How do providers discuss the results of pediatric exome sequencing with families?

Engaging adolescents and young adults in decisions about return of genomic research results: study protocol for a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

To protect minors' future autonomy, professional organizations have historically discouraged returning predictive adult-onset genetic test results and carrier status to children. Recent clinical guidance diverges from this norm, suggesting that when minors have genomic sequencing performed for clinical purposes, parents and children should have the opportunity to learn secondary findings, including for some adult-onset conditions. While parents can currently opt in or out of receiving their child's secondary findings, the American Society of Human Genetics Workgroup on Pediatric Genetic and Genomic Testing suggests including adolescents in the decision-making process. However, it is not clear what factors young people consider when given the opportunity to learn genetic findings for themselves. In this manuscript, we report on the methods for a clinical trial that examines adolescents', young adults', and their parents' decisions about learning genomic information for the adolescent or young adult.

METHODS

We are enrolling assenting (ages 13-17) adolescents and consenting (ages 18-21) young adults in a prospective genomic screening study to assess the choices they make about receiving individual genomic results. Participants use an online tool to indicate whether they want to learn their personal genetic risk for specific preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions, as well as carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. We are examining (1) how choices differ between adolescent and young adult cohorts (as well as between adolescents/young adults and parents) and (2) decisional conflict and stability across study timepoints. Results are returned based on participants' choices. Qualitative interviews with a subset of participants explore decisional stability, adolescent/young adult engagement with parents in decision-making, and the impact of learning pathogenic/likely pathogenic and autosomal recessive carrier results.

DISCUSSION

This study explores decision making and decision stability between adolescents and parents (where applicable), as well as the ethical implications and impact of return of clinical-grade genetic research results to adolescents and young adults. The results of this study will contribute empirical evidence to support best practices and guidance on engaging young people in genomic research studies and clinical care that offer return of results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04481061. Registered 22 July 2020.

Engaging Adolescents and Young Adults in Decisions About Return of Genomic Research Results: a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol

Background

To protect minors' future autonomy, professional organizations have historically discouraged returning predictive adult-onset genetic test results and carrier status to children. Recent clinical guidance diverges from this norm, suggesting that when minors have genomic sequencing performed for clinical purposes, parents and children should have the opportunity to learn secondary findings, including for some adult-onset conditions. While parents can currently opt in or out of receiving their child's secondary findings, the American Society of Human Genetics Workgroup on Pediatric Genetic and Genomic Testing suggests including adolescents in the decision-making process. However, it is not clear what factors young people consider when given the opportunity to learn genetic findings for themselves. We are examining adolescents', young adults', and parents' (if applicable) decisions about learning genomic information for the adolescent.

Methods

We are enrolling assenting (ages 13-17) adolescents and consenting (ages 18-21) young adults in a prospective genomic screening study to assess the choices they make about receiving individual genomic results. Participants use an online tool to indicate whether they want to learn their personal genetic risk for specific preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions, as well as carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. We are examining 1) how choices differ between adolescent and young adult cohorts (as well as between adolescents/young adults and parents) and 2) decisional conflict and stability across study timepoints. Results are returned based on participants' choices. Qualitative interviews with a subset of participants explore decisional stability, adolescent/young adult engagement with parents in decision-making, and the impact of learning pathogenic/likely pathogenic and carrier results.

Discussion

This study explores decision making and decision stability between adolescents and parents (where applicable), as well as the ethical implications and impact of return of clinical-grade genetic research results to adolescents and young adults. The results of this study will contribute empirical evidence to support best practices and guidance on engaging young people in genetic research studies and clinical care that offer return of results.

Framing the Family: A Qualitative Exploration of Factors That Shape Family-Level Experience of Pediatric Genomic Sequencing

Families of children with rare and undiagnosed conditions face many psychosocial and logistical challenges that may affect their approach to decisions about their child's care and their family's well-being. As genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly incorporated into pediatric diagnostic workups, assessing the family-level characteristics that shape the experience of pediatric GS is crucial to understanding how families approach decision-making about the test and how they incorporate the results into their family life. We conducted semi-structured interviews with parents and other primary caregivers of pediatric patients who were evaluated for a suspected genetic condition and who were recommended to have GS (n = 20) or who had recently completed GS (n = 21). We analyzed qualitative data using multiple rounds of thematic analysis. We organized our thematic findings into three domains of factors that influence the family-level experience of GS: (1) family structure and dynamics; (2) parental identity, relationships, and philosophies; and (3) social and cultural differences. Participants conceptualized their child's family in various ways, ranging from nuclear biological family to support networks made up of friends and communities. Our findings can inform the design and interpretation of preference research to advance family-level value assessment of GS as well as genetic counseling for families.

Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing is being used more frequently in the clinic, not only by clinical geneticists, but also by other specialists ("mainstreaming"). The use of genomic sequencing gives rise to challenges regarding informed consent, as it can yield more, and more complex results.

METHODS

This study maps the informed consent process for exome sequencing in the Netherlands by means of semistructured interviews with 14 clinical geneticists. Interviewees were asked about their strategies for informing patients about exome sequencing and supporting patients in their decision making, about what they think of as essential information elements, about the challenges they experience, and about their preferences for future policy and practice.

RESULTS

Clinical geneticists typically discuss the following topics: the nature and aim of the test, the possible results (including unsolicited or incidental findings and Variants of Uncertain Significance) of the test and the consequences of those results for the patient and their family members. Some clinical geneticists use a layered approach to informed consent, meaning that they give short and concise information at first, and provide more detailed information depending on the situation or the needs of the patient.

CONCLUSION

During pre-test counseling for genomic sequencing, clinical geneticists use various strategies to enhance patient understanding and personalization of the informed consent process. Going forward, layering information may be part of a solution to ethical challenges of informed consent, also in mainstream settings.

Paediatric genomic testing: Navigating medicare rebatable genomic testing

Genomic testing for a genetic diagnosis is becoming standard of care for many children, especially those with a syndromal intellectual disability. While previously this type of specialised testing was performed mainly by clinical genetics teams, it is increasingly being 'mainstreamed' into standard paediatric care. With the introduction of a new Medicare rebate for genomic testing in May 2020, this type of testing is now available for paediatricians to order, in consultation with clinical genetics. Children must be aged less than 10 years with facial dysmorphism and multiple congenital abnormalities or have global developmental delay or moderate to severe intellectual disability. This rebate should increase the likelihood of a genetic diagnosis, with accompanying benefits for patient management, reproductive planning and diagnostic certainty. Similar to the introduction of chromosomal microarray into mainstream paediatrics, this genomic testing will increase the number of genetic diagnoses, however, will also yield more variants of uncertain significance, incidental findings, and negative results. This paper aims to guide paediatricians through the process of genomic testing, and represents the combined expertise of educators, clinical geneticists, paediatricians and genomic pathologists around Australia. Its purpose is to help paediatricians navigate choosing the right genomic test, consenting patients and understanding the possible outcomes of testing.

Implementation of exome sequencing in fetal diagnostics-Data and experiences from a tertiary center in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

Applying whole-exome sequencing (WES) for the diagnosis of diseases in children has shown significant diagnostic strength compared with chromosomal microarray. WES may also have the potential of adding clinically relevant prenatal information in cases where a fetus is found to have structural anomalies. We present results from the first fetal exomes performed in a tertiary center in Denmark.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Couples/expectant parents were included in Central Denmark Region from July 2016 to March 2019. Inclusion was not systematic, but where one or more fetal malformations or severe fetal hydrops were detected, and a specific diagnosis had not been obtained by chromosomal microarray. WES was performed in ongoing pregnancies (N = 11), after intrauterine demise (N = 5), or after termination of pregnancy based on ultrasound findings (N = 19). In most cases, a trio format was applied comprising fetal and parental DNA.

RESULTS

WES was performed in 35 highly selected fetal cases. Pathogenic variants, or variants likely to explain the phenotype, were detected in 9/35 (26%). Variants of uncertain significance were detected in 7/35 (20%) and there was one secondary finding (3%). Out of the 11 ongoing pregnancies, four reached a genetic diagnosis (36%). Detection rate was highest in cases of multisystem anomalies (7/13, 54%). WES was completed in all three trimesters and both autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive and X-linked inheritance were revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

We present data from 35 cases of exome sequencing applied in a setting of fetal malformations. Importantly, though, we wish to share our personal experiences with implementing WES into a prenatal setting. As a medical society, we must continue to share what we do not understand, what went wrong, what is difficult, and what we do not agree upon. A common understanding and language are warranted. We also advocate that more research is needed concerning the clinical value, as well as costs and patient perspectives, of using WES in pregnancy. We believe that WES will lead to improved prenatal and perinatal care.

How do geneticists and prospective parents interpret and negotiate an uncertain prenatal genetic result? An analysis of clinical interactions

Variants of unknown significance (VUS) and susceptibility loci (SL) are a challenge in prenatal genetic counseling. The aim of this study was to explore how such uncertain genetic results are communicated, negotiated, and made meaningful by genetics healthcare providers and couples in the actual clinical setting where results are delivered. The study was based on an anthropological approach and the material consisted of observations and audio-recordings from 16 purposively sampled genetic counseling sessions where prenatal testing had identified an inherited or de novo VUS or SL result. Field notes and transcripts from audio-recordings were analyzed using thematic analysis. The analysis identified a number of specific interpretations and strategies that clinical geneticists and couples collectively used for dealing with the ambiguity of the result. Thus, the analysis resulted in a total of three themes, each with 3-4 subthemes. The theme 'Setting the scene' describes the three-stage structure of the consultation. The theme 'Dealing with uncertainty' includes 'normalizing strategies' that emphasized the inherent uncertainty in human life in general and 'contextualizing strategies' that placed the result in relation to the surrounding society, where technological developments lead to new and unforeseen challenges. The theme 'Regaining control' includes interpretations that made the knowledge useful by focusing on the value of being prepared for potential, future challenges. Other strategies were to book an extra scan-to reconfirm fetal structural health and to reconnect to the pregnancy. Finally, inquiring about the sex was clearly a way for the couple to signal their investment in the pregnancy. Based on the analysis, we propose that these interpretations served to transform and reduce ambiguity through a process of reconfiguring the biomedical information into knowledge that resonated with the couples' lifeworlds. In this process, both geneticist and couples drew on wider social and moral concerns about uncertainty and responsibility.

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project

OBJECTIVES

Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project.

DESIGN

Interview study using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Four National Health Service hospitals in London.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 'consenters' from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project.

RESULTS

Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues.

Challenges to informed consent for exome sequencing: A best-worst scaling experiment

As exome sequencing expands as a diagnostic tool, patients and providers have voiced concerns about communicating the breadth and scope of potential results when obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to understand how genetic counselors prioritize essential components of the informed consent process and whether counselor factors influence these decisions. Development of a best-worst scaling experiment was informed by a systematic literature review and two focus groups. In all, 11 choice sets were created using a balanced incomplete block design, where participants selected the most and least important object in each set. Mean best-worst (BW) scores were calculated to summarize the relative importance of each object, and mediation analyses assessed whether responses were associated with genetic counselor factors and attitudes. In all, 342 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed the online survey. Ranking of BW scores suggests that participants prioritize collaborative decision-making, assessing understanding and managing expectations, with the least emphasis placed on discussing technological complexities. Stratified analyses found that counselors more experienced with obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing and those reporting higher perceptions of patients' ability to manage information rated discussing variants of uncertain significance as significantly more important (p < .05). Our results suggest that genetic counselors report intentions to prioritize individual patient needs when obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing. Professional characteristics and attitudes may influence preemptive discussion of uncertain results.

A Key Role for the Genetic Counsellor in the Genomics Era

New genetic testing technologies such as microarrays and whole exome sequencing mean the diagnostic potential for a child with a development disorder is greatly increased over traditional testing techniques.  With this increased potential comes increased expectations from families and professionals about the answers a diagnosis will provide.  However, limitations remain and a proportion of individuals will continue to remain undiagnosed.  In addition, some individuals will receive novel or very rare diagnoses about which very little is known in terms of prognosis and effective treatments.  In this paper, I present an argument for why these families would benefit from additional Genetic Counsellor support and how Clinical Genetics services in the UK could provide this support.  I acknowledge that resources are limited, but as demands on services increase and interactions with families become shorter, I argue that this kind of service should be prioritised, for the benefit of these families.

Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences

Opportunities to participate in genomic sequencing studies, as well as recommendations to screen for variants in 59 medically actionable genes anytime clinical genomic sequencing is performed, indicate adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about learning secondary findings from genome sequencing. However, how adolescents want to be involved in such decisions is unknown. We conducted five focus groups with adolescents (2) and parents (3) to learn their decisional preferences about return of genomic research results to adolescents. Discussions about decisional preferences centered around three themes: feelings about receiving genomic risk information, adolescent involvement and capacity to participate in decision-making, and recommendations for parental versus collaborative decision-making. We address the contested space between parental duties to act in their children's best interests when choosing which results to return and adolescents' desires to make autonomous decisions. A collaborative decision-making approach is recommended for obtaining consent from adolescents and their parents for genome sequencing research.