A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing

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.

Genetic Testing of Movements Disorders: A Review of Clinical Utility

Currently, pathogenic variants in more than 500 different genes are known to cause various movement disorders. The increasing accessibility and reducing cost of genetic testing has resulted in increasing clinical use of genetic testing for the diagnosis of movement disorders. However, the optimal use case(s) for genetic testing at a patient level remain ill-defined. Here, we review the utility of genetic testing in patients with movement disorders and also highlight current challenges and limitations that need to be considered when making decisions about genetic testing in clinical practice.

Highlights

The utility of genetic testing extends across multiple clinical and non-clinical domains. Here we review different aspects of the utility of genetic testing for movement disorders and the numerous associated challenges and limitations. These factors should be weighed on a case-by-case basis when requesting genetic tests in clinical practice.