'Someday it will be the norm': physician perspectives on the utility of genome sequencing for patient care in the MedSeq Project

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores: Experience, hope for utility, and concerns among child and adolescent psychiatrists

Recent advances in psychiatric genetics have enabled the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to estimate genetic risk for psychiatric disorders. However, the potential use of PRS in child and adolescent psychiatry has raised concerns. This study provides an in-depth examination of attitudes among child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding the use of PRS in psychiatry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with U.S.-based CAP (n = 29) who possess expertise in genetics. The majority of CAP indicated that PRS have limited clinical utility in their current form and are not ready for clinical implementation. Most clinicians stated that nothing would motivate them to generate PRS at present; however, some exceptions were noted (e.g., parent/family request). Clinicians spoke to challenges related to ordering, interpreting, and explaining PRS to patients and families. CAP raised concerns regarding the potential for this information to be misinterpreted or misused by patients, families, clinicians, and outside entities such as insurance companies. Finally, some CAP noted that PRS may lead to increased stigmatization of psychiatric disorders, and at the extreme, could be used to support eugenics. As PRS testing increases, it will be critical to examine CAP and other stakeholders' views to ensure responsible implementation of this technology.

Current progress in CRISPR-Cas systems for rare diseases

The groundbreaking CRISPR-Cas gene editing method permits exact genetic code alteration. The "CRISPR" DNA protects bacteria from viruses. CRISPR-Cas utilizes a guide RNA to steer the Cas enzyme to the genome's gene editing target. After attaching to a sequence, Cas enzymes cleave DNA to insert, delete, or modify genes. The influence of CRISPR-Cas technology on molecular biology and genetics is profound. It allows for gene function research, animal disease models, and patient genetic therapy. Gene editing has transformed biotechnology, agriculture, and customized medicine. CRISPR-Cas could revolutionize genetics and medicine. CRISPR-Cas may accurately correct genetic flaws that underlie rare diseases, improving their therapy. Gene mutations make CRISPR-Cas gene editing a viable cure for uncommon diseases. We can use CRISPR-Cas to correct genetic abnormalities at the molecular level. This strategy offers hope for remedies and disease understanding. CRISPR-Cas genome editing may enable more targeted and effective treatments for rare medical illnesses with few therapy options. By developing base- and prime-editing CRISPR technology, CRISPR-Cas allows for accurate and efficient genome editing and advanced DNA modification. This advanced method provides precise DNA alterations without double-strand breakage. These advances have improved gene editing safety and precision, reducing unfavorable effects. Lipid nanoparticles, which use viral vectors, improve therapeutic cell and tissue targeting. In rare disorders, gene therapy may be possible with CRISPR-Cas clinical trials. CRISPR-Cas research is improving gene editing, delivery, and rare disease treatment.

Perceptions of Nigerian medical students regarding their preparedness for precision medicine: a cross-sectional survey in Lagos, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Advances in precision medicine in Nigeria suggest improving genomics education and competency among healthcare practitioners to facilitate clinical translation. Due to the scarcity of research in this area, this study aimed to assess Nigerian medical students' perceptions about their preparedness to integrate precision medicine into their future clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an institution-based cross-sectional study of medicine and surgery students in their clinical years attending the two fully accredited colleges of medicine in Lagos, Nigeria, between April and October 2022 using an adapted tool administered via Google Forms. The survey assessed their awareness, perceptions about knowledge, ability, and attitudes toward precision medicine, ethical concerns, and perceptions about their education in precision medicine. Multivariate linear regression models were used to assess factors associated with students' perceptions of their knowledge, ability, and attitudes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 students completed the questionnaires with a response rate of 40%. Awareness of genomic medicine terminology was high (92.0%). Responses to knowledge and ability questions revealed notable gaps, however, respondents had positive attitude scores overall. Higher medical school year was independently associated with lower knowledge (ptrend = 0.003) and ability (ptrend = 0.005) scores, and knowledge score was independently associated with a higher ability score (β: 0.76 95%CI: 0.67, 0.84; p < 0.001). Attitude scores significantly increased with increasing medical school year (ptrend = 0.04). The respondents mostly indicated concerns about government and corporate bodies' misuse of genomic data (35.7%) and the widening of socioeconomic disparities (34.0%). Although 65.0% of the respondents thought it important to learn about precision medicine, only 11.3% felt that their education had adequately prepared them for precision medicine, knew who to ask questions regarding genomic testing (10.7%), and felt their professors had encouraged the use of precision medicine (10.3%).

CONCLUSION

Despite high awareness of precision medicine terminology and overall positive attitudes, our findings highlight gaps in knowledge and ability to integrate genomics into the care of patients and a need to improve precision medicine education among Nigerian medical students.

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.

The Future of Newborn Genomic Testing

Genome sequencing (GS) provides exciting opportunities to rapidly identify a diagnosis in critically ill newborns and children with rare genetic conditions. Nevertheless, there are reasons to remain cautious about the use of GS. Studies to date have been mostly in highly selected populations of babies with unusual clinical presentations. GS leads to diagnoses in many such infants. More rarely, it leads to beneficial changes in management. Parents and physicians whose babies meet these criteria and for whom GS is performed both find these results useful. The concern is this: we do not know how useful such testing will be in the general population. We can speculate that a number of problems will arise as the use of GS expands. First, the percentage of cases in which a valid molecular diagnosis is made will likely go down. The number of ambiguous results or false positives will rise. Genetic counseling will become more complex and challenging. We do not know the relative cost-effectiveness of whole genome, whole exome, or targeted panels in different populations. We do not know the relative contribution of a molecular diagnosis to the decision to withdraw life support. We will have to carefully evaluate the use of such testing in order to understand whether it truly improves outcome and survival or reduces symptoms in babies who are tested. Each of these concerns will require careful study of both the technology and the ethical issues to allow us to harness the potential of these new technologies while avoiding foreseeable problems. Studies are underway to see how the tests are used in general populations. These studies should generate important information to guide clinicians and policymakers. As part of informed consent, doctors should explain to parents that genetic results are not always straightforward. Sometimes, they confirm a diagnosis that was already suspected. Sometimes, they rule out a possible diagnosis. Sometimes, the results are ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Anticipatory discussions should try to give parents a realistic understanding of the likely impact of a genetic diagnosis. Diagnostic genomic testing for newborns is a science that is still in its infancy. More research is essential in order to establish how to personalize this promising but sometimes problematic tool.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program

This paper describes one healthcare system's approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Application of the community dialogues method to identify ethical values and priorities related to pharmacogenomics

Given the expansion of genetics in medicine, there is a growing need to develop approaches to engage patients in understanding how genetics affects their health. Various qualitative methods have been applied to gain a deeper understanding of patient perspectives in topics related to genetics. Community dialogues (CD) are a bi-directional research method that invites community members to discuss a pertinent, challenging topic over the course of a multi-week period and the community members openly discuss their positions on the topic. Authors discuss the first application of the CD method to the topic of pharmacogenetics testing. Additional CD are needed to engage diverse participant populations on this topic to improve genetics literacy, enhance physician engagement and drive policy change.

May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices.

METHODS

In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease.

RESULTS

About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues

Clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) will look very different to the more familiar monogenic testing. Here we argue that despite these differences, most of the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised in the monogenic setting, such as the relevance of results to family members, the approach to secondary and incidental findings, and the role of expert mediators, continue to be relevant in the polygenic context, albeit in modified form. In addition, PRS will reanimate other old debates. Their use has been proposed both in the practice of clinical medicine and of public health, two contexts with differing norms. In each of these domains, it is unclear what endpoints clinical use of PRS should aim to maximize and under what constraints. Reducing health disparities is a key value for public health, but clinical use of PRS could exacerbate race-based health disparities owing to differences in predictive power across ancestry groups. Finally, PRS will force a reckoning with pre-existing questions concerning biomarkers, namely the relevance of self-reported race, ethnicity and ancestry, and the relationship of risk factors to disease diagnoses. In this Opinion, we argue that despite the parallels to the monogenic setting, new work is urgently needed to gather data, consider normative implications, and develop best practices around this emerging branch of genomics.

Identification of Neuropsychiatric Copy Number Variants in a Health Care System Population

IMPORTANCE

Population screening for medically relevant genomic variants that cause diseases such as hereditary cancer and cardiovascular disorders is increasing to facilitate early disease detection or prevention. Neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) are common, complex disorders with clear genetic causes; yet, access to genetic diagnosis is limited. We explored whether inclusion of NPD in population-based genomic screening programs is warranted by assessing 3 key factors: prevalence, penetrance, and personal utility.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the suitability of including pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) associated with NPD in population screening by determining their prevalence and penetrance and exploring the personal utility of disclosing results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, the frequency of 31 NPD CNVs was determined in patient-participants via exome data. Associated clinical phenotypes were assessed using linked electronic health records. Nine CNVs were selected for disclosure by licensed genetic counselors, and participants' psychosocial reactions were evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. A primarily adult population receiving medical care at Geisinger, a large integrated health care system in the United States with the only population-based genomic screening program approved for medically relevant results disclosure, was included. The cohort was identified from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative. Exome and linked electronic health record data were available for this cohort, which was recruited from February 2007 to April 2017. Data were collected for the qualitative analysis April 2017 through February 2018. Analysis began February 2018 and ended December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The planned outcomes of this study include (1) prevalence estimate of NPD-associated CNVs in an unselected health care system population; (2) penetrance estimate of NPD diagnoses in CNV-positive individuals; and (3) qualitative themes that describe participants' responses to receiving NPD-associated genomic results.

RESULTS

Of 90 595 participants with CNV data, a pathogenic CNV was identified in 708 (0.8%; 436 women [61.6%]; mean [SD] age, 50.04 [18.74] years). Seventy percent (n = 494) had at least 1 associated clinical symptom. Of these, 28.8% (204) of CNV-positive individuals had an NPD code in their electronic health record, compared with 13.3% (11 835 of 89 887) of CNV-negative individuals (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.86-2.61; P < .001); 66.4% (470) of CNV-positive individuals had a history of depression and anxiety compared with 54.6% (49 118 of 89 887) of CNV-negative individuals (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31-1.80; P < .001). 16p13.11 (71 [0.078%]) and 22q11.2 (108 [0.119%]) were the most prevalent deletions and duplications, respectively. Only 5.8% of individuals (41 of 708) had a previously known genetic diagnosis. Results disclosure was completed for 141 individuals. Positive participant responses included poignant reactions to learning a medical reason for lifelong cognitive and psychiatric disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study informs critical factors central to the development of population-based genomic screening programs and supports the inclusion of NPD in future designs to promote equitable access to clinically useful genomic information.

Provider preferences for resolving uncertainty and avoiding harms in precision medicine: a discrete choice experiment

Background: Substantial uncertainty exists about how providers assess the value of genomic testing. Materials & methods: We developed and administered a discrete choice experiment to a national sample of providers. We analyzed responses using an error components mixed logit model. Results: We received responses from 356 providers. The attributes important to providers were patient health and function, life expectancy, cost, expert agreement, and biomarker prevalence. Providers significantly valued reducing uncertainty only when it eliminated the possibility of decreased life expectancy. Providers valued improving certainty about life expectancy gains from 12 ± 18 to 12 ± 6 months at US$400 (US$200-600) versus US$200 (-US$60-500) for 4 ± 4 to 4 ± 2 years. Conclusion: Providers value resolving uncertainty most when it eliminates the possibility of substantial harm.

Germline whole genome sequencing in pediatric oncology in Denmark-Practitioner perspectives

BACKGROUND

With the implementation of a research project providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) to all pediatric cancer patients in Denmark (2016-2019), we sought to investigate healthcare professionals' views on WGS as it was actively being implemented in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with pediatric oncologists, clinical geneticists, and research coordinating nurses (N = 17), followed by content analysis of transcribed interviews. Interviews were supplemented by ethnographic observations on Danish pediatric oncology wards. Additionally, questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals concerning when they found it appropriate to approach families regarding WGS. The response rate was 74%.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals see imbalances in doctor-patient relationship, especially the double role doctors have as clinicians and researchers. Some were concerned that it might not be possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from all families following diagnosis. Still, 94% of respondents found it acceptable to approach families during the first 4 weeks from the child's diagnosis. Views on the utility of WGS, treatment adaptation, and surveillance differed among interviewees.

CONCLUSION

Overall, healthcare professionals see dilemmas arising from WGS in the pediatric oncology clinic, and some advocate for further educational sessions with families and healthcare professionals. Despite concerns, healthcare professionals overwhelmingly supported early approach of families regarding WGS. Interviewees disagree on the benefits of surveillance based on genetic findings.

The implementation of pharmacogenomics into UK general practice: a qualitative study exploring barriers, challenges and opportunities

Pharmacogenomics describes interpatient genetic variability in drug responses. Information based on whole genome sequencing will soon open up the field of pharmacogenomics and facilitate the use of genomic information relating to drug metabolism and drug responses. We undertook a qualitative study, aiming to explore the potential barriers, opportunities and challenges facing the implementation of pharmacogenomics into primary care. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 18 clinical participants (16 GPs and 2 other clinicians). All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a thematic analysis approach, data items were coded, ordered and themes constructed. Most participants were aged 55–60 years and worked as part-time clinical GPs with other clearly defined roles. The emerging themes covered several areas of concern, including the following: the utility of pharmacogenomics and the value of introducing such testing into primary care; how to educate the primary care workforce and ‘mainstream’ pharmacogenomics; the ethical, legal and social aspects of pharmacogenomics and its impact on patients; and potential impacts on the healthcare system particularly around economics and informatics. Most participants had concerns about pharmacogenomics and felt that there were a number of barriers and challenges to its implementation into routine primary care. Most striking were their concerns around the cost-effectiveness of using pharmacogenomics in primary care. At the same time most recognised the increasing availability of direct-to-consumer testing, and felt that this would drive the need to understand the ethical and social implications of using genomic information in primary care. This study has raised important issues that need to be considered when planning the implementation of pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. Prior to the implementation of genomic testing into day-to-day practice in UK primary care, it is important that considerations around education, cost-effectiveness and informatics are addressed, as well as the impact on patients.

Understanding the present and preparing for the future: Exploring the needs of diagnostic and elective genomic medicine patients

Advances in genomic knowledge and technology have increased the use of comprehensive clinical sequencing tests. Genome sequencing has established utility for diagnosing patients with rare, undiagnosed diseases as well as interest in an elective context, without a clinical indication for testing. The Smith Family Clinic for Genomic Medicine, LLC in Huntsville, AL is a private practice genomic medicine clinic caring for both diagnostic (79%) and elective (21%) patients. Diagnostic and elective patients are seen on a clinical basis and receive standard care. Genome sequencing is provided on a self-pay basis, with assistance available for diagnostic patients who have financial need. Here, we describe demographics and motivations of the distinct patient populations and our experiences engaging patients in online education. Diagnostic patients were motivated by the possibility of receiving an explanation for symptoms (96%) while elective patients were motivated by the chance to learn about future disease risk (57%). Elective patients were less likely to engage with online education, with only 28% reading all assigned topics compared to 54% of diagnostic patients. Understanding the needs, interests, and barriers unique to diagnostic and elective patients is critical to inform individualized and scalable best practices in patient education and engagement.

What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.

Operational models and criteria for incorporating microbial whole genome sequencing in hospital microbiology - A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Microbial whole genome sequencing (WGS) has many advantages over standard microbiological methods. However, it is not yet widely implemented in routine hospital diagnostics due to notable challenges.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to extract managerial, financial and clinical criteria supporting the decision to implement WGS in routine diagnostic microbiology, across different operational models of implementation in the hospital setting.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of literature identified through PubMed and Web of Science. English literature studies discussing the applications of microbial WGS without limitation on publication date were eligible. A narrative approach for categorization and synthesis of the sources identified was adopted.

RESULTS

A total of 98 sources were included. Four main alternative operational models for incorporating WGS in clinical microbiology laboratories were identified: full in-house sequencing and analysis, full outsourcing of sequencing and analysis and two hybrid models combining in-house/outsourcing of the sequencing and analysis components. Six main criteria (and multiple related sub-criteria) for WGS implementation emerged from our review and included cost (e.g. the availability of resources for capital and operational investment); manpower (e.g. the ability to provide training programmes or recruit trained personnel), laboratory infrastructure (e.g. the availability of supplies and consumables or sequencing platforms), bioinformatics requirements (e.g. the availability of valid analysis tools); computational infrastructure (e.g. the availability of storage space or data safety arrangements); and quality control (e.g. the existence of standardized procedures).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to incorporate WGS in routine diagnostics involves multiple, sometimes competing, criteria and sub-criteria. Mapping these criteria systematically is an essential stage in developing policies for adoption of this technology, e.g. using a multicriteria decision tool. Future research that will prioritize criteria and sub-criteria that were identified in our review in the context of operational models will inform decision-making at clinical and managerial levels with respect to effective implementation of WGS for routine use. Beyond WGS, similar decision-making challenges are expected with respect to future integration of clinical metagenomics.

Personal genome testing on physicians improves attitudes on pharmacogenomic approaches

In this era of clinical genomics, the accumulation of knowledge of pharmacogenomics (PGx) is rising dramatically and attempts to utilize it in clinical practice are also increasing. However, this advanced knowledge and information have not yet been sufficiently utilized in the clinical field due to various barriers including physician factors. This study was conducted to evaluate the attitudes of physicians to PGx services by providing them their own genomic data analysis report focusing on PGx. We also tried to evaluate the clinical applicability of whole exome sequencing (WES)-based functional PGx test. In total 88 physicians participated in the study from September 2015 to August 2016. Physicians who agreed to participate in the study were asked to complete a pre-test survey evaluating their knowledge of and attitude toward clinical genomics including PGx. Only those who completed the pre-test survey proceeded to WES and were provided with a personal PGx analysis report in an offline group meeting. Physicians who received these PGx reports were asked to complete a follow-up survey within two weeks. We then analyzed changes in their knowledge and attitude after reviewing their own PGx analysis results through differences in their pre-test and post-test survey responses. In total, 70 physicians (79.5%) completed the pre-test and post-test surveys and attended an off-line seminar to review their personal PGx reports. After physicians reviewed the report, their perception of and attitude towards the PGx domain and genomics significantly changed. Physician’ awareness of the likelihood of occurrence of adverse drug reactions and genetic contribution was also changed significantly. Overall, physicians were very positive about the value and potential of the PGx test but maintained a conservative stance on its actual clinical use. Results revealed that physicians’ perception and attitude to the utility of PGx testing was significantly changed after reviewing their own WES results.

Views from the clinic: Healthcare provider perspectives on whole genome sequencing in paediatrics

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is a transformative technology which promises improved diagnostic rates compared to conventional genetic testing strategies and tailored approaches to patient care. Due to the practical and ethical complexities associated with using WGS, particularly in the paediatric context, input from a broad spectrum of healthcare providers can guide implementation strategies. We recruited healthcare providers from the largest paediatric academic health science centre in Canada and conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews, exploring experiences with and perceptions of the opportunities and challenges associated with WGS. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically. Interviews were completed with 14 genetics professionals (geneticists and genetic counsellors) and 15 non-genetics professionals (physician sub-specialists and nurses). Genetics professionals ordered genetic tests more often and reported greater confidence on pre- and post-test genetic counselling compared to non-genetics professionals. Most healthcare providers endorsed WGS when a more specific test was either not available or not likely to yield a diagnosis. While genetics professionals raised concerns regarding the time demands associated with reviewing WGS variants, non-genetics professionals reflected concerns about knowledge and training. Providers' position on reporting secondary variants to parents drew upon but was not limited to the concept of best interests. Taken together, understanding practical and principled matters of WGS from healthcare providers' perspectives can guide ongoing efforts to implement WGS in paediatrics.

Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

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 and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach

While genetic testing gains adoption in specialty services such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology, use of genetic and genomic testing has yet to be adopted as widely in primary care. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare patient and primary care provider (PCP) expectations of genetics services in primary care. Patient and PCP perspectives were assessed through a mixed-method approach combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews in a primary care department of a large academic medical institution. A convenience sample of 100 adult primary care patients and 26 PCPs was gathered. The survey and interview questions focused on perceptions of genetic testing, experience with genetic testing, and expectations of genetic services in primary care. Patients felt that their PCP was knowledgeable about genetic testing and expected their PCP to be the first to recognize a need for genetic testing based on family history. Nonetheless, patients reported that PCPs rarely used family history information to discuss genetic risks or order testing. In contrast, PCPs felt uncertain about the clinical utility and scientific value of genetic testing. PCPs were concerned that genetic testing could cause anxiety, frustration, discrimination, and reduced insurability, and that there was unequal access to testing. PCPs described themselves as being "gatekeepers" to genetic testing but did not feel confident or have the desire to become experts in genetic testing. However, PCPs were open to increasing their working knowledge of genetic testing. Within this academic medical center, there is a gap between what patients expect and what primary care providers feel they are adequately prepared to provide in terms of genetic testing services.

Lost in translation: returning germline genetic results in genome-scale cancer research

BACKGROUND

The return of research results (RoR) remains a complex and well-debated issue. Despite the debate, actual data related to the experience of giving individual results back, and the impact these results may have on clinical care and health outcomes, is sorely lacking. Through the work of the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) we: (1) delineate the pathway back to the patient where actionable research data were identified; and (2) report the clinical utilisation of individual results returned. Using this experience, we discuss barriers and opportunities associated with a comprehensive process of RoR in large-scale genomic research that may be useful for others developing their own policies.

METHODS

We performed whole-genome (n = 184) and exome (n = 208) sequencing of matched tumour-normal DNA pairs from 392 patients with sporadic pancreatic cancer (PC) as part of the APGI. We identified pathogenic germline mutations in candidate genes (n = 130) with established predisposition to PC or medium-high penetrance genes with well-defined cancer associated syndromes or phenotypes. Variants from candidate genes were annotated and classified according to international guidelines. Variants were considered actionable if clinical utility was established, with regard to prevention, diagnosis, prognostication and/or therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 48,904 germline variants were identified, with 2356 unique variants undergoing annotation and in silico classification. Twenty cases were deemed actionable and were returned via previously described RoR framework, representing an actionable finding rate of 5.1%. Overall, 1.78% of our cohort experienced clinical benefit from RoR.

CONCLUSION

Returning research results within the context of large-scale genomics research is a labour-intensive, highly variable, complex operation. Results that warrant action are not infrequent, but the prevalence of those who experience a clinical difference as a result of returning individual results is currently low.

Integrating next-generation sequencing into pediatric oncology practice: An assessment of physician confidence and understanding of clinical genomics

BACKGROUND

The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology.

METHODS

Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing.

RESULTS

Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology-based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer-based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype-phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352-2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Personal Genome Sequencing in Ostensibly Healthy Individuals and the PeopleSeq Consortium

Thousands of ostensibly healthy individuals have had their exome or genome sequenced, but a much smaller number of these individuals have received any personal genomic results from that sequencing. We term those projects in which ostensibly healthy participants can receive sequencing-derived genetic findings and may also have access to their genomic data as participatory predispositional personal genome sequencing (PPGS). Here we are focused on genome sequencing applied in a pre-symptomatic context and so define PPGS to exclude diagnostic genome sequencing intended to identify the molecular cause of suspected or diagnosed genetic disease. In this report we describe the design of completed and underway PPGS projects, briefly summarize the results reported to date and introduce the PeopleSeq Consortium, a newly formed collaboration of PPGS projects designed to collect much-needed longitudinal outcome data.

Medical student preparedness for an era of personalized medicine: findings from one US medical school

AIM

The objective of this research was to assess medical student preparedness for the use of personalized medicine.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A survey instrument measuring attitude toward personalized medicine, perceived knowledge of genomic testing concepts and perceived ability to apply genomics to clinical care was distributed to students in medical school (MS) years 1-4.

RESULTS

Of 212 participants, 79% felt that it was important to learn about personalized medicine, but only 6% thought that their medical education had adequately prepared them to practice personalized medicine. Attitude did not vary across years; knowledge and ability increased after MS1, but not after MS2.

CONCLUSION

While medical students support the use of personalized medicine, they do not feel prepared to apply genomics to clinical care.

Patients' perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing for their healthcare: findings from the MedSeq project

AIM

To evaluate patients' expectations regarding the perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

MATERIALS & METHODS

We used latent class analysis to characterize individuals enrolled in the MedSeq Project based on their perceived utility of WGS. Multinomial logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and latent classes.

RESULTS

Findings characterized participants into one of three perceived utility groups: enthusiasts, who had a high probability of agreement with all utility items (23%); health conscious, who perceived utility in medically related areas (60%) or skeptics, who had a low probability of agreement with utility items (17%). Trust significantly predicted latent class.

CONCLUSION

Understanding differences in perceived utility of WGS may inform strategies for uptake of this technology.

Management of Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomic Sequencing

Genomic sequencing is becoming accurate, fast, and increasingly inexpensive, and is rapidly being incorporated into clinical practice. Incidental or secondary findings, which can occur in large numbers from genomic sequencing, are a potential barrier to the utility of this new technology due to their relatively high prevalence and the lack of evidence or guidelines available to guide their clinical interpretation. This unit reviews the definition, classification, and management of incidental findings from genomic sequencing. The unit focuses on the clinical aspects of handling incidental findings, with an emphasis on the key role of clinical context in defining incidental findings and determining their clinical relevance and utility.

Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? a qualitative analysis

Although the integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) into standard medical practice is rapidly becoming feasible, physicians may be unprepared to use it. Primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of WGS received genomics education before completing semi-structured interviews. Themes about preparedness were identified in transcripts through team-based consensus-coding. Data from 11 PCPs and 9 cardiologists suggested that physicians enrolled in the trial primarily to prepare themselves for widespread use of WGS in the future. PCPs were concerned about their general genomic knowledge, while cardiologists were concerned about how to interpret specific types of results and secondary findings. Both cohorts anticipated preparing extensively before disclosing results to patients by using educational resources with which they were already familiar, and both cohorts anticipated making referrals to genetics specialists as needed. A lack of laboratory guidance, time pressures, and a lack of standards contributed to feeling unprepared. Physicians had specialty-specific concerns about their preparedness to use WGS. Findings identify specific policy changes that could help physicians feel more prepared, and highlight how providers of all types will need to become familiar with interpreting WGS results.

Clinician Perspectives on Using Pharmacogenomics in Clinical Practice

AIM

To describe the knowledge and attitudes of clinicians participating in a large pharmacogenomics implementation program.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 15 physicians and nurse practitioners were conducted.

RESULTS

Three categories of themes were identified: preparation and knowledge, pharmacogenomics usage in practice, and future management of genomic variants. Providers expressed an inability to keep up with the rapid pace of evidence generation and indicated strong support for clinical decision support to assist with genotype-tailored therapies. Concerns raised by clinicians included effectively communicating results, long-term responsibility for actionable results and hand-offs with providers outside the implementation program.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians identified their own knowledge deficits, workflow integration, and longitudinal responsibility as challenges to successful usage of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice.