Why we should care about what you get for "only $99" from a personal genomic service

Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study

Purpose Significant concerns exist regarding the potential for unwarranted behavior changes and the overuse of health care resources in response to direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (PGT). However, little is known about customers' behaviors after PGT. Methods Longitudinal surveys were given to new customers of 23andMe (Mountain View, CA) and Pathway Genomics (San Diego, CA). Survey data were linked to individual-level PGT results through a secure data transfer process. Results Of the 1,042 customers who completed baseline and 6-month surveys (response rate, 71.2%), 762 had complete cancer-related data and were analyzed. Most customers reported that learning about their genetic risk of cancers was a motivation for testing (colorectal, 88%; prostate, 95%; breast, 94%). No customers tested positive for pathogenic mutations in highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes. A minority of individuals received elevated single nucleotide polymorphism-based PGT cancer risk estimates (colorectal, 24%; prostate, 24%; breast, 12%). At 6 months, customers who received elevated PGT cancer risk estimates were not significantly more likely to change their diet, exercise, or advanced planning behaviors or engage in cancer screening, compared with individuals at average or reduced risk. Men who received elevated PGT prostate cancer risk estimates changed their vitamin and supplement use more than those at average or reduced risk (22% v 7.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.44 to 8.18). Predictors of 6-month behavior include baseline behavior (exercise, vitamin or supplement use, and screening), worse health status (diet and vitamin or supplement use), and older age (advanced planning, screening). Conclusion Most adults receiving elevated direct-to-consumer PGT single nucleotide polymorphism-based cancer risk estimates did not significantly change their diet, exercise, advanced care planning, or cancer screening behaviors.

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

AIM

To describe practicing physicians' perceived clinical utility of genome sequencing.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of data from 18 primary care physicians and cardiologists in a study of the clinical integration of whole-genome sequencing. Physicians underwent brief genomics continuing medical education before completing surveys and semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Physicians described sequencing as currently lacking clinical utility because of its uncertain interpretation and limited impact on clinical decision-making, but they expressed the idea that its clinical integration was inevitable. Potential clinical uses for sequencing included complementing other clinical information, risk stratification, motivating patient behavior change and pharmacogenetics.

CONCLUSION

Physicians given genomics continuing medical education use the language of both evidence-based and personalized medicine in describing the utility of genome-wide testing in patient care.

Gatekeepers or intermediaries? The role of clinicians in commercial genomic testing

Background

Many commentators on “direct-to-consumer” genetic risk information have raised concerns that giving results to individuals with insufficient knowledge and training in genomics may harm consumers, the health care system, and society. In response, several commercial laboratories offering genomic risk profiling have shifted to more traditional “direct-to-provider” (DTP) marketing strategies, repositioning clinicians as the intended recipients of advertising of laboratory services and as gatekeepers to personal genomic information. Increasing popularity of next generation sequencing puts a premium on ensuring that those who are charged with interpreting, translating, communicating and managing commercial genomic risk information are appropriately equipped for the job. To shed light on their gatekeeping role, we conducted a study to assess how and why early clinical users of genomic risk assessment incorporate these tools in their clinical practices and how they interpret genomic information for their patients.

Methods and Findings

We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 clinicians providing genomic risk assessment services to their patients in partnership with DNA Direct and Navigenics. Our findings suggest that clinicians learned most of what they knew about genomics directly from the commercial laboratories. Clinicians rely on the expertise of the commercial laboratories without the ability to critically evaluate the knowledge or assess risks.

Conclusions

DTP service delivery model cannot guarantee that providers will have adequate expertise or sound clinical judgment. Even if clinicians want greater genomic knowledge, the current market structure is unlikely to build the independent substantive expertise of clinicians, but rather promote its continued outsourcing. Because commercial laboratories have the most “skin in the game” financially, genetics professionals and policymakers should scrutinize the scientific validity and clinical soundness of the process by which these laboratories interpret their findings to assess whether self-interested commercial sources are the most appropriate entities for gate-keeping genomic interpretation.

Do physicians think genomic medicine will be useful for patient care?

Significant technological improvements over the last decade have led to a vast expansion in the understanding of the genomic architecture of human disease. However, the use of genomic information, so-called genomic medicine, in routine clinical care, has been slow in comparison to the growth in genomic discovery. The uptake of genomic technology into clinical practice will depend on physicians' perspectives of its utility in patient care. We review recent literature addressing physician attitudes regarding the usefulness and limitations of genomic testing. We conclude by proposing research areas to better understand the role physicians will play in the uptake of genomic information into clinical medicine.