Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Mainstreaming genomics in the National Health Service in England: a survey to understand preparedness and confidence among paediatricians

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service in the UK is the first national healthcare system to offer genomic sequencing for rare disease diagnosis as routine care. Non-genetic medical specialists, including paediatricians, can now request genomic testing for certain clinical indications. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the preparedness and confidence of paediatricians providing genomic sequencing in England. In addition, we assessed current practice, perceived utility of testing, barriers and enablers, prior genomics education and training preferences.

METHODS

A 26-item electronic survey for completion by paediatric specialists. Participants were recruited through national associations and a conference. Quantitative items were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Open-ended question responses were analysed by qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

157 responses were included in the analysis. Only 49.0% reported feeling prepared for mainstreaming despite 75.0% reporting they had requested testing in the past 12 months, 47.7% indicating they had returned genomic sequencing results and 67.1% feeling genomic testing was useful. Mean confidence scores were lowest for tasks including using human phenotype ontology terminology on test request forms (3.9/10), interpreting genomic test results (4.8/10), discussing complex genomic results with patients and families (4.3/10) and integrating test results into patient care (4.7/10). Significantly higher average ranked genomic confidence was identified among those who had requested testing in the last 12 months compared with those who had not (Z=5.063, p<0.001, r=0.412). The most frequent barriers to mainstreaming were lack of training and knowledge (43.3%), determining patient eligibility (28.0%), lack of time (27.4%) and confidence (25.5%). Webinars (48.4%), followed by continued professional development meetings and/or conferences (38.9%), were the preferred mode of training.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that preparedness and confidence among paediatricians in genomics is currently lacking. Support from clinical genetics services, simplified referral forms and webinar training sessions could improve current practice.

Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Genetic testing for familial melanoma

While the average lifetime risk of melanoma worldwide is approximately 3%, those with inherited high-penetrance mutations face an increased lifetime risk of 52-84%. In countries of low melanoma incidence, such as in Southern Europe, familial melanoma genetic testing may be warranted when there are two first degree relatives with a melanoma diagnosis. Testing criteria for high incidence countries such as USA, or with very-high incidence, such as Australia and New Zealand, would require a threshold of 3 to 4 affected family members. A mutation in the most common gene associated with familial melanoma, CDKN2A, is identified in approximately 10-40% of those meeting testing criteria. However, the use of multi-gene panels covering additional less common risk genes can significantly increase the diagnostic yield. Currently, genetic testing for familial melanoma is typically conducted by qualified genetic counsellors, however with increasing demand on testing services and high incidence rate in certain countries, a mainstream model should be considered. With appropriate training, dermatologists are well placed to identify high risk individuals and offer melanoma genetic test in dermatology clinics. Genetic testing should be given in conjunction with pre- and post-test consultation. Informed patient consent should cover possible results, the limitations and implications of testing including inconclusive results, and potential for genetic discrimination. Previous studies reporting on participant outcomes of genetic testing for familial melanoma have found significant improvements in both sun protective behavior and screening frequency in mutation carriers.

Investigating genomic medicine practice and perceptions amongst Australian non-genetics physicians to inform education and implementation

Genomic medicine is being implemented on a global scale, requiring a genomic-competent health workforce. To inform education as part of implementation strategies to optimize adoption of genomics by non-genetics physicians, we investigated current practices, perceptions and preferences relating to genomic testing and education. Australian non-genetics physicians completed an online survey; we conducted univariate and multivariate analyses of determinants of confidence and engagement with genomic medicine. Confident or engaged respondents were more likely to be pediatricians, have completed continuing genomics education (CGE) and/or have genomics research experience. Confident or engaged respondents were also more likely to prefer to request genomic testing with support from genetics services than other models. Respondents who had completed CGE and were engaged reported higher confidence than those who were not engaged. We propose a progression of genomic competence aligned with service delivery models, where education is one enabler of mastery or independence to facilitate genomic tests (from referral to requesting with or without clinical genetics support). Workplace learning could provide additional impetus for adoption.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type.

METHODS

An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).