Exome sequencing study in a clinical research setting finds general acceptance of study returning secondary genomic findings with little decisional conflict

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.

Difficulties in disclosing secondary findings by facilities performing comprehensive germline genetic testing for rare diseases in Japan

In Japan, a limited number of laboratories perform comprehensive genetic testing for rare diseases; this study investigated the attitudes of these laboratories toward the disclosure of secondary finding (SF). Following a preliminary survey, we identified laboratories conducting comprehensive genetic testing for participation. Subsequently, an online survey involving 20 selected facilities was conducted. The response rate was 80% (16/20). Of the 14 facilities, 71.4% had SFs. While 42.9% of them had a policy to disclose SFs with clinical utility, only 14.3% actively searched for actionable variants that could be included in the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics list. Japan was less enthusiastic than the USA regarding SF disclosure. With regard to the reasons for not disclosing SFs, the factors "the thought that participants may have a low desire for SFs" and "uncertainty regarding their wish" were considered more important than in the USA. A content analysis of what was sought as a solution to this difficulty revealed a need to improve databases on pathogenicity and actionability and collect public thoughts on the issue. The factor "to promote entry in research" was not considered a critical reason for disclosing SFs, indicating that the thirst for information was not possibly due to anxiety but rather due to scientific interest. Japanese medical professionals may not be confident that society requires the disclosure of SFs. To improve the environment, it is necessary to survey the public regarding their thoughts on SF disclosure and discuss this issue in society.

Variability in conceptualizations and measurement of genetic literacy

Objective

To examine definitions and measures for genetic literacy in the published literature, and the associations between commonly utilized measures.

Methods

We completed a systematic review searching eight databases for empirical articles containing quantitative measures of genetic literacy. Articles were assessed for study properties, definitions, and measure characteristics. An online survey was then completed by 531 U.S. adults to examine correlations between frequently used genetic literacy measures.

Results

92 articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Articles rarely defined genetic literacy, and existing definitions showed inconsistencies in the knowledge and cognitive domains that comprise genetic literacy. Definitions frequently included objective conceptual knowledge, comprehension, and applied knowledge, however most measures only assessed objective or subjective knowledge. Genetic literacy measures were infrequently assessed for psychometric properties and the content domains assessed by measures varied considerably. Correlation analyses showed weak to moderate relationships between genetic literacy measures.

Conclusion

A comprehensive and consistent definition of genetic literacy and its cognitive and conceptual domains should be implemented to inform the development of concordant measurement tools and improve research and clinical care in genetics.

Innovation

We examine and compare definitions and measures of genetic literacy, suggest a more comprehensive definition, and recommendations for research development.

An spanish study of secondary findings in families affected with mendelian disorders: choices, prevalence and family history

Clinical exome sequencing has the potential to identify pathogenic variants unrelated to the purpose of the study (secondary findings, SFs). Data describing actual choices of SFs in participants in a clinical setting and factors influencing their decision are virtually non-existant in Europe. In this work, we report the acceptance rate of SFs, calculate their prevalence and study factors associated with the decision in a cohort of patients affected with a rare genetic disorder in a Spanish Hospital. Finally, we re-examine the presence of previously non reported family history in positive cases. We retrospectively reviewed informed consent choices and SF results from 824 unrelated probands affected with rare genetic disorders who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. Ninety percent of families (740/824) affected with rare disorders wished to be informed of SFs. Declining SFs was associated with a prenatal setting (30% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025), consanguinity (19% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.013), male gender (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.00865) and the proband being a minor (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.014). Overall, 27 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 27 individuals, with an SF prevalence of 3.6%. Disclosure of SFs increased the percentage of positive family histories and resulted in early diagnosis or changes in the management of 10 individuals from five families. We show that the acceptance of SFs in Spain is high and the disclosure of SFs leads to a clinically meaningful change in the medical management of individuals.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.