Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study

Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

The genetic composition of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be examined with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Until recently, PGT was limited to detecting single-gene, high-risk pathogenic variants, large structural variants, and aneuploidy. Recent advances have made genome-wide genotyping of IVF embryos feasible and affordable, raising the possibility of screening embryos for their risk of polygenic diseases such as breast cancer, hypertension, diabetes, or schizophrenia. Despite a heated debate around this new technology, called polygenic embryo screening (PES; also PGT-P), it is already available to IVF patients in some countries. Several articles have studied epidemiological, clinical, and ethical perspectives on PES; however, a comprehensive, principled review of this emerging field is missing.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review has four main goals. First, given the interdisciplinary nature of PES studies, we aim to provide a self-contained educational background about PES to reproductive specialists interested in the subject. Second, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of arguments for and against the introduction of PES, crystallizing and prioritizing the key issues. We also cover the attitudes of IVF patients, clinicians, and the public towards PES. Third, we distinguish between possible future groups of PES patients, highlighting the benefits and harms pertaining to each group. Finally, our review, which is supported by ESHRE, is intended to aid healthcare professionals and policymakers in decision-making regarding whether to introduce PES in the clinic, and if so, how, and to whom.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for PubMed-indexed articles published between 1/1/2003 and 1/3/2024 using the terms 'polygenic embryo screening', 'polygenic preimplantation', and 'PGT-P'. We limited the review to primary research papers in English whose main focus was PES for medical conditions. We also included papers that did not appear in the search but were deemed relevant.

OUTCOMES

The main theoretical benefit of PES is a reduction in lifetime polygenic disease risk for children born after screening. The magnitude of the risk reduction has been predicted based on statistical modelling, simulations, and sibling pair analyses. Results based on all methods suggest that under the best-case scenario, large relative risk reductions are possible for one or more diseases. However, as these models abstract several practical limitations, the realized benefits may be smaller, particularly due to a limited number of embryos and unclear future accuracy of the risk estimates. PES may negatively impact patients and their future children, as well as society. The main personal harms are an unindicated IVF treatment, a possible reduction in IVF success rates, and patient confusion, incomplete counselling, and choice overload. The main possible societal harms include discarded embryos, an increasing demand for 'designer babies', overemphasis of the genetic determinants of disease, unequal access, and lower utility in people of non-European ancestries. Benefits and harms will vary across the main potential patient groups, comprising patients already requiring IVF, fertile people with a history of a severe polygenic disease, and fertile healthy people. In the United States, the attitudes of IVF patients and the public towards PES seem positive, while healthcare professionals are cautious, sceptical about clinical utility, and concerned about patient counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The theoretical potential of PES to reduce risk across multiple polygenic diseases requires further research into its benefits and harms. Given the large number of practical limitations and possible harms, particularly unnecessary IVF treatments and discarded viable embryos, PES should be offered only within a research context before further clarity is achieved regarding its balance of benefits and harms. The gap in attitudes between healthcare professionals and the public needs to be narrowed by expanding public and patient education and providing resources for informative and unbiased genetic counselling.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

What improves the likelihood of people receiving genetic test results communicating to their families about genetic risk?

OBJECTIVE

We currently rely on probands to communicate genetic testing results and health risks within a family to stimulate preventive behaviors, such as cascade testing. Rates of guidelines-based cascade testing are low, possibly due to low frequency or non-urgent communication of risk among family members. Understanding what is being communicated and why may help improve interventions that increase communication and rates of cascade testing.

METHODS

Participants (n = 189) who were to receive both positive and negative colorectal cancer (CRC) sequencing results completed surveys on family communication, family functioning, impact of cancer in the family, and future communication of risk and were participants in eMERGE3. Questions were taken from existing surveys and administered electronically using email and a web driven tool.

RESULTS

Common family member targets of CRC risk communication, before results were received, were mothers and fathers, then sisters and grandchildren and finally, children and brothers. A communication impact score of 0.66 (sd = 0.83) indicated low-to-moderate communication impact. Age and education were significantly associated with frequency of familial communication, but not on the cancer-related impact of familial communication.

CONCLUSIONS

There is infrequent communication about cancer risk from probands to family members.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results demonstrate an opportunity to help families improve communication.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years.

RESULTS

Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit.

CONCLUSION

Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

Exploring relatives' perceptions of participation, ethics, and communication in a patient-driven study for hereditary cancer variant reclassification

Effective communication of genetic information within families depends on several factors. Few studies explore intra-familial communication of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results or active collaboration between family members to classify VUS. Our qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of individuals asked by family members to participate in the FindMyVariant study, a patient-driven family study which aimed to reclassify a clinically identified familial VUS in a hereditary cancer gene. We collected feedback from 56 individuals from 21 different families through phone interviews and written correspondence, transcribed the interviews, and performed thematic analysis on all text. We describe themes from three main topics: participation, ethical considerations, and study impacts. Participation in the FindMyVariant study, defined as returning a sample for targeted genotyping, was motivated by convenience and a desire to help the family, oneself, and science. Relatives were generally responsive to invitations to participate in FindMyVariant from another family member. Those who declined to participate did so due to concerns about research program confidentiality rather than family dynamics. No major ethical issues arose in response to the patient-driven study structure, and no major changes in stress and anxiety, medical care, or behavior occurred. Participation in patient-driven familial VUS classification studies has a neutral or positive impact on family health communication. While it is important to design studies to minimize familial coercion, intra-familial confidentiality breaches, and misinterpretation of genetic results, these were not major concerns among relatives in this study. Clinicians and laboratories may consider encouraging familial communication about genetic variants using family members as liaisons.