Communication challenges for nongeneticist physicians relaying clinical genomic results

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

The NYCKidSeq randomized controlled trial: Impact of GUÍA digitally enhanced genetic results disclosure in diverse families

Digital solutions are needed to support rapid increases in the application of genetic/genomic tests (GTs) in diverse clinical settings and patient populations. We developed GUÍA, a bilingual digital application that facilitates disclosure of GT results. The NYCKidSeq randomized controlled trial enrolled diverse children with neurologic, cardiac, and immunologic conditions who underwent GTs. The trial evaluated GUÍA's impact on understanding the GT results by randomizing families to results disclosure genetic counseling with GUÍA (intervention) or standard of care (SOC). Parents/legal guardians (participants) completed surveys at baseline, post-results disclosure, and 6 months later. Survey measures assessed the primary study outcomes of participants' perceived understanding of and confidence in explaining their child's GT results and the secondary outcome of objective understanding. The analysis included 551 diverse participants, 270 in the GUÍA arm and 281 in SOC. Participants in the GUÍA arm had significantly higher perceived understanding post-results (OR = 2.8, CI[1.004, 7.617], p = 0.049) and maintained higher objective understanding over time (OR = 1.1, CI[1.004, 1.127], p = 0.038) compared to SOC. There was no impact on perceived confidence. Hispanic/Latino(a) individuals in the GUÍA arm maintained higher perceived understanding (OR = 3.9, CI[1.603, 9.254], p = 0.003), confidence (OR = 2.7, CI[1.021, 7.277], p = 0.046), and objective understanding (OR = 1.1, CI[1.009, 1.212], p = 0.032) compared to SOC. This trial demonstrates that GUÍA positively impacts understanding of GT results in diverse parents of children with suspected genetic conditions and builds a case for utilizing GUÍA to deliver complex results. Continued development and evaluation of digital applications in diverse populations are critical for equitably scaling GT offerings in specialty clinics.

The NYCKidSeq randomized controlled trial: Impact of GUÍA digitally enhanced genetic counseling in racially and ethnically diverse families

Background

Digital solutions are needed to support rapid increases in the application of genetic and genomic tests (GT) in diverse clinical settings and patient populations. We developed GUÍA, a bi-lingual web-based platform that facilitates disclosure of GT results. The NYCKidSeq randomized controlled trial evaluated GUÍA's impact on understanding of GT results.

Methods

NYCKidSeq enrolled diverse children with neurologic, cardiac, and immunologic conditions who underwent GT. Families were randomized to genetic counseling with GUÍA (intervention) or standard of care (SOC) genetic counseling for results disclosure. Parents/legal guardians (participants) completed surveys at baseline, post-results disclosure, and 6-months later. Survey measures assessed the primary study outcomes of perceived understanding of and confidence in explaining their child's GT results and the secondary outcome of objective understanding. We used regression models to evaluate the association between the intervention and the study outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 551 participants, 270 in the GUÍA arm and 281 in SOC. Participants' mean age was 41.1 years and 88.6% were mothers. Most participants were Hispanic/Latino(a) (46.3%), White/European American (24.5%), or Black/African American (15.8%). Participants in the GUÍA arm had significantly higher perceived understanding post-results (OR=2.8, CI[1.004,7.617], P=0.049) and maintained higher objective understanding over time (OR=1.1, CI[1.004, 1.127], P=0.038) compared to those in the SOC arm. There was no impact on perceived confidence. Hispanic/Latino(a) individuals in the GUÍA arm maintained higher perceived understanding (OR=3.9, CI[1.6, 9.3], P=0.003), confidence (OR=2.7, CI[1.021, 7.277], P=0.046), and objective understanding (OR=1.1, CI[1.009, 1.212], P=0.032) compared to SOC .

Conclusions

This trial demonstrates that GUÍA positively impacts understanding of GT results in diverse parents of children with suspected genetic conditions. These findings build a case for utilizing GUÍA to deliver complex and often ambiguous genetic results. Continued development and evaluation of digital applications in diverse populations are critical for equitably scaling GT offerings in specialty clinics.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03738098.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results

PURPOSE

People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale.

METHODS

We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis.

RESULTS

The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Patient experiences with clinical confirmatory genetic testing after using direct-to-consumer raw DNA and third-party genetic interpretation services

The availability of raw DNA and genetic interpretation tools allow individuals to access genetic health risk information, where analytical false-positives exist. Little is known about the experience of individuals who receive pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant(s) through raw DNA interpretation and follow-up with clinical confirmatory genetic testing. This qualitative study set out to describe the experiences of individuals who pursued clinical confirmatory genetic testing, including their perception of the process. Participants were recruited from social media and eligible if they discovered a potential pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a raw DNA interpretation report, completed clinical confirmatory genetic testing in the U.S., and provided documentation of those results. Individuals participated in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 12 participants, 3 received clinical genetic testing results that confirmed pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants noted in raw DNA interpretation reports (confirmation positive), and 9 were not confirmed. Nearly all (n = 11) participants described emotional distress and information-seeking behavior as a coping mechanism after discovering a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in raw DNA interpretation. When pursuing confirmatory genetic testing, many (n = 9) faced challenges with finding knowledgeable healthcare providers and obtaining insurance coverage. Despite reporting concerns over raw DNA interpretation and a desire for more safeguards, almost all (n = 10) participants stated interest in using the service again. Overall, participants' experiences reveal they find personal utility in raw DNA interpretation results and provide insight into opportunities for patient and provider education.

Development of Competency-based Online Genomic Medicine Training (COGENT)

The fields of genetics and genomics have greatly expanded across medicine through the development of new technologies that have revealed genetic contributions to a wide array of traits and diseases. Thus, the development of widely available educational resources for all healthcare providers is essential to ensure the timely and appropriate utilization of genetics and genomics patient care. In 2020, the National Human Genome Research Institute released a call for new proposals to develop accessible, sustainable online education for health providers. This paper describes the efforts of the six teams awarded to reach the goal of providing genetic and genomic training modules that are broadly available for busy clinicians.

A personalized genomic results e-booklet, co-designed and pilot-tested by families

Objective

To develop and evaluate a personalizable genomic results e-booklet that helps families understand their genomic testing results and navigate available resources.

Methods

The need for the Genomics Results e-Booklet was identified by families, after which this tool was developed by a team of clinical researchers and three parent-advisors. We customized the genomic results e-booklet for 50 families participating in a genomic sequencing research study. We conducted an assessment using a 19-question survey and semi-structured interviews to elicit feedback and iteratively improve the tool.

Results

25 users provided feedback via questionnaires and seven respondents were interviewed. Genomic Results e-Booklet recipients responded favorably: 96% of participants stated that it helped them remember information shared during their results appointment, 80% said it had or would help them communicate their results with other healthcare providers, 68% felt that it helped to identify and guide their next steps, and 72% anticipated that the e-booklet would have future utility.

Conclusion

The Genomic Results e-Booklet is a patient and family-oriented resource that complements post-test genetic counselling.

Innovation

Compared to traditional laboratory reports and clinical letters, the Genomics Results e-Booklet is patient-conceived and patient-centered, and allows clinicians to efficiently personalize content and prioritize patient understanding and support.

The Voices of Stakeholders Involved in Precision Medicine: The Co-Design and Evaluation of Qualitative Indicators of Intervention Acceptability, Fidelity and Context in PRecISion Medicine for Children With Cancer in Australia

We report a novel approach of amalgamating implementation outcomes of acceptability and fidelity alongside context as a new way of qualitatively evaluating implementation outcomes and context of a precision medicine intervention. A rapid qualitative online proforma was co-designed with stakeholders and sent to a purposive sample of healthcare professionals involved in an early-phase clinical trial intervention. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. A total of 24 out of 68 proformas were returned. Although some participants raised concerns about drug medication access issues, the main intervention was well accepted and understood across professional groups. Comprehension was enhanced through exposure to specialist multidisciplinary meeting arrangements. In conclusion, a rapid data collection tool and framework are now available to assess readily measurable, qualitative indicators of acceptability, fidelity of receipt and contextual fit within the dynamic precision medicine context.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Communicating Precision Medicine Research: Multidisciplinary Teams and Diverse Communities

INTRODUCTION

Precision medicine research investigates the differences in individuals' genetics, environment, and lifestyle to tailor health prevention and treatment options as part of an emerging model of health care delivery. Advancing precision medicine research will require effective communication across a wide range of scientific and health care disciplines and with research participants who represent diverse segments of the population.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group convened over the course of a year and developed precision medicine research case examples to facilitate precision medicine research discussions with communities.

RESULTS

A shared definition of precision medicine research as well as six case examples of precision medicine research involving genetic risk, pharmacogenetics, epigenetics, the microbiome, mobile health, and electronic health records were developed.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The precision medicine research definition and case examples can be used as planning tools to establish a shared understanding of the scope of precision medicine research across multidisciplinary teams and with the diverse communities in which precision medicine research will take place. This shared understanding is vital for successful and equitable progress in precision medicine.

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.

Current Issues, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Genetic Counseling in Korea

Genetic testing has become increasingly integrated into all areas of healthcare, and complex genetic testing usage continues to grow; thus, the demand for genetic counseling (GC) is likely to increase. However, it is unclear whether the current clinical GC capacity is sufficient for meeting the existing demand. This review describes the current issues, challenges, and future perspectives of GC in Korea based on a professional survey conducted among laboratory physicians. In view of the growing GC demand in the clinical setting, participants expressed a concern about the lack of support from the national healthcare insurance policy and legal requirements, such as certification, for GC practice. The implementation of genetic testing in the overall healthcare system in Korea is in an early phase. Proper implementation can be achieved through education and training of specialists, collaboration among healthcare personnel, proper regulatory oversight, genomic policies, and public awareness. Understanding the current GC capacity, issues, and challenges is a prerequisite for effective strategic planning by healthcare systems considering the expected growth in the demand for clinical genetic services over the next few decades.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?

Precision medicine is increasingly incorporated into clinical practice via three primary data conduits: environmental, lifestyle, and genetic data. In this manuscript we take a closer look at the genetic tier of precision medicine. The volume and variety of data provides a more robust picture of health for individual patients and patient populations. However, this increased data may also have an adverse effect by muddling our understanding without the proper pedagogical tools. Patient genomic data can be challenging to work with. Physicians may encounter genetic results which are not fully understood. Genetic tests may also lead to the quandary of linking patients with diseases or disorders where there are no known treatments. Thus, physicians face a unique challenge of establishing the proper scope of their duty to patients when dealing with genomic data. Some of those scope of practice boundaries have been established as a result of litigation, while others remain an open question. In this paper, we map out some of the legal challenges facing the genomic component of precision medicine, both established and some questions requiring additional guidance. If physicians begin to perceive genomic data as falling short in overall benefit to their patients, it may detrimentally impact precision medicine as a whole. Helping to develop guidance for physicians working with patient genomic data can help avoid this fate of faltering confidence.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care

Pediatric oncologists’ perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists’ experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients’ families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients’ reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families’ questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists’ genetics expertise, and navigating families’ emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs’ and geneticists’ support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

GUÍA: a digital platform to facilitate result disclosure in genetic counseling

Purpose

Use of genomic sequencing is increasing at a pace that requires technological solutions to effectively meet the needs of a growing patient population. We developed GUÍA, a web-based application, to enhance the delivery of genomic results and related clinical information to patients and families.

Methods

GUÍA development occurred in five overlapping phases: formative research, content development, stakeholder/community member input, user interface design, and web application development. Development was informed by formative qualitative research involving parents (N = 22) whose children underwent genomic testing. Participants enrolled in the NYCKidSeq pilot study (N = 18) completed structured feedback interviews post–result disclosure using GUÍA. Genetic specialists, researchers, patients, and community stakeholders provided their perspectives on GUÍA’s design to ensure technical, cultural, and literacy appropriateness.

Results

NYCKidSeq participants responded positively to the use of GUÍA to deliver their children’s results. All participants (N = 10) with previous experience with genetic testing felt GUÍA improved result disclosure, and 17 (94%) participants said the content was clear.

Conclusion

GUÍA communicates complex genomic information in an understandable and personalized manner. Initial piloting demonstrated GUÍA’s utility for families enrolled in the NYCKidSeq pilot study. Findings from the NYCKidSeq clinical trial will provide insight into GUÍA’s effectiveness in communicating results among diverse, multilingual populations.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

Bridging the Gap between Scientific Advancement and Real-World Application: Pediatric Genetic Counseling for Common Syndromes and Single-Gene Disorders

Screening and diagnostic testing for single-gene disorders and common syndromes in the pediatric setting frequently generate data that are challenging to interpret, and the ability to diagnose genetic conditions has outpaced the development of successful treatments or cures. Genetic testing is now integrated purposefully into a variety of primary and specialty care clinics, creating an increased requirement for genetic literacy among providers and patients, as well as a growing need to incorporate genetic counseling services into mainstream clinical practice. The practice of pediatric genetic counseling encompasses a unique combination of skills and training designed to address the evolving psychological, social, educational, medical, and reproductive concerns of patients and their families, which complements the multidisciplinary services of physicians, nurses, and other allied health professionals caring for patients with pediatric-onset genetic conditions. The potential range of genetic counseling needs in the pediatric setting transcends the diagnostic period. The sustained nature of pediatric care presents opportunities for development of trusting and longstanding professional relationships that permit the evolving genetic counseling needs of patients and families to be met. A discussion of cystic fibrosis, a common autosomal recessive single-gene disorder with an increasingly broad clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype variability, serves as a useful case study to illustrate the current and emerging genetic counseling practices, goals, and challenges impacting patients and their families.

Moving Genomics to Routine Care

Background:

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) costs are falling, yet, outside oncology, this information is seldom used in adult clinics. We piloted a rapid WGS (rWGS) workflow, focusing initially on estimating power for a feasibility study of introducing genome information into acute cardiovascular care.

Methods:

A prospective implementation study was conducted to test the feasibility and clinical utility of rWGS in acute cardiovascular care. rWGS was performed on 50 adult patients with acute cardiovascular events and cardiac arrest survivors, testing for primary and secondary disease-causing variants, cardiovascular-related pharmacogenomics, and carrier status for recessive diseases. The impact of returning rWGS results on short-term clinical care of participants was investigated. The utility of polygenic risk scores to stratify coronary artery disease was also assessed.

Results:

Pathogenic variants, typically secondary findings, were identified in 20% (95% CI, 11.7–34.3). About 60% (95% CI, 46.2–72.4) of participants were carriers for one or more recessive traits, most commonly inHFEandSERPINA1genes. Although 64% (95% CI, 50.1–75.9) of participants carried at least one pharmacogenetic variant of cardiovascular relevance, these were actionable in only 14% (95% CI, 7–26.2). Coronary artery disease prevalence among participants at the 95th percentile of polygenic risk score was 88.2% (95% CI, 71.8–95.7).

Conclusions:

We demonstrated the feasibility of rWGS integration into the inpatient management of adults with acute cardiovascular events. Our pilot identified pathogenic variants in one out of 5 acute vascular patients. Integrating rWGS in clinical care will progressively increase actionability.

Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era

Respect for patient autonomy has served as the dominant ethical principle of genetic counselling, but as we move into a genomic era, it is time to actively re-examine the role that this principle plays in genetic counselling practice. In this paper, we argue that the field of genetic counselling should move away from its emphasis on patient autonomy and toward the incorporation of a more balanced set of principles that allows counsellors to offer clear guidance about how best to obtain or use genetic information. We begin with a brief history of how respect for patient autonomy gained such emphasis in the field and how it has taken on various manifestations over time, including the problematic concept of nondirectiveness. After acknowledging the field's preliminary move away from nondirectiveness, we turn to a series of arguments about why the continued dominance of patient autonomy has become untenable given the arrival of the genomic era. To conclude, we describe how a more complete set of bioethical principles can be adapted and used by genetic counsellors to strengthen their practice without undermining patient autonomy.

Supercomputing and Secure Cloud Infrastructures in Biology and Medicine

The increasing amounts of healthcare data stored in health registries, in combination with genomic and other types of data, have the potential to enable better decision making and pave the path for personalized medicine. However, reaping the full benefits of big, sensitive data for the benefit of patients requires greater access to data across organizations and institutions in various regions. This overview first introduces cloud computing and takes stock of the challenges to enhancing data availability in the healthcare system. Four models for ensuring higher data accessibility are then discussed. Finally, several cases are discussed that explore how enhanced access to data would benefit the end user.

How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?

Delivering high quality genomics-informed care to patients requires accurate test results whose clinical implications are understood. While other actors, including state agencies, professional organizations, and clinicians, are involved, this article focuses on the extent to which the federal agencies that play the most prominent roles - the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforcing CLIA and the FDA - effectively ensure that these elements are met and concludes by suggesting possible ways to improve their oversight of genomic testing.

"Balancing Expectations with Actual Realities": Conversations with Clinicians and Scientists in the First Year of a High-Risk Childhood Cancer Precision Medicine Trial

Precision medicine is changing cancer care and placing new demands on oncology professionals. Precision medicine trials for high-risk childhood cancer exemplify these complexities. We assessed clinicians' (n = 39) and scientists' (n = 15) experiences in the first year of the PRecISion Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM) trial for children and adolescents with high-risk cancers, through an in-depth semi-structured interview. We thematically analysed participants' responses regarding their professional challenges, and measured oncologists' knowledge of genetics and confidence with somatic and germline molecular test results. Both groups described positive early experiences with PRISM but were cognisant of managing parents' expectations. Key challenges for clinicians included understanding and communicating genomic results, balancing biopsy risks, and drug access. Most oncologists rated 'good' knowledge of genetics, but a minority were 'very confident' in interpreting (25%), explaining (34.4%) and making treatment recommendations (18.8%) based on somatic genetic test results. Challenges for scientists included greater emotional impact of their work and balancing translational outputs with academic productivity. Continued tracking of these challenges across the course of the trial, while assessing the perspectives of a wider range of stakeholders, is critical to drive the ongoing development of a workforce equipped to manage the demands of paediatric precision medicine.

Genetic Counseling Status and Perspectives Based on a 2018 Professional Survey in Korea

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling (GC) provides many benefits, including the identification of patients appropriate for testing, patient education, and medical management. We evaluated the current status of and challenges faced by GC practitioners in Korean hospitals.

METHODS

An electronic survey was designed and conducted in 52 certified laboratory physicians belonging to the Korean Society of Laboratory Medicine, from August to September 2018. The questionnaires addressed three main categories of information: (1) current status of GC in hospitals; (2) essential qualifications of GC practitioners; and (3) challenges and perspectives for GC. Fisher's exact test was applied to analyze categorical data.

RESULTS

Among a total of 52 participants who initially responded, 12 (23.1%) were performing GC either by direct or indirect care. GC clinics were opened regularly for one (33.3%) or more than three sessions (25.0%) per week; most respondents spent more time for pre-visit activities than in-person visits, both for a initial visit patient and for a follow-up visit patient. All laboratory physicians provided genetic information to their patients. Most recommended family genetic testing when indicated (91.7%), discussed disease management (75.0%), and/or ordered additional genetic testing (58.3%), and some referred patients to other specialists (8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both patients and laboratory physicians concede the advantage of GC performed by clinical geneticists; however, the practice of GC involves several challenges and raises some concerns. The cost and support required to implement GC need to be addressed in order to provide qualified GC in Korea.

Who should access germline genome sequencing? A mixed methods study of patient views

Implementation of any new medical test, including germline genome sequencing (GS) to inform cancer risk, should take place only when a test is effective, ethically justifiable and acceptable to a population. Little empirical evidence exists on patient views regarding GS for cancer risk. The aim of this study was to elicit opinions on who should be offered GS and who should pay for it. Participants with a probable genetic basis for their cancer (n = 335) and blood relatives (n = 199) were recruited to undergo GS and invited to complete questionnaires at baseline. A subset (n = 40) also participated in qualitative interviews about their views regarding access to GS to detect cancer risk. Our response rate was 92% for questionnaires and 100% for interviews. Participants expressed high enthusiasm overall for access to GS for those with a family history of cancer and anyone who requested testing, but enthusiasm was lower for universal access, if opting out was possible and finances not an issue. Rationales for these views reflected maximising the sound use of resources. Challenges to introducing community screening via GS to limit cancer burden were raised, including the current limits of science and individual ability to cope with uncertain results. Participants undergoing GS supported cancer risk testing for those with a family history of cancer but were concerned about the challenges of designing and implementing a population-based GS cancer-screening program.

Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals

Background

Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT).

Methods

Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients.

Results

The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist’s 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient’s genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group.

Conclusion

Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

Physician Communication of Genomic Results in a Diagnostic Odyssey Case Series

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The availability of whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasing in clinical care, and WGS is a promising tool in diagnostic odyssey cases. Physicians' ability to effectively communicate genomic information with patients, however, is unclear. In this multiperspective study, we assessed physicians' communication of patient genome sequencing information in a diagnostic odyssey case series.

METHODS

We evaluated physician communication of genome sequencing results in the context of an ongoing study of the utility of WGS for the diagnosis of rare and idiopathic diseases. A modified version of the Medical Communication Competence Scale was used to compare patients' ratings of their physicians' communication of general medical information to communication of genome sequencing information. Physician self-ratings were also compared with patient ratings.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients, parents, and physicians across 11 diagnostic odyssey cases participated. In 6 of 11 cases (54%), the patient respondent rated the physician's communication of genome sequencing information as worse than that of general medical information. In 9 of 11 cases (82%), physician self-ratings of communication of genome sequencing information were worse than the patient respondent's rating. Identification of a diagnosis via WGS was positively associated with physician self-ratings (P = .021) but was not associated with patient respondent ratings (P = .959).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal that even in diagnostic odyssey cases, in which genome sequencing may be clinically beneficial, physicians may not be well-equipped to communicate genomic information to patients. Future studies may benefit from multiperspective approaches to assessing and understanding physician-patient communication of genome-sequencing information.

Reconciling Opportunistic and Population Screening in Clinical Genomics

Opportunistic genomic screening is becoming increasingly common as laboratories adopt recommendations to report secondary genomic findings. In parallel, interest in using genome sequencing as a population screening test has grown rapidly. We consider here 3 potential applications of genome sequencing for preventive medicine: (1) provider-ordered predispositional testing in healthy adults, (2) indication-based testing with opportunistic screening of secondary results, and (3) population screening in the public health context. We conclude that despite superficial similarities, there are important and fundamental differences in the way medical risks and benefits can be addressed in these 3 contexts. Recommendations to report secondary genomic findings should not be interpreted as an endorsement of population genomic screening. Ongoing work is developing the evidence that will be needed to fully justify current and future initiatives in population genomic screening. Ongoing work is developing the evidence that will be needed to fully justify current and future initiatives in population genomic screening.

Striving for Precision: Enhancing Genetic Competency in Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Students

BACKGROUND

Research in genetics and genomics has led to the development of precision medicine, with health care increasingly individually based on one's genetic makeup. Implementation of genetics and genomics in primary care has been challenging given the rapid development of new advances. Clinicians report difficulties incorporating genetics and genomics in practice, citing insufficient knowledge, training, confidence, and resources for genetic diagnoses, testing, and result reporting.

METHOD

Three pediatric nurse practitioner students participated in elective clinical rotations in pediatric genetics, with the goals of approaching all patients with genetic thinking, gaining competence collecting family health histories, and understanding available genetic resources.

RESULTS

Postrotation, students gained genetic thinking skills, competence collecting a three-generational family health history to assess genetic risk factors and aid in genetic diagnosis, and the ability to navigate genetic resources.

CONCLUSION

Genetics clinical rotations during primary care nurse practitioner education is an effective strategy to learn genetic and genomic competencies. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(11):690-693.].

Physician preparedness for big genomic data: a review of genomic medicine education initiatives in the United States

In the last decade, genomic medicine education initiatives have surfaced across the spectrum of physician training in order to help address a gap in genomic medicine preparedness among physicians. The approaches are diverse and stem from the belief that 21st century physicians must be proficient in genomic medicine applications as they will be leaders in the precision medicine movement. We conducted a review of literature in genomic medicine education and training for medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians with articles published between June 2015 and January 2018 to gain a picture of the current state of genomic medicine education with a focus on the United States. We found evidence of progress in the development of new and innovative educational programs and other resources aimed at increasing physician knowledge and readiness. Three overarching educational approach themes emerged, including immersive and experiential learning; interdisciplinary and interprofessional education; and electronic- and web-based approaches. This review is not exhaustive, nevertheless, it may inform future directions and improvements for genomic medicine education. Important next-steps include: (i) identifying and studying ways to best implement low-cost dissemination of genomic information; (ii) emphasizing genomic medicine education program evaluation and (iii) incorporating interprofessional and interdisciplinary initiatives. Genomic medicine education and training will become more and more relevant in the years to come as physicians increasingly interact with genomic and other precision medicine technologies.

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

Genomics will play an increasingly prominent role in clinical medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and make clinical recommendations about genome sequencing results.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs and their generally healthy patients undergoing genome sequencing.

APPROACH

Patients received clinical genome reports that included four categories of results: monogenic disease risk variants (if present), carrier status, five pharmacogenetics results, and polygenic risk estimates for eight cardiometabolic traits. Patients' office visits with their PCPs were audio-recorded, and summative content analysis was used to describe how PCPs discussed genomic results.

KEY RESULTS

For each genomic result discussed in 48 PCP-patient visits, we identified a "take-home" message (recommendation), categorized as continuing current management, further treatment, further evaluation, behavior change, remembering for future care, or sharing with family members. We analyzed how PCPs came to each recommendation by identifying 1) how they described the risk or importance of the given result and 2) the rationale they gave for translating that risk into a specific recommendation. Quantitative analysis showed that continuing current management was the most commonly coded recommendation across results overall (492/749, 66%) and for each individual result type except monogenic disease risk results. Pharmacogenetics was the most common result type to prompt a recommendation to remember for future care (94/119, 79%); carrier status was the most common type prompting a recommendation to share with family members (45/54, 83%); and polygenic results were the most common type prompting a behavior change recommendation (55/58, 95%). One-fifth of recommendation codes associated with monogenic results were for further evaluation (6/24, 25%). Rationales for these recommendations included patient context, family context, and scientific/clinical limitations of sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs distinguish substantive differences among categories of genome sequencing results and use clinical judgment to justify continuing current management in generally healthy patients with genomic results.

Patient perspectives following pharmacogenomics results disclosure in an integrated health system

Aim: To assess patient perceptions and utilization of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in an integrated community health system. Methods: Fifty-seven patients completed an online survey assessing their experiences with PGx testing offered through two methods: a designated PGx clinic or direct access in-home testing. Results: The majority of participants perceived PGx testing as helpful in their healthcare and reported understanding their results. Some had concerns about privacy and discrimination; most lacked familiarity with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. There were no significant differences in views between participants tested through either model. Conclusion: Participants reported value in both methods of PGx testing. Patient experiences, understanding and result utilization will play an important role in informing future development and implementation of PGx programs.