Returning negative results from large‐scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network

Research participants' perspectives about the return of uninformative genomic test results in a clinical research setting

The majority of genomic sequencing and microarray results are clinically uninformative, meaning that they do not suggest a need for any behavioral action or medical intervention. Prior studies have shown that recipients of uninformative genomic testing results ("uninformative results" hereafter) may incorrectly interpret them to imply a lowered risk of disease or false reassurance about future health risks. Few studies have examined how patients understand uninformative results when they are returned in a research setting, where there is wide variation in analytical specifications of testing, interpretation and reporting practices, and resources to support the return of results. We conducted cross-sectional interviews (N = 17) to explore how a subset of research participants in one genomics study at the National Institutes of Health reacted to and understood their uninformative test results, which were returned to them via a patient portal without genetic counseling. We found that most participants did not remember the details of the informed consent process, including the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" findings. Participants had questions about what genes were tested for and, in most cases, requested a list of the genes covered. Several participants incorrectly assumed that autosomal recessive carrier results would have been reported to them if detected. Some participants interpreted their uninformative results to mean that they could forgo prenatal testing, and participants had mixed expectations about whether their results might be reinterpreted in the future. These themes suggest that there are specific challenges to returning uninformative results in research settings. Educational supplements to uninformative test reports may be most useful if they contextualize results in relation to other types of clinical genetic or genomic testing that may be made available to research participants in their lifetimes.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Developing video education materials for the return of genomic test results to parents and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development, implementation, and revision of a video to provide information about genomic testing and the return of genomic research results to adolescents and parents.

METHODS

Formative, community-engaged research was conducted in three stages: development, implementation, and revision. Existing research participant advisory groups were used for focus groups and convenience sampling was used for interviews. Participants included parents, young adults without children, and adolescents. Transcripts of recorded sessions were used for formative analysis.

RESULTS

Video was the preferred format for delivering genomic testing information to adolescents during the development stage. During implementation, adolescents identified video length as an impediment to recall. During the revision stage, participants preferred the video in separate short segments, supported plan to require only one short video and leaving other short videos optional. Participants were divided on whether the required short video provided enough information, but all participants reported that watching additional videos would not have changed their decisions about receiving test results.

CONCLUSION

Genomic education videos should be brief (<4 mins) to improve the odds that participants will view the entirety of any required video.

INNOVATION

The development of participant materials should incorporate plans for monitoring implementation and plans for revising materials.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network

PURPOSE

The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants.

METHODS

RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052).

CONCLUSION

The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.