Genetic health professionals' experiences returning results from diagnostic genomic sequencing to patients

Perceptions of patient-reported outcome data access and sharing among patients with heart failure: ethical implications for research

AIMS

In the face of growing expectations for data transparency and patient engagement in care, we evaluated preferences for patient-reported outcome (PRO) data access and sharing among patients with heart failure (HF) using an ethical framework.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of patients with HF who participated in a larger 8-week study that involved the collection and return of PROs using a web-based interface. Guided by an ethical framework, patients were asked questions about their preferences for having PRO data returned to them and shared with other groups. Interview transcripts were coded by three study team members using directed content analysis. A total of 22 participants participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants were mostly male (73%), White (68%) with a mean age of 72. Themes were grouped into priorities, benefits, and barriers to data access and sharing. Priorities included ensuring anonymity when data are shared, transparency with intentions of data use, and having access to all collected data. Benefits included: using data as a communication prompt to discuss health with clinicians and using data to support self-management. Barriers included: challenges with interpreting returned results, and potential loss of benefits and anonymity when sharing data.

CONCLUSION

Our interviews with HF patients highlight opportunities for researchers to return and share data through an ethical lens, by ensuring privacy and transparency with intentions of data use, returning collected data in comprehensible formats, and meeting individual expectations for data sharing.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Genetic services survey-experience of people with rare diseases and their families accessing genetic services in the Irish Republic

Irish Health Service objectives state that patients with rare diseases should have timely access to genomic diagnostics with appropriate pre and post-test counselling. However, waiting times for clinical genetics outpatient appointments, during the study period, were up to two years as staffing levels remain low. A targeted public online survey was conducted in January 2022 to capture the experiences of Rare Disease families trying to access genetic testing and clinical genetic clinics in the Irish Republic. Irish patients experience significant waiting times to access clinical genetic services and self-report anxiety and stress, related to delayed access to diagnosis, clarity around recurrence risk and follow-up management. This negatively impacts personal decisions around family planning, education and employment and has a significant impact on family members seeking clarity on their own risk. Mainstream genetic testing activity is significant. Families report concern over the competency of health care professionals arranging and delivering genetic results and delays in accessing clinical genetics expertise to take them through the clinical implications. Timely access to clinical genetics expertise is important to ensure families with rare diseases have an appropriate understanding of the medical and reproductive implications of a genetic diagnosis and access to relevant care pathways. A national framework to develop competency in genomic literacy for health-care professionals including a national genetic test directory may be beneficial. Clinical genetics teams require ongoing support and investment to ensure the delivery of a safe and effective service for Irish families with rare diseases.

Navigating the uncertainties of next-generation sequencing in the genetics clinic

This study explores the different manifestations and navigations of uncertainty in the practice of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. Drawing upon multi-sited fieldwork conducted at a large Centre for Human Genetics in Belgium, we analyse how uncertainty takes shape and is managed in the different steps of the diagnostic process: starting from the testing offer, to the analysis in the lab, the multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) and ending with the consultation with the patient. Building on interviews with genetic healthcare professionals and their patients and observations in consultations and MDTs, our empirical work underlines the duality of uncertainty as both burdensome and productive. Building on the existing literature on uncertainty in medicine and NGS, our analysis shows the ontological politics at play in the everyday uncertainty work in this CHG. We show how the, at times, contrasting ways of dealing with uncertainty lead to friction but also result in constructive negotiation and collaboration between actors, making use of multiple types of evidence and expertise. By not only minimising but also sustaining or inviting uncertainty, genetic healthcare professionals are able to advance the practices around NGS in a way that matches their multidisciplinary understandings, considerations and more normative stances.

Offering and Returning Secondary Findings in the Context of Exome Sequencing for Hearing Loss: Clinicians' Views and Experiences

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding whether and under which circumstances secondary findings (SF) should be offered in the pediatric context. Although studies have examined patient perspectives on receiving SF, little research has been conducted examining the experiences of clinicians offering SF to parents of newborns receiving genomic sequencing for a recently diagnosed medical condition.

METHODS

To address this, we conducted qualitative interviews exploring the views and experiences of 12 clinicians who offered SF to parents of infants who had diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) to identify the cause of their hearing loss. Interviews explored clinicians' accounts of parents' choices and decision-making about receiving SF, their views on whether and when to offer SF, their experiences returning SF, and any ethical challenges they encountered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported parents who declined all SF often felt finding out about future conditions unrelated to their child's hearing loss may be unhelpful, or even harmful, or were overwhelmed by their child's diagnosis. Clinicians also reported that some parents chose SF because they felt obliged to, even if they did not want to receive them. They explained that while some parents experienced decision-making regarding SF as positive, for others, this process was challenging or distressing. While clinicians generally agreed SF should be offered, mainly to promote parental choice, most felt SF should be offered after disclosing diagnostic results, primarily to avoid overwhelming parents. Clinicians encountered several ethical challenges, including balancing parental autonomy with non-maleficence, wanting to report or not report certain SF, and questioning whether parents can make an autonomous choice regarding SF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings, which are novel as they relate to parents of young infants with a recent diagnosis of hearing loss, add new insights into clinicians' and parents' decision-making regarding SF in pediatrics.

Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next‐generation sequencing: “A great technology creating new dilemmas”

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While "medical actionability" is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

Current Issues, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Genetic Counseling in Korea

Genetic testing has become increasingly integrated into all areas of healthcare, and complex genetic testing usage continues to grow; thus, the demand for genetic counseling (GC) is likely to increase. However, it is unclear whether the current clinical GC capacity is sufficient for meeting the existing demand. This review describes the current issues, challenges, and future perspectives of GC in Korea based on a professional survey conducted among laboratory physicians. In view of the growing GC demand in the clinical setting, participants expressed a concern about the lack of support from the national healthcare insurance policy and legal requirements, such as certification, for GC practice. The implementation of genetic testing in the overall healthcare system in Korea is in an early phase. Proper implementation can be achieved through education and training of specialists, collaboration among healthcare personnel, proper regulatory oversight, genomic policies, and public awareness. Understanding the current GC capacity, issues, and challenges is a prerequisite for effective strategic planning by healthcare systems considering the expected growth in the demand for clinical genetic services over the next few decades.

Development and evaluation of an exome sequencing training course for medical interpreters

Aim: As genomic medicine reaches more diverse populations, there is an increased need for healthcare interpreters who understand and can effectively interpret genomics concepts. Methods: We designed a course for healthcare interpreters on exome sequencing to enhance their preparedness for genomic results disclosure appointments in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study and beyond. The course was evaluated via pre/post surveys and qualitative interviews. Results: 23 interpreters completed the course; 87% rated it as excellent/very good. Improved pre/post confidence interpreting for genetics appointments was statistically significant; pre/post knowledge was not. Interviews highlighted the need for more discussion time. Conclusion: While the course increased confidence interpreting for exome sequencing results appointments, suggested modifications could enhance knowledge and retention of key concepts.

Clinicians' Views and Experiences with Offering and Returning Results from Exome Sequencing to Parents of Infants with Hearing Loss

Exome sequencing (ES) is an effective method for identifying the genetic cause of hearing loss in infants diagnosed through newborn hearing screening programs. ES has the potential to be integrated into routine clinical care, yet little is known about the experiences of clinicians offering this test to families. To address this gap, clinicians involved in a clinical study using ES to identify the cause of infants' hearing loss were interviewed to explore their experiences with offering and returning results to parents. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis. Twelve clinicians participated: seven genetic counsellors, four clinical geneticists, and one paediatrician. Most clinicians were supportive of offering ES to infants with hearing loss, primarily because results may inform the child's clinical management. However, some expressed concerns, questioning the utility of this information, particularly for isolated hearing loss. Clinicians had differing views regarding the optimal time to offer ES to families; while some felt that families can manage everything at once, others recommended delaying testing until parents have come to terms with their child's diagnosis. These findings show the complexity involved in determining how ES should be offered to families following the diagnosis of a child with hearing loss, particularly with regards to when testing is suggested.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance

Purpose:

How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance (VUS), or benign) is unknown.

Methods:

We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1=highest priority, 6=lowest priority).

Results:

PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (72% vs 16%, p<0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or EGD, in response to pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (43% vs 4%, p<0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUSs (both p>0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUSs, 4.3 for benign variants, all p≤0.014).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUSs as SFs would substantially increase downstream health care utilization.

Clinical management, ethics and informed consent related to multi-gene panel-based high throughput sequencing testing for platelet disorders: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH

Molecular diagnostics of inherited platelet disorders (IPD) has been revolutionized by the implementation of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) approaches. A conclusive diagnosis using HTS tests can be obtained quickly and cost-effectively in many, but not all patients. The expanding use of HTS tests has raised concerns regarding complex variant interpretation and the ethical implications of detecting unsolicited findings such as variants in IPD genes RUNX1, ETV6, and ANKRD26, which are associated with increased leukemic risk. This guidance document has been developed and written by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and clinicians, with expertise in hematology, clinical and molecular genetics, and bioethics, alongside a RUNX1 patient advocacy representative. We recommend that for clinical diagnostics, HTS for IPD should use a multigene panel of curated diagnostic-grade genes. Critically, we advise that an HTS test for clinical diagnostics should only be ordered by a clinical expert that is: (a) fully aware of the complexity of genotype-phenotype correlations for IPD; (b) able to discuss these complexities with a patient and family members before the test is initiated; and (c) able to interpret and appropriately communicate the results of a HTS diagnostic report, including the implication of variants of uncertain clinical significance. Each patient should know what an HTS test could mean for his or her clinical management before initiating a test. We hereby propose an exemplified informed consent document that includes information on these ethical concerns and can be used by the community for implementation of HTS of IPD in a clinical diagnostic setting. This paper does not include recommendations for HTS of IPD in a research setting.

Mitochondrial Diseases: A Diagnostic Revolution

Mitochondrial disorders have emerged as a common cause of inherited disease, but are traditionally viewed as being difficult to diagnose clinically, and even more difficult to comprehensively characterize at the molecular level. However, new sequencing approaches, particularly whole-genome sequencing (WGS), have dramatically changed the landscape. The combined analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) allows rapid diagnosis for the vast majority of patients, but new challenges have emerged. We review recent discoveries that will benefit patients and families, and highlight emerging questions that remain to be resolved.