When "Actionable" Genomic Sequencing Results Cannot Be Acted Upon

Genomic newborn screening: Are we entering a new era of screening?

Population newborn screening (NBS) for phenylketonuria began in the United States in 1963. In the 1990s electrospray ionization mass spectrometry permitted an array of pathognomonic metabolites to be identified simultaneously, enabling up to 60 disorders to be recognized with a single test. In response, differing approaches to the assessment of the harms and benefits of screening have resulted in variable screening panels worldwide. Thirty years on and another screening revolution has emerged with the potential for first line genomic testing extending the range of screening conditions recognized after birth to many hundreds. At the annual SSIEM conference in 2022 in Freiburg, Germany, an interactive plenary discussion on genomic screening strategies and their challenges and opportunities was conducted. The Genomics England Research project proposes the use of Whole Genome Sequencing to offer extended NBS to 100 000 babies for defined conditions with a clear benefit for the child. The European Organization for Rare Diseases seeks to include "actionable" conditions considering also other types of benefits. Hopkins Van Mil, a private UK research institute, determined the views of citizens and revealed as a precondition that families are provided with adequate information, qualified support, and that autonomy and data are protected. From an ethical standpoint, the benefits ascribed to screening and early treatment need to be considered in relation to asymptomatic, phenotypically mild or late-onset presentations, where presymptomatic treatment may not be required. The different perspectives and arguments demonstrate the unique burden of responsibility on those proposing new and far-reaching developments in NBS programs and the need to carefully consider both harms and benefits.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study

Purpose

The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach.

Results

We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment.

Conclusion

Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Patients' Expectations of Benefits From Large-Panel Genomic Tumor Testing in Rural Community Oncology Practices

Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology that promises to make cancer treatment more precise. Because GTT is novel and complex, patients may have unrealistic expectations and limited knowledge of its benefits. These problems may limit the clinical value of GTT, but their prevalence and associated factors have not been explored.

METHODS

Patients with cancer enrolled in a large initiative to disseminate GTT in community oncology practices completed surveys assessing their expectations, knowledge, and attitudes about GTT. The study sample (N = 1,139) consisted of patients with a range of cancer types (22% gynecologic, 14% lung, 10% colon, 10% breast, and 46% other malignancies) and cancer stages (4% stage I, 3% stage II, 15% stage III, and 74% stage IV). Mean age was 64 years (standard deviation = 11); 668 (59%) were women; 71% had no college degree; 57% came from households with less than $50,000 US dollars household income; and 73% lived in a rural area.

RESULTS

Generally, patients had high expectations that they would benefit from GTT (M = 2.81 on 0-4 scale) and positive attitudes toward it (M = 2.98 on 0-4 scale). Patients also had relatively poor knowledge about GTT (48% correct answers on an objective test of GTT knowledge). Greater expectations for GTT were associated with lower knowledge (b = -0.46; P < .001), more positive attitudes (b = 0.40; P < .001), and lower education (b = -0.53; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This research suggests patients have high expectations that they will benefit from GTT, which is associated with low knowledge, positive attitudes, and low education. More research is needed to understand the concordance between expectations and actual clinical outcomes.

[Liquid biopsy in oncology: A consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology]

The proportion of cancer patients with tumours that harbour a potentially targetable genomic alteration is increasing considerably. The diagnosis of these genomic alterations can lead to tailoring of treatment, at the onset of disease or during progression, as well as providing additional, predictive information on the efficacy of immunotherapy. However, in up to 25% of cases, the initial tissue biopsy is inadequate for precision oncology and, in many cases, tumour genomic profiling at progression is not possible due to technical limitations of obtaining new tumour tissue specimens. Efficient diagnostic alternatives are therefore required for molecular stratification, such as liquid biopsy. This technique enables the evaluation of the tumour genomic profile dynamically and as well as capturing intra-patient genomic heterogeneity. To date, there are several diagnostic techniques available for use in liquid biopsy, each with different precision and performance levels. The objective of this consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) is to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the different methodological approaches of liquid biopsy in cancer patients, and the potential application of this method to current clinical practice. The experts contributing to this consensus statement agree that, according to current evidence, liquid biopsy is an acceptable alternative to tumour tissue biopsy for the study of biomarkers in various clinical settings. It is therefore important to standardise pre-analytical and analytical procedures to ensure reproducibility and to generate structured and accessible clinical reports. It is essential to appoint multidisciplinary tumour molecular committees to oversee these processes and to enable the most suitable therapeutic decisions for each patient according to the genomic profile.

Liquid biopsy in oncology: a consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

The proportion of cancer patients with tumours that harbour a potentially targetable genomic alteration is growing considerably. The diagnosis of these genomic alterations can lead to tailored treatment at the onset of disease or on progression and to obtaining additional predictive information on immunotherapy efficacy. However, in up to 25% of cases, the initial tissue biopsy is inadequate for precision oncology and, in many cases, tumour genomic profiling at progression is not possible due to technical limitations of obtaining new tumour tissue specimens. Efficient diagnostic alternatives are therefore required for molecular stratification, which includes liquid biopsy. This technique enables the evaluation of the tumour genomic profile dynamically and captures intra-patient genomic heterogeneity as well. To date, there are several diagnostic techniques available for use in liquid biopsy, each one of them with different precision and performance levels. The objective of this consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology is to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the different methodological approaches in liquid biopsy in cancer patients and the potential application of this method to current clinical practice. The experts contributing to this consensus statement agree that, according to current evidence, liquid biopsy is an acceptable alternative to tumour tissue biopsy for the study of biomarkers in various clinical settings. It is therefore important to standardise pre-analytical and analytical procedures, to ensure reproducibility and generate structured and accessible clinical reports. It is essential to appoint multidisciplinary tumour molecular boards to oversee these processes and to enable the most suitable therapeutic decisions for each patient according to the genomic profile.

Participant Engagement in Translational Genomics Research: Respect for Persons-and Then Some

The expansion of both formal and informal frameworks of "engaged" research in translational research settings raises emerging and substantial normative concerns. In this article, we draw on findings from a focus group study with members of a national consortium of translational genomic research sites. The goals were to catalog informal participant engagement practices, to explore the perceived roots of these practices and the motivations of research staff members for adopting them, and to reflect on their ethical implications. We learned that participant engagement is a deliberate strategy by research staff members both to achieve instrumental research goals and to "do research differently" in response to past research injustices. While many of the participant engagement practices used in translational genomic research are not new, important insights can be gained through a closer examination of the specific contours of participant engagement in this context. These practices appear to have been shaped by the professional training of genetic counselors and by the interests and needs of participants who enroll in clinical genomics studies. The contours of this contemporary application of engaged research principles have relevance not only to clinical genomics research but also to translational research broadly, particularly for how communities of clinical researchers are interpreting the principle of respect for persons. Our findings invite normative questions about the governance of these practices and sociological questions about whether and how clinical researchers in other professions are also engaging participants in translational research settings.

Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard

In genomic medicine, the familiarity and inexactness of the term "actionable" can lead to multiple interpretations and mistaken beliefs about realistic treatment options. As part of a larger study focusing on public attitudes toward policies for the return of secondary genomic results, we looked at how members of the lay public interpret the term "medically actionable" in the context of genetic testing. We also surveyed a convenience sample of oncologists as part of a separate study and asked them to define the term "medically actionable." After being provided with a definition of the term, 21 out of 60 (35%) layperson respondents wrote an additional action not specified in the provided definition (12 mentioned "cure" and 9 mentioned environment or behavioral change) and 17 (28%) indicated "something can be done" with no action specified. In contrast, 52 surveyed oncologists did not mention environment, behavioral change, or cure. Based on our findings, we propose that rather than using the term "actionable" alone, providers should also say "what they mean" to reduce miscommunication and confusion that could negatively impact medical decision-making. Lastly, to guide clinicians during patient- provider discussion about genetic test results, we provide examples of phrasing to facilitate clearer communication and understanding of the term "actionable."

Next-generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations

BACKGROUND

Implementation of precision oncology interventions poses several challenges to informed consent and patient education. This study assessed cancer patients' understanding, expectations, and outcomes regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care.

METHODS

A total of 297 patients (mean age: 59 years; 50% female; 96% white) with refractory, metastatic cancer were surveyed, including 217 who completed surveys both before and after undergoing integrated whole exome and transcriptome sequencing as part of a larger clinical research study.

RESULTS

At baseline, the vast majority of patients expected to receive several potential direct benefits from study participation, including written reports of sequencing findings (88%), greater understanding of the causes of their cancer (74%), and participation in clinical trials for which sequencing results would make them eligible (84%). In most cases, these benefits were not realized by study completion. Despite explanations from study personnel to the contrary, most participants (67%-76%) presumed that incidental germline sequencing findings relevant to noncancerous health conditions (eg, diabetes) would automatically be disclosed to them. Patients reported low levels of concern about study risks at baseline and low levels of regret about study participation at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients' expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing.

Precision oncology: separating the wheat from the chaff

Precision oncology based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) test is growing in daily clinical practice. However, the real impact of this strategy in patients' outcome on a large scale remains uncertain. In this review, we summarise existing literature on this topic, limitations for broad NGS implementation, bottlenecks in genomic variant interpretation and the role of molecular tumour boards.

Participant Attitudes Toward an Intensive Trial of Multiple Biopsies, Multidimensional Molecular Analysis, and Reporting of Results in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose

Multidimensional molecular analysis of tumor tissue intensively over space and time can provide insight into how cancers evolve and escape treatment. Attitudes of participants in such trials have not been assessed. We explored patient views regarding an intensive study incorporating multiple biopsies, multidimensional molecular testing, and drug response predictions that are reported to the oncologist and patient.

Patients and Methods

A structured, self-administered survey was conducted among the first 15 patients enrolled in ITOMIC-001 (Intensive Trial of Omics in Cancer). Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer were accrued at two sites in Washington state. Surveys containing 17 items were administered at enrollment and after the return of results. Surveys explored perceptions regarding risks, personal benefits, benefits to others, uncertainties associated with interpreting complex molecular results, concerns regarding multiple biopsies, and potential loss of confidentiality. At follow-up, three additional unique items explored patient coping.

Results

All participants expressed a strong desire for their experiences to benefit others, and all perceived a higher likelihood of deriving benefit than described during detailed consent discussions. Loss of confidentiality ranked lowest among patient concerns. Despite acknowledging uncertainties and risks inherent in complex molecular testing for clinical reporting, participants wanted access to findings in evaluating treatment choices, even if the best available evidence was weak. Follow-up surveys demonstrated relatively little change in attitudes, although concern about study biopsies generally declined. Study participation helped several patients cope better with their disease.

Conclusion

In advanced breast cancer, these findings demonstrate the feasibility of engaging motivated patients in trials that navigate the uncertainties associated with intensive spatial and longitudinal multidimensional molecular testing for the purpose of advancing precision medicine.