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

The Concept of Personal Utility in Genomic Testing: Three Ethical Tensions

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has traditionally focused on efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. There has long been concern, however, that this is determined by the goals of healthcare providers/payers, not patients. As a result, HTA arguably fails to reflect the overall value of health technologies-including their "non-clinical" or "personal" utility to patients and their families. The use of genomic testing in clinical care is one domain where this problem is evident, as the personal utility of results is often especially significant. As such, there are growing calls for HTA frameworks to adopt personal utility as a distinct element of value when assessing clinical genomic tests. We agree that personal utility is important to HTA in clinical genomics. However, against a trend toward comprehensive conceptions of personal utility within HTA, we advocate for a restrictive approach to assessing the value of personal utility in the case of clinical genomic testing.

Boundary-work in genomic medicine: Safeguarding the future of diagnostic next-generation sequencing in the clinic

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies - which allow to look at large parts or even the whole genome at once - are making their way into diagnostic clinical care. With trends towards 'mainstreaming' genetic services into general medicine, significant ethical challenges, and a disputed clinical utility and cost-benefit ratio, genomic medicine's autonomy and dominance in defining and offering NGS care may come under increased pressure from the outside (e.g., regulators, other healthcare providers and facilities, ethicists, and patients). In this paper, we show how the field of genomic medicine engages in substantial boundary-work in reaction to these circumstances. Building on multi-sited fieldwork in two centers for human genetics in Belgium and the Netherlands, we show how acts of demarcation serve to uphold an image of expertise and authority which helps maintain the field's autonomy and dominance. Through examining the delineations put forward in interviews, practice (based on observations in multidisciplinary meetings and consultations), and grey and academic literature, we show the politics involved in moving NGS forward fairly seamlessly in a way that suits the field. First, we show how genetic healthcare professionals have redefined what makes a genetic test 'valuable' so that it underlines its current value. Secondly, we examine how a genetic imaginary is put forward that both emphasizes the extraordinary character of genomic medicine and the normalcy of NGS testing. By underlining the need for their expertise whilst simultaneously normalizing the ethical challenges and positioning themselves as most capable of reflecting on these, the field minimized external regulation and kept a close grip on defining ethical issues and policy. Despite their current dominance in shaping the future of genomic care, we argue that the closedness of the field hinders it from benefiting from external expertise, reflection, and monitoring to ensure enduring and broad support for this future.

Attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions of patients who received elective genomic testing as a clinical service

PURPOSE

Elective genomic testing (EGT) is increasingly available clinically. Limited real-world evidence exists about attitudes and knowledge of EGT recipients.

METHODS

After web-based education, patients who enrolled in an EGT program at a rural nonprofit health care system completed a survey that assessed attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions.

RESULTS

From August 2020 to April 2022, 5920 patients completed the survey and received testing. Patients most frequently cited interest in learning their personal disease risks as their primary motivation. Patients most often expected results to guide medication management (74.0%), prevent future disease (70.4%), and provide information about risks to offspring (65.4%). Patients were "very concerned" most frequently about the privacy of genetic information (19.8%) and how well testing predicted disease risks (18.0%). On average, patients answered 6.7 of 11 knowledge items correctly (61.3%). They more often rated their risks for colon and breast cancers as lower rather than higher than the average person but more often rated their risk for a heart attack as higher rather than lower than the average person (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients pursued EGT because of the utility expectations but often misunderstood the test's capabilities.

Evaluating parental personal utility of pediatric genetic and genomic testing in a diverse, multilingual population

There is increasing evidence of the clinical utility of genetic and genomic testing (GT); however, factors influencing personal utility of GT, especially in diverse, multilingual populations, remain unclear. We explored these factors in a diverse cohort of parents/guardians (participants) whose children received clinical GT through the NYCKidSeq program. A total of 847 participants completed surveys at baseline, post-results disclosure, and 6 months (6m) post-results. The largest population groups were Hispanic/Latino(a) (48%), White/European American (24%), and Black/African American (16%). Personal utility was assessed using the Personal Utility (PrU) scale, adapted for pediatric populations and included on the surveys. Three PrU subscales were identified using factor analysis: practical, educational, and parental psychological utility. Overall personal utility summary score and the three subscales significantly decreased after receiving results and over time. Hispanic/Latino(a) participants identified greater overall personal utility than European American and African American participants at all time points (p < 0.001) as did participants whose children received positive/likely positive results compared with those with negative and uncertain results (post-results: p < 0.001 and p < 0.001; 6m post-results: p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Post-results, higher subscale scores were associated with lower education levels (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.02) and higher levels of trust in the healthcare system (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.04). These findings help to understand the perspectives of diverse parents/guardians, which is critical to tailoring pre- and post-test counseling across a variety of populations and clinical settings.

Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on genetic counseling and genetic diagnosis in vascular anomalies

Genomic technologies are now utilized for the genetic diagnosis of vascular anomalies. This provides the opportunity for genetic counselors to make a significant contribution to patient care for this complex disease. The aim of this study was to explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on the relatively recent integration of molecular diagnostic testing for vascular anomalies, with or without genetic counseling support. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian healthcare professionals involved in the provision of care for individuals with vascular anomalies. Thematic analysis identified six themes: (1) Molecular diagnosis is beneficial; (2) psychosocial needs can motivate families to pursue a molecular diagnosis; (3) molecular genetic testing for vascular anomalies is complex; (4) genetic service provision is not a one size fits all; (5) a client-centered approach for genetic service provision can go a long way; and (6) the value of genetic counselors. Based on our findings, implementation of a vascular anomalies genetic diagnostic program inclusive of genetic counseling may be challenging, yet such programs are likely to benefit both patients and their families, as well as healthcare professionals. As this paradigm shift unfolds, genetic counselors have an opportunity to contribute to the vascular anomaly field by educating healthcare professionals and patients, by participating in multidisciplinary clinics to support complex cases and by raising awareness regarding their practice and potential contributions.

Research Participants' Perspectives on Precision Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND

Understanding research participants' responses to learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information is important to inform clinical implementation of precision diagnostics given rapid advances in disease modifying therapies.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed participants' perspectives on the meaning of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging results for their health, self-efficacy to understand their results, psychological impact of learning their results, experience receiving their results from the clinical team, and interest in genetic testing for AD risk.

METHODS

We surveyed individuals who were being clinically evaluated for AD and received PET imaging six weeks after the return of results. We analyzed responses to close-ended survey items by PET result using Fisher's exact test and qualitatively coded open-ended responses.

RESULTS

A total of 88 participants completed surveys, most of whom had mild cognitive impairment due to AD (38.6%), AD (28.4%), or were cognitively unimpaired (21.6%). Participants subjectively understood their results (25.3% strongly agreed, 41.8% agreed), which could help them plan (16.5% strongly agreed, 49.4% agreed). Participants with a negative PET result (n = 25) reported feelings of relief (Fisher's exact p < 0.001) and happiness (p < 0.001) more frequently than those with a positive result. Most participants felt that they were treated respectfully and were comfortable voicing concerns during the disclosure process. Genetic testing was anticipated to be useful for medical care decisions (48.2%) and to inform family members about AD risk (42.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants had high subjective understanding and self-efficacy around their PET results and did not experience negative psychological effects. Interest in genetic testing was high.

Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review

Importance

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in health care has led to recognition that these tests provide personal as well as clinical utility to patients and families. However, available systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the demographic backgrounds of participants in studies of personal utility, leaving generalizability unclear.

Objective

To determine the demographic characteristics of participants in studies examining the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in health care.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, we utilized and updated the results of a highly cited 2017 systematic review on the personal utility of genetics and genomics, which identified relevant articles published between January 1, 2003, and August 4, 2016. We also used the original methods to update this bibliography with literature published subsequently up to January 1, 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies reported empirical data on the perspectives of patients, family members, and/or the general public in the US on the personal utility of any type of health-related genetic or genomic test. We utilized a standardized codebook to extract study and participant characteristics. We summarized demographic characteristics descriptively across all studies and by subgroup based on study and participant characteristics.

Findings

We included 52 studies with 13 251 eligible participants. Sex or gender was the most frequently reported demographic characteristic (48 studies [92.3%]), followed by race and ethnicity (40 studies [76.9%]), education (38 studies [73.1%]), and income (26 studies [50.0%]). Across studies, participants disproportionately were women or female (mean [SD], 70.8% [20.5%]), were White (mean [SD], 76.1% [22.0%]), had a college degree or higher (mean [SD], 64.5% [19.9%]), and reported income above the US median (mean [SD], 67.4% [19.2%]). Examination of subgroups of results by study and participant characteristics evidenced only small shifts in demographic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review examined the demographic characteristics of individual participants in studies of the personal utility of health-related genetic and genomic testing in the US. The results suggest that participants in these studies were disproportionately White, college-educated women with above-average income. Understanding the perspectives of more diverse individuals regarding the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing may inform barriers to research recruitment and uptake of clinical testing in currently underrepresented populations.

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Precision Cardiology Care: Findings From the HeartCare Study

BACKGROUND

Routine genome-wide screening for cardiovascular disease risk may inform clinical decision-making. However, little is known about whether clinicians and patients would find such testing useful or acceptable within the context of a genomics-enabled learning health system.

METHODS

We conducted surveys with patients and their clinicians who were participating in the HeartCare Study, a precision cardiology care project that returned results from a next-generation sequencing panel of 158 genes associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Six weeks after return of results, we assessed patients' and clinicians' perceived utility and disutility of HeartCare, the effect of the test on clinical recommendations, and patients' attitudes toward integration of research and clinical care.

RESULTS

Among 666 HeartCare patients with a result returned during the survey study period, 42.0% completed a full or partial survey. Patient-participants who completed a full survey (n=224) generally had positive perceptions of HeartCare independent of whether they received a positive or negative result. Most patient-participants considered genetic testing for cardiovascular disease risk to have more benefit than risk (88.3%) and agreed that it provided information that they wanted to know (81.2%), while most disagreed that the test caused them to feel confused (77.7%) or overwhelmed (78.0%). For 122 of their patients with positive results, clinicians (n=13) reported making changes in clinical care for 66.4% of patients, recommending changes in health behaviors for 36.9% of patients, and recommending to 33.6% of patients that their family members have clinical testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Both patients and clinicians thought the HeartCare panel screen for cardiovascular disease risk provided information that was useful in terms of personal or health benefits to the patient and that informed clinical care without causing patients to be confused or overwhelmed. Further research is needed to assess perceptions of genome-wide screening among the US cardiology clinic population.

Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds.

METHODS

We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback.

RESULTS

Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each.

CONCLUSION

We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics

Given the limited therapeutic options for most rare diseases diagnosed through genomic sequencing (GS) and the proportion of patients who remain undiagnosed even after GS, it is important to characterize a broader range of benefits and potential harms of GS from the perspectives of families with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. We recruited parents of children enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Parents completed an in-depth interview, and we conducted a comparative content analysis of the data. Parents (n = 30) were demographically diverse, with 43.3% identifying as Hispanic, 33.3% primarily Spanish-speaking, and widely variable household income and education. Parents reported minimal changes in their child's health status following GS but did report a range of other forms of perceived utility, including improvements in their child's healthcare management and access, in their own psychological well-being, and in disease-specific social connections and research opportunities. Parents who received a diagnosis more frequently perceived utility across all domains; however, disutility also was reported by both those with and without a diagnosis. Impacts depended on multiple mediating factors, including parents' underlying expectations and beliefs, family sociodemographic characteristics, individual disease characteristics, and prior healthcare access. Our study suggests that the perceived utility of GS varies widely among parents and may depend on multiple individual, sociodemographic, and contextual factors that are relevant for pre- and post-GS counseling, for value assessment of GS, and for policymaking related to access to new genomic technologies.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Parental perceptions of genetic testing for children with autism spectrum disorders

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) routinely undergo genetic testing (GT) to identify the causative genetic etiology of their ASD. As there are questions about the impact of GT beyond clinical diagnosis, we conducted a mixed methods study to assess the perceived benefits of GT by exploring factors that lead parents to pursue these tests and the benefits experienced. Respondents were part of a pretest or posttest group. The pretest group (N = 22) expressed intent to pursue GT and the posttest group (N = 32) had undergone GT and received results at least 3 months prior to completing the survey. Responses were compared between and within groups. Free text responses were coded for themes and selection questions were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests. Our results demonstrate significant differences between the groups with participants in the pretest group more likely to choose "increased access to therapies" (p = 0.026) and "improved healthcare" (p < 0.000) as reasons to pursue testing. Benefits were also significantly different with "improved healthcare" (p = 0.009), "improved access to services" (p = 0.012), and "improved access to therapies" (p = 0.003) more frequently anticipated by the pretest group than reported by the posttest group. A relationship between GT and clinical management changes was reported by 34.4-50.0% of the posttest group. Among that group, genetic result type (positive, negative, or variant of uncertain significance) was associated with differing perceived benefits of testing. Thematic analysis revealed increased knowledge and coping as reported benefits in both groups. Our findings indicate a discrepancy between parental expectations and experiences of GT. Comprehensive pretest and posttest genetic counseling are necessary to improve information retention, address potential outcomes, and set expectations of GT for parents of children with ASD.

A study of elective genome sequencing and pharmacogenetic testing in an unselected population

BACKGROUND

Genome sequencing (GS) of individuals without a medical indication, known as elective GS, is now available at a number of centers around the United States. Here we report the results of elective GS and pharmacogenetic panel testing in 52 individuals at a private genomics clinic in Alabama.

METHODS

Individuals seeking elective genomic testing and pharmacogenetic testing were recruited through a private genomics clinic in Huntsville, AL. Individuals underwent clinical genome sequencing with a separate pharmacogenetic testing panel.

RESULTS

Six participants (11.5%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants that may explain one or more aspects of their medical history. Ten participants (19%) had variants that altered the risk of disease in the future, including two individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Forty-four participants (85%) were carriers of a recessive or X-linked disorder. All individuals with pharmacogenetic testing had variants that affected current and/or future medications.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the importance of collecting detailed phenotype information to interpret results in elective GS.

Exome sequencing study in a clinical research setting finds general acceptance of study returning secondary genomic findings with little decisional conflict

The most appropriate strategies for managing secondary genomic findings (SF) in clinical research are being developed and evaluated. We surveyed patients at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to evaluate decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study that returns SF. Responses were collected using a cross-sectional survey after informed consent but before return of SF. Sixty-six adults of 116 eligible participants responded. No participant explicitly declined because they did not want to possibly receive a SF. Sixty-five of 66 (98%) participants thought it was appropriate to return SFs in research; one participant was unsure. Decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study returning SF was low overall with 68% of participants reporting a score of less than 10 on a 100-point decisional conflict scale, implying that they felt informed, clear on what they wanted, and supported. Lower genetic literacy was weakly associated with higher decisional conflict (Spearman's rho = -0.297, p = .015). Six participants reported confusion related to the choices about SFs. Our data suggest that participants in our study feel it is appropriate to receive SF and have little decisional conflict about potentially receiving such information; however, some participants may need further education and counseling.

Utility of Genetic Testing from the Perspective of Parents/Caregivers: A Scoping Review

In genomics, perceived and personal utility have been proposed as constructs of value that include the subjective meanings and uses of genetic testing. Precisely what constitutes these constructs of utility and how they vary by stakeholder perspective remains unresolved. To advance methods for measuring the value of genetic testing in child health, we conducted a scoping review of the literature to characterize utility from the perspective of parents/caregivers. Peer reviewed literature that included empiric findings from parents/caregivers who received genetic test results for an index child and was written in English from 2016-2020 was included. Identified concepts of utility were coded according to Kohler's construct of personal utility. Of 2142 abstracts screened, 33 met inclusion criteria. Studies reflected a range of genetic test types; the majority of testing was pursued for children with developmental or neurodevelopmental concerns. Coding resulted in 15 elements of utility that mapped to Kohler's four domains of personal utility (affective, cognitive, behavioural and social) and one additional medical management domain. An adapted construct of utility for parents/caregivers may enable specific and standardized strategies for researchers to use to generate evidence of the post-test value of genetic testing. In turn, this will contribute to emerging methods for health technology assessment and policy decision making for genomics in child health.

Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is positioned to become one of the most robust strategies for achieving timely diagnosis of rare genomic diseases. Despite its favorable diagnostic performance compared to conventional testing strategies, routine use and reimbursement of WGS are hampered by inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of clinical utility. For example, what constitutes clinical utility for WGS varies by stakeholder's perspective (physicians, patients, families, insurance companies, health-care organizations, and society), clinical context (prenatal, pediatric, critical care, adult medicine), and test purpose (diagnosis, screening, treatment selection). A rapidly evolving technology landscape and challenges associated with robust comparative study design in the context of rare disease further impede progress in this area of empiric research. To address this challenge, an expert working group of the Medical Genome Initiative was formed. Following a consensus-based process, we align with a broad definition of clinical utility and propose a conceptually-grounded and empirically-guided measurement toolkit focused on four domains of utility: diagnostic thinking efficacy, therapeutic efficacy, patient outcome efficacy, and societal efficacy. For each domain of utility, we offer specific indicators and measurement strategies. While we focus on diagnostic applications of WGS for rare germline diseases, this toolkit offers a flexible framework for best practices around measuring clinical utility for a range of WGS applications. While we expect this toolkit to evolve over time, it provides a resource for laboratories, clinicians, and researchers looking to characterize the value of WGS beyond the laboratory.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents

BACKGROUND

Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate.

METHODS

Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group.

DISCUSSION

These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03597165.

Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

Toward greater understanding of patient decision-making around genome sequencing

In the era of next-generation sequencing, it is essential to collect and understand the patient outcomes that result from this new technology. One critical determinant of these is the process by which individuals first decide whether and how to pursue genome sequencing. In this perspective article, we examine the literature on adult patient decision-making in genome sequencing and identify current research gaps to address. Several studies have explored the motivations and concerns of patients undergoing sequencing; less attention has been paid to those who decline sequencing or to individuals from lower socioeconomic groups. Many factors that might play a role in the decision to pursue or decline sequencing, including trust, family dynamics and barriers to access, have yet to be explored fully. Future research that captures the experience of the wider population will produce a more generalizable understanding of the clinical, psychosocial, and economic outcomes of pursuing or declining sequencing.

What People Want to Know About Their Genes: A Critical Review of the Literature on Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Studies

From a public health perspective, the “All of Us” study provides an opportunity to isolate targeted and cost-effective prevention and early-detection strategies. Identifying motivations for participation in large-scale genomic sequencing (LSGS) studies, and motivations and preferences to receive results will help determine effective strategies for “All of Us” study implementation. This paper offers a critical review of the literature regarding LSGS for adult onset hereditary conditions where results could indicate an increased risk to develop disease. The purpose of this review is to synthesize studies which explored peoples’ motivations for participating in LSGS studies, and their desire to receive different types of genetic results. Participants were primarily motivated by altruism, desire to know more about their health, and curiosity. When asked about hypothetically receiving results, most participants in hypothetical studies wanted all results except those which were uncertain (i.e., a variant of uncertain significance (VUS)). However, participants in studies where results were returned preferred to receive only results for which an intervention was available, but also wanted VUS. Concerns about peoples’ understanding of results and possible psychosocial implications are noted. Most studies examined populations classified as “early adopters,” therefore, additional research on motivations and expectations among the general public, minority, and underserved populations is needed.

Assessment of willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening among women and couples undergoing preconception carrier screening

Background

Expanded carrier screening can provide risk information for numerous conditions. Understanding how individuals undergoing preconception expanded carrier screening value this information is important. The NextGen study evaluated the use of genome sequencing for expanded carrier screening and reporting secondary findings, and we measured participants’ willingness to pay for this approach to understand how it is valued by women and couples planning a pregnancy.

Methods

We assessed 277 participants’ willingness to pay for genome sequencing reporting carrier results for 728 gene/condition pairs and results for 121 secondary findings. We explored the association between attitudes and demographic factors and willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing and conducted interviews with 58 of these participants to probe the reasoning behind their preferences.

Results

Most participants were willing to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing. Willingness to pay was associated with income level and religiosity, but not risk status for a condition in the carrier panel. Participants willing to pay nothing or a small amount cited issues around financial resources, whereas those willing to pay higher amounts were motivated by “peace of mind” from carrier results.

Conclusion

Women and couples planning a pregnancy value genome sequencing. The potentially high out-of-pocket cost of this service could result in healthcare disparities, since maximum amounts that participants were willing to pay were higher than a typical copay and related to income.

Is it research or is it clinical? Revisiting an old frontier through the lens of next-generation sequencing technologies

As next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) are increasingly used in the clinic, one issue often pointed out in the literature is the fact that their implementation "blurs the line" between research and healthcare. Indeed, NGS data obtained through research study may have clinical significance, and patients may consent that their data is shared in international databases used in research. This blurred line may increase the risk of therapeutic misconception, or that of over-reporting incidental findings. The law has been used to impose a distinction between the two contexts, but this distinction may not always be as clear in the practice of clinical genomics. To illustrate this, we reviewed the legal frameworks in France and Quebec on the matter, and asked the opinion of stakeholders who use NGS to help cancer and rare disease patients in practice. We found that while there are clear legal distinctions between research and clinical care, bridges between the two contexts exist, and the law focuses on providing appropriate protections to persons, whether they are patients or research participants. The technology users we interviewed expressed that their use of NGS was designed to help patients, but harbored elements pertaining to research as well as care. We hence saw that NGS technologies are often used with a double objective, both individual care and the creation of collective knowledge. Our results highlight the importance of moving towards research-based care, where clinical information can be progressively enriched with evolutive research results. We also found that there can be a misalignment between scientific experts' views and legal norms of what constitutes research or care, which should be addressed. Our method allowed us to shed light on a grey zone at the edge between research and care, where the full benefits of NGS can be yielded. We believe that this and other evidence from the realities of clinical research practice can be used to design more stable and responsible personalized medicine policies.

Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results

The management of secondary findings is a challenge to health-care providers relaying clinical genomic-sequencing results to patients. Understanding patients' expectations from non-diagnostic genomic sequencing could help guide this management. This study interviewed 14 individuals enrolled in the eMERGE (Electronic Medical Records and Genomics) study. Participants in eMERGE consent to undergo non-diagnostic genomic sequencing, receive results, and have results returned to their physicians. The interviews assessed expectations and intended use of results. The majority of interviewees were male (64%) and 43% identified as non-Caucasian. A unique theme identified was that many participants expressed uncertainty about the type of diseases they expected to receive results on, what results they wanted to learn about, and how they intended to use results. Participant uncertainty highlights the complex nature of deciding to undergo genomic testing and a deficiency in genomic knowledge. These results could help improve how genomic sequencing and secondary findings are discussed with patients.

The NextGen Study: patient motivation for participation in genome sequencing for carrier status

Background

While translational genomic sequencing research is increasing, few studies have been limited to healthy individuals; most have focused on patients with a disease or a strong family history of a disorder. The limited studies that have included healthy individuals have focused on the disclosure of medically actionable secondary results, rather than carrier status, to assess reproductive risks. To address this important gap, we conducted the NextGen study, which focuses on carrier status and medically actionable secondary findings in a population of women planning a pregnancy.

Methods

We assessed 310 participants’ motivations for receiving genome sequencing for expanded carrier screening and experiences with familial genetic conditions that may relate to study participation.

Results

Most participants reported that obtaining general health information from genome sequencing was their primary motivator, even though they were recruited to join a study to learn more about carrier status. Forty‐two percent of enrolled women became pregnant prior to obtaining sequencing results.

Conclusion

Genomic carrier testing may need to be offered to women prior to active pregnancy efforts to be useful for reproductive planning.

Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Individual genome sequencing results are valued by patients in ways distinct from clinical utility. Such outcomes have been described as components of "personal utility," a concept that broadly encompasses patient-endorsed benefits, that is operationally defined as non-clinical outcomes. No empirical delineation of these outcomes has been reported.

AIM

To address this gap, we administered a Delphi survey to adult participants in a National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical exome study to extract the most highly endorsed outcomes constituting personal utility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty research participants responded to a Delphi survey to rate 35 items identified by a systematic literature review of personal utility.

RESULTS

Two rounds of ranking resulted in 24 items that represented 14 distinct elements of personal utility. Elements most highly endorsed by participants were: increased self-knowledge, knowledge of "the condition," altruism, and anticipated coping.

DISCUSSION

Our findings represent the first systematic effort to delineate elements of personal utility that may be used to anticipate participant expectation and inform genetic counseling prior to sequencing. The 24 items reported need to be studied further in additional clinical genome sequencing studies to assess generalizability in other populations. Further research will help to understand motivations and to predict the meaning and use of results.

Evolving health care through personal genomics

With the rapid evolution of next-generation DNA sequencing technologies, the cost of sequencing a human genome has plummeted, and genomics has started to pervade health care across all stages of life - from preconception to adult medicine. Challenges to fully embracing genomics in a clinical setting remain, but some approaches are starting to overcome these barriers, such as community-driven data sharing to improve the accuracy and efficiency of applying genomics to patient care.

Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review

Researchers and clinicians refer to outcomes of genomic testing that extend beyond clinical utility as 'personal utility'. No systematic delineation of personal utility exists, making it challenging to appreciate its scope. Identifying empirical elements of personal utility reported in the literature offers an inventory that can be subsequently ranked for its relative value by those who have undergone genomic testing. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature reporting non-health-related outcomes of genomic testing from 1 January 2003 to 5 August 2016. Inclusion criteria specified English language, date of publication, and presence of empirical evidence. Identified outcomes were iteratively coded into unique domains. The search returned 551 abstracts from which 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study populations and type of genomic testing varied. Coding resulted in 15 distinct elements of personal utility, organized into three domains related to personal outcomes: affective, cognitive, and behavioral; and one domain related to social outcomes. The domains of personal utility may inform pre-test counseling by helping patients anticipate potential value of test results beyond clinical utility. Identified elements may also inform investigations into the prevalence and importance of personal utility to future test users.

Integrating precision cancer medicine into healthcare-policy, practice, and research challenges

Precision medicine (PM) can be defined as a predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory healthcare service delivery model. Recent developments in molecular biology and information technology make PM a reality today through the use of massive amounts of genetic, ‘omics’, clinical, environmental, and lifestyle data. With cancer being one of the most prominent public health threats in developed countries, both the research community and governments have been investing significant time, money, and efforts in precision cancer medicine (PCM). Although PCM research is extremely promising, a number of hurdles still remain on the road to an optimal integration of standardized and evidence-based use of PCM in healthcare systems. Indeed, PCM raises a number of technical, organizational, ethical, legal, social, and economic challenges that have to be taken into account in the development of an appropriate health policy framework. Here, we highlight some of the more salient issues regarding the standards needed for integration of PCM into healthcare systems, and we identify fields where more research is needed before policy can be implemented. Key challenges include, but are not limited to, the creation of new standards for the collection, analysis, and sharing of samples and data from cancer patients, and the creation of new clinical trial designs with renewed endpoints. We believe that these issues need to be addressed as a matter of priority by public health policymakers in the coming years for a better integration of PCM into healthcare.

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.