potentially actionable genomic finding. However, nearly 90% were unaware of their risk prior to screening, demonstrating the utility of genomic screening in identifying at-risk individuals. Most large-scale biobanks with genomic and EHR data did not return genomic results with potential medical relevance, missing opportunities to significantly improve genomic risk ascertainment for these individuals and to perform longitudinal studies of clinical and implementation outcomes in diverse settings.

Attitudes towards disclosure of familial genetic risk in a Mediterranean island population - A survey of the Maltese population

Germline genetic testing has implications that extend beyond the individual patient to relatives, particularly for high-penetrance variants implicated in hereditary cancer or neurodegenerative syndromes. Many countries encourage patient-led communication to inform at-risk relatives, although the efficacy and uptake of this approach varies. Alternative scenarios envisage direct contact mediated by clinicians. The familial disclosure of sensitive genetic information is also determined by complex socio-ethnic factors. To date, no study has explored whether relatives would want to be informed of familial genetic risk and their preferences on different methods of communication in Malta. We thus used a published instrument that utilizes hypothetical scenario methodology to survey the attitudes of the Maltese population (n = 334) to receiving genetic information from family members. Two vignettes on Huntington's disease and colorectal cancer were presented. We also explored preferences towards the communication of genetic risk, confidentiality, and disclosure policies. Our preliminary results show that most respondents want to be informed of their increased risk by a family member or a clinician and would opt to receive confirmatory genetic testing. Most respondents preferred being informed of genetic risk by a close relative, but in the case of non-disclosure would want to be informed by a clinician. Most respondents expressed preference in favour of the introduction of registries, legislative change and sharing of contact details to address cases of nondisclosure. Our findings contribute further to evidence that supports, in selected hypothetical scenarios, an envisioned change in disclosure of genetic data policy by the public that is different from current practice to date.

Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing

OBJECTIVES

Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors.

METHODS

We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty.

RESULTS

Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness.

CONCLUSION

Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Exploring counselees' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population

OBJECTIVES

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure.

METHODS

We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

The effect of genetic education on the referral of patients to genetic evaluation: Findings from a national survey of nephrologists

PURPOSE

The success of genomic medicine hinges on the implementation of genetic knowledge in clinical settings. In novel subspecialties, it requires that clinicians refer patients to genetic evaluation or testing, however referral is likely to be affected by genetic knowledge.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to self-identified nephrologists working in the United States. Nephrologists' demographic characteristics, genetic education, confidence in clinical genetics, genetic knowledge, and referral rates of patients to genetic evaluation were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 201 nephrologists completed the survey. All reported treating patients with genetic forms of kidney disease, and 37% had referred <5 patients to genetic evaluation. A third had limited basic genetic knowledge. Most nephrologists (85%) reported concerns regarding future health insurance eligibility as a barrier to referral to genetic testing. Most adult nephrologists reported insufficient genetic education during residency (65%) and fellowship training (52%). Lower rating of genetic education and lower knowledge in recognizing signs of genetic kidney diseases were significantly associated with lower number of patients referred to the genetic evaluation (P < .001). Most nephrologists reported that improving their genetic knowledge is important for them (>55%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to enhance nephrologists' genetic education to increase genetic testing use in nephrology.

How Clinicians Conceptualize "Actionability" in Genomic Screening

Over the last decade, the concept of actionability has become a primary framework for assessing whether genetic data is useful and appropriate to return to patients. Despite the popularity of this concept, there is little consensus about what should count as "actionable" information. This is particularly true in population genomic screening, where there is considerable disagreement about what counts as good evidence and which clinical actions are appropriate for which patients. The pathway from scientific evidence to clinical action is not straightforward-it is as much social and political as it is scientific. This research explores the social dynamics shaping the integration of "actionable" genomic data into primary care settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with 35 genetics experts and primary care providers, we find that clinicians vary in how they define and operationalize "actionable" information. There are two main sources of disagreement. First, clinicians differ on the levels and types of evidence required for a result to be actionable, such as when we can be confident that genomic data provides accurate information. Second, there are disagreements about the clinical actions that must be available so that patients can benefit from that information. By highlighting the underlying values and assumptions embedded in discussions of actionability for genomic screening, we provide an empirical basis for building more nuanced policies regarding the actionability of genomic data in terms of population screening in primary care settings.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis

Background

The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research.

Objective

This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research.

Methods

Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute–designated academic cancer center.

Results

There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol.

Conclusions

Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

The passivists: Managing risk through institutionalized ignorance in genomic medicine

As the era of big data transforms modern medicine, clinicians have access to more health data than ever. How do medical providers determine which data are relevant to patient care, which are irrelevant, and which may be inappropriately used to justify potentially harmful interventions? One of the most prominent medical fields to address these questions head on - clinical genomics - is actively debating how to assess the value of genomic data. In-depth interviews with clinicians and a content analysis of policy documents demonstrate that while many clinicians believe that collecting as much patient data as possible will lead to better patient care, a sizeable minority of clinicians preferred to collect less data. These clinicians worried that large genomic tests provided too much data, leading to confusion and inappropriate treatment. Clinical geneticists have also started developing the concept of "actionability" to assess which types of genomic data are worth collecting and interpreting. By classifying data as useful when it can or should lead to action, clinicians can formalize and institutionalize what types of data should be ignored. But achieving consensus about what counts as "actionable" has proven difficult and highlights the different values and risk philosophies of clinicians. At the same time, many clinicians are fighting against the ignorance arising from genomic databases predominantly filled with samples from European ancestry populations. Debates about how and when to institutionalize ignorance of health data are not unique to clinical genomics, but have spread throughout many fields of medicine. As the amount of health data available to clinicians and patients grows, social science research on the politics of knowledge and ignorance should inform debates about the value of data in medicine.

Lessons learned from unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing of 16,482 individuals

Unsolicited findings (UFs) are uncovered unintentionally and predispose to a disease unrelated to the clinical question. The frequency and nature of UFs uncovered in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. We here evaluated UFs identified during a 5-year period in which 16,482 index patients received clinical whole-exome sequencing (WES). UFs were identified in 0.58% (95/16,482) of index patients, indicating that the overall frequency of UFs in clinical WES is low. Fewer UFs were identified using restricted disease-gene panels (0.03%) than when using whole-exome/Mendeliome analysis (1.03%). The UF was disclosed to 86 of 95 individuals, for reasons of medical actionability. Only 61% of these UFs reside in a gene that is listed on the “ACMG59”-list, representing a list of 59 genes for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends UF disclosure. The remaining 39% were grouped into four categories: disorders similar to “ACMG59”-listed disorders (25%); disorders for which disease manifestation could be influenced (7%); UFs providing reproductive options (2%); and UFs with pharmacogenetic implications (5%). Hence, our experience shows that UFs predisposing to medically actionable disorders affect a broader range of genes than listed on the “ACMG59”, advocating that a pre-defined gene list is too restrictive, and that UFs may require ad hoc evaluation of medical actionability. While both the identification and disclosure of UFs depend on local policy, our lessons learned provide general essential insight into the nature and odds of UFs in clinical exome sequencing.

GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing

With the broader introduction of genomic medicine in research and clinical care, an increasing number of persons are offered genetic testing. Many factors, including genetic literacy, may impact the utilization of genetic results by patients and their families. We developed a rapid, self-administered measure of genetic literacy, called Genetic Literacy Fast Test (GeneLiFT). We next evaluated the association of GeneLiFT scores with the comprehension of limitations of genomic medicine in participants undergoing genetic testing in the NIH-sponsored eMERGE III study at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. All participants underwent genetic screening for variants in 74 actionable genes associated with adult-onset disorders. A diverse cohort of 724 participants completed the survey (60% women, 45% less than 40 years old, and 53% self-reported White non-Hispanic ancestry). The GeneLiFT was validated using known group differences based on education, health literacy, and numeracy, and with questions assessing genetic knowledge. GeneLiFT identified multiple standard genetics terms, that is, jargon, not recognized by more than 50% of participants (including actionability and pathogenicity). Low genetic literacy, identified in 210 participants (29%), was significantly associated with poor understanding of the limitations of genetic testing (p-values < 10-9 ). This association was independent of education, health literacy, and numeracy levels, highlighting the importance of directly measuring genetic literacy. Low genetic literacy was also associated with low satisfaction with the informed consent process. GeneLiFT is a practical tool for rapid assessment of genetic literacy in large studies or clinical care. GeneLiFT will allow future research to efficiently assess the role of genetic literacy on the clinical impact of genetic testing.

Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge

PURPOSE

Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines.

METHODS

A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge.

RESULTS

Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.

Impact of a 40-Gene Targeted Panel Test on Physician Decision Making for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PURPOSE

Physicians treating hematologic malignancies increasingly order targeted sequencing panels to interrogate recurrently mutated genes. The precise impact of these panels on clinical decision making is not well understood.

METHODS

Here, we report our institutional experience with a targeted 40-gene panel (MyeloSeq) that is used to generate a report for both genetic variants and variant allele frequencies for the treating physician (the limit of mutation detection is approximately one AML cell in 50).

RESULTS

In total, 346 sequencing reports were generated for 325 patients with suspected hematologic malignancies over an 8-month period (August 2018 to April 2019). To determine the influence of genomic data on clinical care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), we analyzed 122 consecutive reports from 109 patients diagnosed with AML and surveyed the treating physicians with a standardized questionnaire. The panel was ordered most commonly at diagnosis (61.5%), but was also used to assess response to therapy (22.9%) and to detect suspected relapse (15.6%). The panel was ordered at multiple timepoints during the disease course for 11% of patients. Physicians self-reported that 50 of 114 sequencing reports (44%) influenced clinical care decisions in 44 individual patients. Influences were often nuanced and extended beyond identifying actionable genetic variants with US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into how physicians are currently using multigene panels capable of detecting relatively rare AML cells. The most influential way to integrate these tools into clinical practice will be to perform prospective clinical trials that assess patient outcomes in response to genomically driven interventions.

What is the meaning of a 'genomic result' in the context of pregnancy?

Prenatal genetic testing and analysis in the past was usually only offered when a particular fetal phenotype was noted or suspected, meaning that filtering and interpretation of genetic variants identified could be anchored in attempts to explain an existing health concern. Advanced genomic testing is now increasingly used in "low-risk" pregnancies, producing information on genotype adrift of the phenotypic data that is necessary to give it meaning, thus increasing the difficulty in predicting whether and how particular genetic variants might affect future development and health. A challenge to healthcare scientists, clinicians, and parents therefore is deciding what qualities prenatal genotypic variation should have in order to be constructed as a 'result.' At the same time, such tests are often re requested in order to make binary decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy or not. As a range of professional organizations develop guidelines on the use of advanced genomic testing during pregnancy, we highlight the particular difficulties of discovering ambiguous findings such as variants with uncertain clinical significance, susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental problems and susceptibility to adult-onset diseases. We aim to foster international discussions about how decisions around disclosure are made and how uncertainty is communicated.

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

SUMMARY

We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.