Assessing patient readiness for personalized genomic medicine

Publics' knowledge of, attitude to and motivation towards health-related genomics: a scoping review

The use of genomic data in research and genomic information in clinical care is increasing as technologies advance and sequencing costs decrease. Using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory as a framework we reviewed recent literature examining publics' current knowledge of, attitude to, and motivation towards health-related genomics in clinical and research settings. The population of interest was described as 'publics' to denote the heterogeneity of 'the public'. Eligible studies were published in English between 2016-2022. We retrieved 1657 records, with 278 full-text reviewed against the eligibility criteria and concept definitions. In total, 99 articles were included in the review and descriptive numerical summaries were collated. Knowledge literature was categorized using deductive thematic analysis. For attitude and motivation, literature was coded using an analytic framework developed by the authors. There was wide variability in concept definition and measurement across studies. Overall, there was general positivity about genomics, with high awareness but little familiarity or factual knowledge. Publics had high expectations of genomics and perceived that it could provide them with information for their future. Only a few key attitudes were found to be important as motivators or barriers for participation in genomics; these were related to personal and clinical utility of the information. Context was often missing from studies, decreasing the utility of findings for implementation or public engagement. Future research would benefit by using theory-driven approaches to assess relevant publics' knowledge and attitudes of specific contexts or applications to support genomic implementation and informed decision-making.

Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers

Advances in genomic technology have generated possibilities for expanding newborn screening from traditional procedures to genomic newborn screening (gNBS). However, before the implementation of gNBS, it is crucial to address various aspects, including parental attitudes, at the national level. With this aim, we analyzed the attitudes and expectations of Slovenian peripartum mothers regarding gNBS and the acceptability of its implementation into the Slovenian health system. A questionnaire-based study was conducted on a convenience sample of 1136 peripartum mothers (a response rate of 84.1%) in a hospital setting in Slovenia. We measured participants' level of general genetic knowledge, motivation to undergo gNBS, attitude toward its benefits and drawbacks, willingness to participate financially, and factors that would influence their decision to undergo gNBS. Most participants exhibited a positive attitude (83.2%) and were motivated to undertake gNBS (63.4%). They were willing to share genetic data and also contribute to the testing costs. Mothers with better genetic literacy and higher education level, and those with the familial genetic testing experiences were more supportive of gNBS. However, several emotional and socio-ethical concerns were raised regarding how the genetic information would influence family and social life.

Personal Genomes in Practice: Exploring Citizen and Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Personalized Genomic Medicine and Personal Health Data Spaces Using a Mixed-Methods Design

Ongoing health challenges, such as the increased global burden of chronic disease, are increasingly answered by calls for personalized approaches to healthcare. Genomic medicine, a vital component of these personalization strategies, is applied in risk assessment, prevention, prognostication, and therapeutic targeting. However, several practical, ethical, and technological challenges remain. Across Europe, Personal Health Data Space (PHDS) projects are under development aiming to establish patient-centered, interoperable data ecosystems balancing data access, control, and use for individual citizens to complement the research and commercial focus of the European Health Data Space provisions. The current study explores healthcare users’ and health care professionals’ perspectives on personalized genomic medicine and PHDS solutions, in casu the Personal Genetic Locker (PGL). A mixed-methods design was used, including surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Several meta-themes were generated from the data: (i) participants were interested in genomic information; (ii) participants valued data control, robust infrastructure, and sharing data with non-commercial stakeholders; (iii) autonomy was a central concern for all participants; (iv) institutional and interpersonal trust were highly significant for genomic medicine; and (v) participants encouraged the implementation of PHDSs since PHDSs were thought to promote the use of genomic data and enhance patients’ control over their data. To conclude, we formulated several facilitators to implement genomic medicine in healthcare based on the perspectives of a diverse set of stakeholders.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type.

METHODS

An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).

Women's thoughts on receiving and sharing genetic information: Considerations for genetic counseling

Indications for genetic testing for inherited cancer syndromes are expanding both in the academic and the community setting. However, only a fraction of individuals who are candidates for testing pursue this option. Therefore, it is important to understand those factors that impact the uptake of genetic testing in individuals affected and unaffected with cancer. A successful translation of genomic risk stratification into clinical care will require that providers of this information are aware of the attitudes, perceived risks and benefits, and concerns of individuals who will be considering testing. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, attitudes and preferences for genetic risk information, by personal characteristics of women affected and unaffected by breast cancer enrolled in the Breast Cancer Family Registry Cohort. Data for this analysis came from eight survey questions, which asked participants (N = 9,048, 100% female) about their opinions regarding genetic information. Women reported that conveying the accuracy of the test was important and were interested in information related to personal level of risk, finding out about diseases that could be treated, and information that could be helpful to their families. Young women were most interested in how their own health needs might be impacted by genetic test results, while older women were more interested in how genetic information would benefit other members of the family. Interest in how the genetic test was performed was highest among Asian and Hispanic women. Women affected with breast cancer were more likely to report feeling sad about possibly passing down a breast cancer gene, while unaffected women were more uncertain about their future risk of cancer. The variety of informational needs identified has implications for how genetic counselors can tailor communication to individuals considering genetic testing.

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours.

Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education.

Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling.

Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Half of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants found on panel tests do not fulfil NHS testing criteria

Genetic testing for cancer predisposition has been curtailed by the cost of sequencing, and testing has been restricted by eligibility criteria. As the cost of sequencing decreases, the question of expanding multi-gene cancer panels to a broader population arises. We evaluated how many additional actionable genetic variants are returned by unrestricted panel testing in the private sector compared to those which would be returned by adhering to current NHS eligibility criteria. We reviewed 152 patients referred for multi-gene cancer panels in the private sector between 2014 and 2016. Genetic counselling and disclosure of all results was standard of care provided by the Consultant. Every panel conducted was compared to current eligibility criteria. A germline pathogenic / likely pathogenic variant (P/LP), in a gene relevant to the personal or family history of cancer, was detected in 15 patients (detection rate of 10%). 46.7% of those found to have the P/LP variants (7 of 15), or 4.6% of the entire set (7 of 152), did not fulfil NHS eligibility criteria. 46.7% of P/LP variants in this study would have been missed by national testing guidelines, all of which were actionable. However, patients who do not fulfil eligibility criteria have a higher Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) burden. We demonstrated that the current England NHS threshold for genetic testing is missing pathogenic variants which would alter management in 4.6%, nearly 1 in 20 individuals. However, the clinical service burden that would ensue is a detection of VUS of 34%.

Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine development is driven by the possibilities of next generation sequencing, information technology and artificial intelligence and thus, raises a number of ethical questions. Empirical studies have investigated such issues from the perspectives of health care professionals, researchers and patients. We synthesize the results from these studies in this review.

METHODS

We used a systematic strategy to search, screen and assess the literature for eligibility related to our research question. The initial search for empirical studies in five data bases provided 665 different records and we selected 92 of these publications for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and categorized into different topics representing the views on ethical issues in precision medicine.

RESULTS

Many patients and professionals expect high benefits from precision medicine and have a positive attitude towards it. However, patients and professionals also perceive some risks. Commonly perceived risks include: lack of evidence for accuracy of tests and efficacy of treatments; limited knowledge of patients, which makes informed consent more difficult; possible unavailability of access to precision medicine for underprivileged people and ethnic minorities; misuse of data by insurance companies and employers, potential of racial stigmatization due to genetic information; unwanted communication of incidental findings; changes in doctor-patient-relationship through focusing on data; and the problem that patients could feel under pressure to optimize their health.

CONCLUSIONS

National legislation and guidelines already minimize many risks associated with precision medicine. However, from our perspective some problems require more attention. Should hopes for precision medicine's benefits be fulfilled, then the ethical principle of justice would require an unlimited access to precision medicine for all people. The potential for autonomous patients' decisions must be greatly enhanced by improvements in patient education. Harm from test results must be avoided in any case by the highest possible data security level and communication guidelines. Changes in the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of precision medicine on the quality of life should be further investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine should be further examined, in order to avoid malinvestment.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Genetic Testing for Familial Melanoma I: Primary and Secondary Preventative Behaviours

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of panel testing for known high-penetrance familial melanoma genes has made it possible to improve risk awareness in those at greatest risk. Prior to wider implementation, the role of genetic testing in preventing melanoma, through influencing primary and secondary preventative behaviours, requires clarification.

METHODS

Database searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies describing preventative behaviour outcomes in response to genetic testing for melanoma risk. Publications describing original research of any study type were screened for eligibility.

RESULTS

Eighteen publications describing 11 unique studies were reviewed. Outcomes assessed are based on health behaviour recommendations for those at increased risk: adherence to sun-protective behaviour (SPB); clinical skin examinations (CSE); skin self-examinations (SSE); and family discussion of risk. Overall, modest increases in adherence to primary prevention strategies of SPB were observed following genetic testing. Importantly, there were no net decreases in SPB found amongst non-carriers. For secondary preventative behaviour outcomes, including CSE and SSE, increases in post-test intentions and long-term adherence were reported across several subgroups in approximately half of the studies. While this increase reached significance in mutation carriers in some studies, one study reported a significant decline in annual CSE adherence of non-mutation carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence reviewed suggests that genetic testing has a modestly positive impact on preventative behaviour in high-risk individuals. Furthermore, improvements are observed regardless of mutation carrier status, although greater adherence is found in carriers. While additional studies of more diverse cohorts would be needed to inform clinical recommendations, the findings are encouraging and suggest that genetic testing for melanoma has a positive impact on preventative behaviours.

Lack of familiarity with genetic testing among patients in Ireland with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer gene panel testing is available in Ireland. The need for a clear strategy to deal with patient information generated from tumour genomic testing is recognised as a challenge in the National Cancer Strategy. However, the public's attitude and opinions regarding these results is not known in Ireland.

AIMS

This prospective questionnaire study assessed the knowledge and opinions of patients in a national oncology centre, surrounding cancer gene panel testing.

METHODS

An anonymised modified validated questionnaire was completed by volunteering patients in the medical oncology department. It comprised 14 questions which assessed patient's familiarity, intention, benefits and concerns associated with tumour genetic testing using a four-point Likert scale. Patients recorded their primary cancer diagnosis and family cancer history.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients completed the questionnaire with 77 (92%) patients declaring their primary cancer diagnosis. The median age was 56 (range 26 to 83) years. Overall, 42% (n = 35) of oncology patients were familiar/somewhat familiar with testing and 90% (n = 76) stated they would avail of genetic testing if available. Patients with breast cancer were no more likely to avail of genetic testing when compared with the non-breast cancer cohort (n = 21 vs. 56, p = 0.58) though they identified concerns with potential discrimination.

CONCLUSION

This is the first prospective Irish study to assess opinions surrounding cancer gene results. Addressing patient's lack of information as regards genetic testing is the first step in establishing a national cancer genetics testing programme in Ireland.