Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings

PurposeComprehensive genomic analysis including exome and genome sequencing is increasingly being utilized in research studies, leading to the generation of incidental genetic findings. It is unclear how researchers plan to deal with incidental genetic findings.MethodsWe conducted a survey of the practices and attitudes of 234 members of the US genetic research community and performed qualitative semistructured interviews with 28 genomic researchers to understand their views and experiences with incidental genetic research findings.ResultsWe found that 12% of the researchers had returned incidental genetic findings, and an additional 28% planned to do so. A large majority of researchers (95%) believe that incidental findings for highly penetrant disorders with immediate medical implications should be offered to research participants. However, there was no consensus on returning incidental results for other conditions varying in penetrance and medical actionability. Researchers raised concerns that the return of incidental findings would impose significant burdens on research and could potentially have deleterious effects on research participants if not performed well. Researchers identified assistance needed to enable effective, accurate return of incidental findings.ConclusionThe majority of the researchers believe that research participants should have the option to receive at least some incidental genetic research results.     

Researchers’ views on informed consent for return of secondary results in genomic research

PurposePrevious studies have suggested that genomic investigators generally favor offering to return at least some secondary findings to participants and believe that participants’ preferences should determine the information they receive. We surveyed investigators to ascertain their views on four models of informed consent for this purpose: traditional consent, staged consent, mandatory return, and outsourced consent.MethodsWe performed an online survey of the views regarding return of secondary results held by 198 US genetic researchers drawn from our subject pool for an earlier study. Potential participants were identified through the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database and abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting.ResultsUnder circumstances in which resource constraints are not an issue, approximately a third of respondents would endorse either staged consent or traditional consent; outsourced consent and mandatory return are favored by only a small minority. However, taking resource constraints into account, roughly half the sample would favor traditional consent, with support for staged consent dropping to 13%.ConclusionDespite their liabilities, traditional approaches to consent are seen as the most viable under current circumstances. However, there is considerable interest in staged consent, assuming the infrastructure to support it can be provided.Genet Med17 8, 644–650.     

Oncologists’ and cancer patients’ views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study

PurposeAlthough targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, it remains uncertain how somatic and germ-line whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care.MethodsWe conducted surveys and interviews within a study of WES integration at an academic center to determine oncologists’ attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients’ preferences for learning WES findings.ResultsOne-hundred sixty-seven patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germ-line tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct out of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable noncancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable noncancer conditions (85%).ConclusionThe majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients’ low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists’ inexperience with large-scale sequencing present challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.Genet Med18 10, 1011–1019.     

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.     

Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group

PurposeImplementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) Network’s efforts to promote (i) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research and (ii) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network.MethodsTo facilitate this goal, the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide its approach to identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross-network analyses.ResultsCMG identified 10 high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight did not have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model.ConclusionWe developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field.     

Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness

PurposeTo systematically investigate the longer-term clinical and health economic impacts of genomic sequencing for rare-disease diagnoses.MethodsWe collected information on continuing diagnostic investigation, changes in management, cascade testing, and parental reproductive outcomes in 80 infants who underwent singleton whole-exome sequencing (WES).ResultsThe median duration of follow-up following result disclosure was 473 days. Changes in clinical management due to diagnostic WES results led to a cost saving of AU$1,578 per quality-adjusted life year gained, without increased hospital service use. Uninformative WES results contributed to the diagnosis of non-Mendelian conditions in seven infants. Further usual diagnostic investigations in those with ongoing suspicion of a genetic condition yielded no new diagnoses, while WES data reanalysis yielded four. Reanalysis at 18 months was more cost-effective than every 6 months. The parents of diagnosed children had eight more ongoing pregnancies than those without a diagnosis. Taking the costs and benefits of cascade testing and reproductive service use into account, there was an additional cost of AU$8,118 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to genomic sequencing.ConclusionThese data strengthen the case for the early use of genomic testing in the diagnostic trajectory, and can guide laboratory policy on periodic WES data reanalysis.     

Protein analysis of tissues—current views and clinical perspectives

Proteomics raises high expectations in finding novel and reliable biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy prediction. The goal of the 2-day workshop “Protein analysis of tissues—current views and clinical perspectives” was to bring together scientists from multiple areas of protein research interested in tissue analysis.     

Broad bandwidth or high fidelity? Evidence from the structure of genetic and environmental effects on the facets of the five factor model

The Five Factor Model of personality is well-established at the phenotypic level, but much less is known about the coherence of the genetic and environmental influences within each personality domain. Univariate behavioral genetic analyses have consistently found the influence of additive genes and nonshared environment on multiple personality facets, but the extent to which genetic and environmental influences on specific facets reflect more general influences on higher order factors is less clear. We applied a multivariate quantitative-genetic approach to scores on the CPI-Big Five facets for 490 monozygotic and 317 dizygotic twins who took part in the National Merit Twin Study. Our results revealed a complex genetic structure for facets composing all five factors, with both domain-general and facet-specific genetic and environmental influences. For three of the Big Five domains, models that required common genetic and environmental influences on each facet to occur by way of effects on a higher order trait did not fit as well as models allowing for common genetic and environmental effects to act directly on the facets. These results add to the growing body of literature indicating that important variation in personality occurs at the facet level which may be overshadowed by aggregating to the trait level. Research at the facet level, rather than the factor level, is likely to have pragmatic advantages in future research on the genetics of personality.     

Tailoring the amount of treatment information to cancer patients’ and survivors’ preferences: Effects on patient-reported outcomes

ObjectivesTailoring medical information to cancer patients’ needs is recommended, but there is little guidance on how to tailor, and limited research exists about its effects. Tailoring to the amount of preferred information may be easily implementable in clinic and is tested here.MethodsA video-vignette experiment was used to systematically vary video patients’ information preferences (limited/extensive) and amount of provided information (additional/no additional). N = 253 cancer patients/survivors evaluated these video-recorded consultations, serving as analogue patients (APs), and completed outcome measures.ResultsTailoring information to video patients’ preferences had no effect on APs’ evaluation of the consultation (satisfaction, trust). Yet, there was a main effect of APs’ own information preferences: Those preferring extensive information recalled (MΔ = 5.8%) and recognized (MΔ = 3.5%) more information than those preferring limited information. Moreover, information provision mattered among APs who preferred limited information: They recognized even less if provided with extensive information.ConclusionsTailoring to the amount of video patient’s information preferences did not affect APs’ evaluation of the consultation (satisfaction, trust), while APs’ personal information preferences determined their recall and recognition of medical information.Practice implicationsInformation preferences should be assessed and tailored to in clinical practice. Overwhelming patients/survivors, who prefer limited information, should be prevented.     

Exploring peer coaches’ outcomes: Findings from a clinical trial of patients with chronic pain

ObjectiveAlthough peer coaching can help patients manage chronic conditions, few studies have evaluated the effects of peer coaching on coaches, and no studies have systematically examined these effects in the context of chronic pain coaching.MethodsPeer coach outcomes were assessed as part of a randomized trial of peer coaching for chronic pain. In this exploratory analysis, linear mixed models were used to evaluate changes in peer coaches’ pain and related outcomes from baseline to 6 and 9 months. The Šidák method was used to account for multiple comparisons.ResultsPeer coaches (N = 55) experienced statistically significant increases in anxiety and pain catastrophizing from baseline to 6 months, which were no longer significant after adjustment. All other changes were not statistically significant.ConclusionsDespite prior studies suggesting that peer coaches benefit from serving as a coach, the current study failed to support that conclusion.Practice ImplicationsPeer coaching remains a promising model, with high potential for implementation, for a number of chronic conditions requiring self-management. However, to maximize the benefits of such interventions, it is essential to monitor both those being coached and the coaches themselves, and not to assume that serving as a coach is inherently beneficial.     

Airmen and health-care providers’ attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project

PurposeThe use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members’ careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF).MethodsWe assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results.ResultsParticipants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career.ConclusionResults suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.     

Comparison of chromosome analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis: what is the value of chromosome analysis in today’s genomic array era?

PurposeChromosomal microarray analysis enables the detection of microdeletions/duplications and has become the standard in clinical diagnostic testing for individuals with congenital anomalies and developmental disabilities. In the era of genomic arrays, the value of traditional chromosome analysis needs to be reassessed.MethodsWe studied 3,710 unrelated patients by chromosomal microarray analysis and chromosome analysis simultaneously and compared the results.ResultsWe found that chromosomal microarray analysis detected the chromosomal imbalances that were identified by chromosome analysis with the exception of six cases (0.16%) that had mosaic abnormalities. Of note, one case showed mosaicism for two abnormal cell lines, resulting in a balanced net effect and a normal chromosomal microarray analysis. Further structural abnormalities such as unbalanced translocations, rings, and complex rearrangements were subsequently clarified by chromosome analysis in 18% of the cases with abnormal chromosomal microarray analysis results. Apparently balanced rearrangements were detected by chromosome analysis in 30 cases (0.8%).ConclusionOur data demonstrate that although chromosomal microarray analysis should be the first-tier test for clinical diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities, chromosome analysis remains valuable in the detection of mosaicism and delineation of chromosomal structural rearrangements.ConclusionGenet Med 2013:15(6):450–457