Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network

Investigation of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing and expanded carrier screening among women of reproductive age

Objective

To examine cognitive, relational, and social predictors of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing (CPT) and expanded carrier screening (ECS) offered in routine gynecologic care for women of reproductive age.

Methods

Women between 20 and 35 years old who were currently pregnant or had a prior pregnancy (N = 351) completed an online survey. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify significant predictors of women's interest in and timing preference for CPT and ECS.

Results

Most respondents reported high interest in CPT and ECS and preferred to have them when planning for a pregnancy. Perceived importance of genetic information and negative attitude towards uncertainty predicted interest in CPT and ECS in multivariable models. Genetic knowledge predicted preference for CPT or ECS when planning for a pregnancy.

Conclusion

Educational and decision support tools should be developed to enhance women's knowledge and awareness of CPT and ECS and to provide them with strategies to manage uncertainty.

Innovation

We examined women's timing preference for CPT and ECS and the impact of partner support and trust with gynecologist. A context-specific attitudes toward uncertainty scale was used to investigate women's particular perceptions of uncertainty in genetic testing.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

When is the best time to screen and evaluate for treatable genetic disorders?: A lifespan perspective

This paper focuses on the question of, "When is the best time to identify an individual at risk for a treatable genetic condition?" In this review, we describe a framework for considering the optimal timing for pursuing genetic and genomic screening for treatable genetic conditions incorporating a lifespan approach. Utilizing the concept of a carousel that represents the four broad time periods when critical decisions might be made around genetic diagnoses during a person's lifetime, we describe genetic testing during the prenatal period, the newborn period, childhood, and adulthood. For each of these periods, we describe the objectives of genetic testing, the current status of screening or testing, the near-term vision for the future of genomic testing, the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and the feasibility and ethical considerations of testing and treating. The notion of a "Genomics Passbook" is one where an early genomic screening evaluation could be performed on each individual through a public health program, with that data ultimately serving as a "living document" that could be queried and/or reanalyzed at prescribed times during the lifetime of that person, or in response to concerns about symptoms of a genetic disorder in that individual.

Harnessing the potential of machine learning and artificial intelligence for dementia research

Progress in dementia research has been limited, with substantial gaps in our knowledge of targets for prevention, mechanisms for disease progression, and disease-modifying treatments. The growing availability of multimodal data sets opens possibilities for the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to help answer key questions in the field. We provide an overview of the state of the science, highlighting current challenges and opportunities for utilisation of AI approaches to move the field forward in the areas of genetics, experimental medicine, drug discovery and trials optimisation, imaging, and prevention. Machine learning methods can enhance results of genetic studies, help determine biological effects and facilitate the identification of drug targets based on genetic and transcriptomic information. The use of unsupervised learning for understanding disease mechanisms for drug discovery is promising, while analysis of multimodal data sets to characterise and quantify disease severity and subtype are also beginning to contribute to optimisation of clinical trial recruitment. Data-driven experimental medicine is needed to analyse data across modalities and develop novel algorithms to translate insights from animal models to human disease biology. AI methods in neuroimaging outperform traditional approaches for diagnostic classification, and although challenges around validation and translation remain, there is optimism for their meaningful integration to clinical practice in the near future. AI-based models can also clarify our understanding of the causality and commonality of dementia risk factors, informing and improving risk prediction models along with the development of preventative interventions. The complexity and heterogeneity of dementia requires an alternative approach beyond traditional design and analytical approaches. Although not yet widely used in dementia research, machine learning and AI have the potential to unlock current challenges and advance precision dementia medicine.

An spanish study of secondary findings in families affected with mendelian disorders: choices, prevalence and family history

Clinical exome sequencing has the potential to identify pathogenic variants unrelated to the purpose of the study (secondary findings, SFs). Data describing actual choices of SFs in participants in a clinical setting and factors influencing their decision are virtually non-existant in Europe. In this work, we report the acceptance rate of SFs, calculate their prevalence and study factors associated with the decision in a cohort of patients affected with a rare genetic disorder in a Spanish Hospital. Finally, we re-examine the presence of previously non reported family history in positive cases. We retrospectively reviewed informed consent choices and SF results from 824 unrelated probands affected with rare genetic disorders who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. Ninety percent of families (740/824) affected with rare disorders wished to be informed of SFs. Declining SFs was associated with a prenatal setting (30% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025), consanguinity (19% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.013), male gender (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.00865) and the proband being a minor (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.014). Overall, 27 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 27 individuals, with an SF prevalence of 3.6%. Disclosure of SFs increased the percentage of positive family histories and resulted in early diagnosis or changes in the management of 10 individuals from five families. We show that the acceptance of SFs in Spain is high and the disclosure of SFs leads to a clinically meaningful change in the medical management of individuals.

Returning individual genomic results to population-based cohort study participants with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in human genome research have provided evidence for genotype-phenotype associations, pathogenicity, and clinical actionability of variants and genomic risk prediction of disease. However, the return of individual genomic results to healthy individuals is fraught with ethical and practical complexity.

METHODS

Individual genomic results were returned to BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers of the Tohoku Medical Megabank cohort study participants with an information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). One hundred and eighty participants, including 9 BRCA1/2 PV carriers, were asked about their willingness to receive individual genomic results, without revealing the gene name and related disorders, prior to the study. Of the 142 participants who responded, 103 showed willingness to know their genomic information. Each of the six BRCA1/2 PV carriers who consented to participate in the study received information about HBOC in person and underwent validation testing with blood resampling.

RESULTS

All participants were in their 60s or 70s; of the four females and two males, two had a history of breast cancer and five had a family history of HBOC-related cancers. All participants appreciated the information, without remarkable negative psychological impact of the return, and intended to undergo clinical risk surveillance. Five participants were accompanied by family members while receiving the results, and three first-degree female relatives wished to undergo genomic testing at the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that returning actionable genomic information to participants in a population-based genome cohort study is beneficial for preventing or providing early-stage intervention for associated diseases.

Outcomes of Returning Medically Actionable Genomic Results in Pediatric Research

Purpose: The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III study was undertaken to assess clinical utility of returning medically actionable genomic screening results. We assessed pediatric clinical outcomes following return of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in autosomal dominant conditions with available effective interventions. Methods: The two eMERGE III pediatric sites collected outcome data and assessed changes in medical management at 6 and 12 months. Results: We returned P/LP results to 29 participants with outcome data. For 23 of the 29 participants, the P/LP results were previously unknown. Five of the 23 participants were already followed for conditions related to the P/LP variant. Of those receiving novel results and not being followed for the condition related to the P/LP result (n = 18), 14 (77.8%) had a change in healthcare after return of results (RoR). Following RoR, cascade testing of family members occurred for 10 of 23 (43.5%). Conclusions: The most common outcomes post-RoR included imaging/laboratory testing and health behavior recommendations. A change in healthcare was documented in 77.8% of those receiving results by 6 months. Our findings demonstrate how return of genomic screening results impacts healthcare in pediatric populations.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network

PURPOSE

As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician.

METHODS

To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs.

RESULTS

In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record.

CONCLUSION

Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network

PURPOSE

The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants.

METHODS

RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052).

CONCLUSION

The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

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

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

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.

A Framework for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Genetics and Genomics Research

IMPORTANCE

Research into the genetic and genomic ("genomics") foundations of disease is central to our understanding of disease prevention, early detection, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic intervention. Inequitable participation in genomics research by historically excluded populations limits the ability to translate genomic knowledge to achieve health equity and ensure that findings are generalizable to diverse populations.

OBSERVATIONS

We propose a novel framework for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in genomics research. Building on principles of community-based participatory research and collective impact frameworks, the framework can guide our understanding of the social, cultural, health system, policy, community, and individual contexts in which engagement and genomics research are being done. Our framework highlights the involvement of a multistakeholder team, including the participants and communities to be engaged, to ensure robust methods for recruitment, retention, return of genomic results, quality of engagement, follow-up, and monitoring of participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The proposed engagement framework will guide investigators in optimizing equitable representation in research and enhancing the rigor of genomics investigation.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves

PURPOSE

Proposals to return medically actionable secondary genetic findings (SFs) in the clinical and research settings have generated controversy regarding whether to solicit individuals' preferences about their "right not to know" genetic information. This study contributes to the debate by surveying research participants who have actively decided whether to accept or refuse SFs.

METHODS

Participants were drawn from a large National Institutes of Health (NIH) environmental health study. Participants who had accepted SFs (n = 148) or refused SFs (n = 83) were given more detailed information about the types of SFs researchers could return and were given an opportunity to revise their original decision.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 83 initial refusers (49.4%) opted to receive SFs following the informational intervention. Nearly 75% of these "reversible refusers" thought they had originally accepted SFs. The 50.6% of initial refusers who continued to refuse ("persistent refusers") demonstrated high levels of understanding of which SFs would be returned postintervention. The most prominent reason for refusing was concern about becoming worried or sad (43.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the need for a more robust informed consent process when soliciting research participants' preferences about receiving SFs. We also suggest that our data support implementing a default practice of returning SFs without actively soliciting preferences.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Clinicians' attitudes towards parental choice in the era of advanced genomic tests in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

Israel is one of the first countries to incorporate chromosomal microarray analysis into routine prenatal care. We explored attitudes of Israeli healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the disclosure of challenging findings: variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS), susceptibility loci (SL) for neurodevelopmental disorders and variants associated with adult-onset (AO) conditions. Particularly, we sought their views on providing parental choice regarding the disclosure of these findings.

METHODS

Twenty-nine in-depth interviews were conducted with genetic counselors (n = 19), medical geneticists (n = 4), medical geneticists that are trained in and practice fetal medicine (n = 3), and fetal medicine experts (n = 3).

RESULTS

Most participants (n = 24) supported parental choice regarding uncertain genetic information. Engaging parents in disclosure decisions allows avoidance from potentially anxiety-provoking information, practicing parental autonomy, and better preparation in cases where uncertain findings are identified. HCPs believed that given appropriate preparation, parents can make informed decisions. Four participants believed that disclosure should be based on professional judgment and one supported full-disclosure. Unlike VUS or SL, all interviewees agreed that in cases of medically actionable AO conditions, the benefit of disclosure outweighs the damage.

CONCLUSION

HCPs attitudes are largely in-line with the Israeli practice of involving parents in disclosure decisions regarding uncertain information. This may mitigate disclosure dilemmas and allow personalized disclosure based on parents' views.

Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018.

RESULTS

397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants.

CONCLUSION

Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.

Ethical Considerations about Genomic Medicine Implementation: Lessons Learned from the eMERGE III Study

The development of high-throughput techniques has permitted the accumulation of enormous amounts of genomic information. As increasing numbers of studies aim to utilize individual genomic information for diagnostic, preventive, or therapeutic purposes, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have a greater opportunity to review such types of study protocols. An article published in the Journal of Personalized Medicine titled, “Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience” identified the common concerns of IRBs in the process of reviewing such studies, and some concerns included the readability of informed consent materials, potential risks to participants, information sharing with family members, options for withdrawal or receiving limited results, and provisions to clear participant questions. Since there is an increase in the number of genomic medicine implementation studies worldwide, the insights provided by this study would assist future researchers in protocol preparation as well as aid project review by IRB members.

Adapting Clinical Systems to Enable Adolescents' Genomic Choices

BACKGROUND

We offered adolescents personalized choices about the type of genetic results they wanted to learn during a research study and created a workflow to filter and transfer the results to the electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

We describe adaptations needed to ensure that adolescents' results documented in the EHR and returned to adolescent/parent dyads matched their choices. A web application enabled manual modification of the underlying laboratory report data based on adolescents' choices. The final PDF format of the laboratory reports was not viewable through the EHR patient portal, so an EHR form was created to support the manual entry of discrete results that could be viewed in the portal.

RESULTS

Enabling adolescents' choices about genetic results was a labor-intensive process. More than 350 hours was required for development of the application and EHR form, as well as over 50 hours of a study professional's time to enter choices into the application and EHR. Adolescents and their parents who learned genetic results through the patient portal indicated that they were satisfied with the method of return and would make their choices again if given the option.

CONCLUSION

Although future EHR upgrades are expected to enable patient portal access to PDFs, additional improvements are needed to allow the results to be partitioned and filtered based on patient preferences. Furthermore, separating these results into more discrete components will allow them to be stored separately in the EHR, supporting the use of these data in clinical decision support or artificial intelligence applications.