A qualitative analysis of the attitudes of Irish patients towards participation in genetic-based research

A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.

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.

A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, progress toward translating genomic research discoveries to address population health issues has been limited. Several meetings of social and behavioral scientists have outlined priority research areas where advancement of translational research could increase population health benefits of genomic discoveries. In this review, we track the pace of progress, study size and design, and focus of genomics translational research from 2012 to 2018 and its concordance with five social and behavioral science recommended priorities. We conducted a review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Steps involved completing a search in five databases and a hand search of bibliographies of relevant literature. Our search (from 2012 to 2018) yielded 4,538 unique studies; 117 were included in the final analyses. Two coders extracted data including items from the PICOTS framework. Analysis included descriptive statistics to help identify trends in pace, study size and design, and translational priority area. Among the 117 studies included in our final sample, nearly half focused on genomics applications that have evidence to support translation or implementation into practice (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 applications). Common study designs were cross-sectional (40.2%) and qualitative (24.8%), with average sample sizes of 716 across all studies. Most often, studies addressed public understanding of genetics and genomics (33.3%), risk communication (29.1%), and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change (19.7%). The number of studies that address social and behavioral science priority areas is extremely limited and the pace of this research continues to lag behind basic science advances. Much of the research identified in this review is descriptive and related to public understanding, risk communication, and intervention development and testing of interventions to promote behavior change. The field has been slow to develop and evaluate public health-friendly interventions and test implementation approaches that could enable health benefits and equitable access to genomic discoveries. As the completion of the human genome approaches its 20th anniversary, full engagement of transdisciplinary efforts to address translation challenges will be required to close this gap.

Circadian Rhythm of Glucocorticoid Administration Entrains Clock Genes in Immune Cells: A DREAM Trial Ancillary Study

CONTEXT

Adrenal insufficiency (AI) requires lifelong glucocorticoid (GC) replacement. Conventional therapies do not mimic the endogenous cortisol circadian rhythm. Clock genes are essential components of the machinery controlling circadian functions and are influenced by GCs. However, clock gene expression has never been investigated in patients with AI.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the timing of GC administration on circadian gene expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients from the Dual Release Hydrocortisone vs Conventional Glucocorticoid Replacement in Hypocortisolism (DREAM) trial.

DESIGN

Outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, active comparator clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

Eighty-nine patients with AI were randomly assigned to continue their multiple daily GC doses or switch to an equivalent dose of once-daily modified-release hydrocortisone and were compared with 25 healthy controls; 65 patients with AI and 18 controls consented to gene expression analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with healthy controls, 19 of the 68 genes were found modulated in patients with AI at baseline, 18 of which were restored to control levels 12 weeks after therapy was switched: ARNTL [BMAL] (P = 0.024), CLOCK (P = 0.016), AANAT (P = 0.021), CREB1 (P = 0.010), CREB3 (P = 0.037), MAT2A (P = 0.013); PRKAR1A, PRKAR2A, and PRKCB (all P < 0.010) and PER3, TIMELESS, CAMK2D, MAPK1, SP1, WEE1, CSNK1A1, ONP3, and PRF1 (all P < 0.001). Changes in WEE1, PRF1, and PER3 expression correlated with glycated hemoglobin, inflammatory monocytes, and CD16+ natural killer cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AI on standard therapy exhibit a dysregulation of circadian genes in PBMCs. The once-daily administration reconditions peripheral tissue gene expression to levels close to controls, paralleling the clinical outcomes of the DREAM trial (NCT02277587).

Biobank attributes associated with higher patient participation: a randomized study

The objectives of the study were to assess patients' intent to participate in a hospital-based biobank and to explore the factors associated with higher participation. A 23-item questionnaire was developed to survey a random sample of patients in a Swiss university hospital. Two vignettes describing hypothetical biobanks were incorporated in the survey and patients were asked whether they would agree to participate. Three factors were randomly manipulated in each vignette using a factorial design: cancer-oriented research vs general consent, one vs several reviews of the patient's chart, and genetic vs blood protein analyses (first vignette); blood sample vs oral swabbing, local vs international project, and a follow-up visit vs no visit (second vignette). Of the 1140 respondents, 73.6 and 69.6%, respectively, agreed to participate in the biobank. Biospecimen collection via oral swabbing, single chart review, and no follow-up were associated with higher participation. Participation was also higher among younger patients, Europeans, patients who had a positive opinion on research, and blood/organ donors. Biobanking was supported by a majority of patients, especially if biospecimens were collected through non-invasive techniques or if data collection was done once. The scope of consent, the scale of the project, or the tests performed on biospecimens did not influence participation.