A 'joint venture' model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation

Searching for a sense of closure: parental experiences of recontacting after a terminated pregnancy for congenital malformations

Rapid advances in genetic testing have improved the probability of successful genetic diagnosis. For couples who undergo a termination of pregnancy (TOP) due to foetal congenital malformations, these techniques may reveal the underlying cause and satisfy parents' need to know. The aim of this qualitative descriptive research study was to explore couples' experience of being recontacted after a congenital malformation-related TOP, as well as their reasons for participation. A retrospective cohort of 31 eligible candidates was recontacted for additional genetic testing using a standardized letter followed by a telephone call. Fourteen participants (45%) were included. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews at a hospital genetics department (UZ Brussel). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. We found that despite the sometimes considerable length of time that passed since TOP, participants were still interested in new genetic testing. They appreciated that the initiative originated from the medical team, describing it as a "sensitive" approach. Both intrinsic (providing answers for themselves and their children) and extrinsic motivators (contributing to science and helping other parents) were identified as important factors for participation. These results show that participants often remain interested in being recontacted for new genetic testing such as whole genome sequencing, even after several years. As such, the results of this study can offer guidance in the more general current debate on recontacting patients in the field of genetics.

Recontact to return new or updated PALB2 genetic results in the clinical laboratory setting

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to recontact individuals with clinically actionable test results identified through a retrospective research study and to provide a framework for laboratories to recontact patients.

METHODS

Genetic testing was conducted on 2977 individuals originally referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing that had a negative genetic test result. A gene panel was used to identify pathogenic variants in known or newly discovered genes that could explain the underlying cause of disease; however, analysis was restricted to PALB2 for the purposes of this study. A patient recontact decision tree was developed to assist in the returning of updated genetic test results to clinics and patients.

RESULTS

Novel clinically actionable pathogenic variants were identified in the PALB2 gene in 18 participants (0.6%), the majority of whom were recontacted with their new or updated genetic test results. Eight individuals were unable to be recontacted; five individuals had already learnt about their new or updated findings from genetic testing outside the context of this study; three individuals prompted cascade testing in family members; two individuals were deceased.

CONCLUSION

Novel pathogenic variants in PALB2 were identified in 18 individuals through retrospective gene panel testing. Recontacting these individuals regarding these new or updated findings had a range of outcomes. The process of conveying genomic results within this framework can be effectively accomplished while upholding patient autonomy, potentially leading to advantageous outcomes for patients and their families.

Exploring the evolving roles of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors in the era of genomic medicine

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs (n = 80) and GCs (n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5-10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade.

Assessing management practices for variants of uncertain significance among genetic counselors in pediatrics

Increased utilization of genomic sequencing in pediatric medicine has increased the detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Periodic VUS reinterpretation can clarify clinical significance and increase diagnostic yield, highlighting the importance of systematic VUS tracking and reinterpretation. There are currently no standardized guidelines or established best practices for VUS management, and our understanding of how genetic counselors (GCs) track and manage VUS results for pediatric patients is limited. In this exploratory study, GCs in pediatric clinics in North America were surveyed about their VUS management practices. A total of 124 responses were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 115, 92.7%) of GCs reported that VUS management workflows were at the discretion of each individual provider in their workplace. Approximately half (n = 65, 52%) kept track of patient VUS results over time, and GCs with lower patient volumes were more likely to do so (p = 0.04). While 95% (n = 114) of GCs had requested VUS reinterpretation at least once, only 5% (n = 6) requested it routinely. Most (n = 80, 86%) GCs notified patients when a VUS was reclassified, although methods of recontact differed when the reclassification was an upgrade versus a downgrade. GCs who asked patients to stay in touch through periodic recontact or follow-up appointments were more likely to request VUS reinterpretation (p = 0.01). The most frequently reported barriers to requesting reinterpretation regularly were patients being lost to follow-up (n = 39, 33.1%), insufficient bandwidth (n = 27, 22.9%), and lack of standardized guidelines (n = 25, 21.2%). GCs had consistent overall practices around VUS management around investigation, disclosure, reinterpretation, and recontact, but specific methods used differed and were at the discretion of each provider. These results showcase the current landscape of VUS management workflows in pediatrics and the challenges associated with adopting more uniform practices. The study findings can help inform future strategies to develop standardized guidelines surrounding VUS management.

The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research

The reanalysis of genomic sequencing results has the potential to provide results that are of considerable medical and personal importance to recipients. Employing interviews with forty-seven predominantly medically underserved families and ethnographic observations we argue that there is pressing need to standardize the approach taken to reanalysis. Our findings highlight that study participants were unclear as to the likelihood of reanalysis happening, the process of initiating reanalysis, and whether they would receive revised results. Their reflections mirror the lack a specific focus upon reanalysis within consent and results sessions as observed in clinical settings. Mechanisms need to be put into place that standardize the approach to reanalysis in research and in clinical contexts. This would enable clinicians and genetic counsellors to communicate clearly with research participants with respect to potential for reanalysis of results and the process of reanalysis. We argue that that the role of reanalysis is too important to be referred to in an ad-hoc manner. Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of the current process may increase health inequities given the likelihood that only those families who have the means to press for reanalysis are likely to receive it.

Re-evaluation of Genetic Variants in Parkinson's Disease Using Targeted Panel and Next-Generation Sequencing

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disorder with a significant genetic component. Genetic variations associated with PD play a crucial role in the disease's inheritance and prognosis. Currently, 31 genes have been linked to PD in the OMIM database, and the number of genes and genetic variations identified is steadily increasing. To establish a robust correlation between phenotype and genotype, it is essential to compare research findings with existing literature. In this study, we aimed to identify genetic variants associated with PD using a targeted gene panel with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology. Our objective was also to explore the idea of re-analyzing genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS). We screened 18 genes known to be related to PD using NGS in 43 patients who visited our outpatient clinic between 2018-2019. After 12-24 months, we re-evaluated the detected variants. We found 14 different heterozygous variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or VUS in 14 individuals from nonconsanguineous families. We re-evaluated 15 variants and found changes in their interpretation. Targeted gene panel analysis with NGS can help identify genetic variants associated with PD with confidence. Re-analyzing certain variants at specific time intervals can be especially beneficial in selected situations. Our study aims to expand the clinical and genetic understanding of PD and emphasizes the importance of re-analysis.

Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines

PURPOSE

The knowledge used to classify genetic variants is continually evolving, and the classification can change on the basis of newly available data. Although up-to-date variant classification is essential for clinical management, reproductive planning, and identifying at-risk family members, there is no consistent practice across laboratories or clinicians on how or under what circumstances to perform variant reinterpretation.

METHODS

We conducted exploratory focus groups (N = 142) and surveys (N = 1753) with stakeholders involved in the process of variant reinterpretation (laboratory directors, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, nongenetic providers, and patients/parents) to assess opinions on key issues, including initiation of reinterpretation, variants to report, termination of the responsibility to reinterpret, and concerns about consent, cost, and liability.

RESULTS

Stakeholders widely agreed that there should be no fixed termination point to the responsibility to reinterpret a previously reported genetic variant. There were significant concerns about liability and lack of agreement about many logistical aspects of variant reinterpretation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a need to (1) develop consensus and (2) create transparency and awareness about the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in variant reinterpretation. These data provide a foundation for developing guidelines on variant reinterpretation that can aid in the development of a low-cost, scalable, and accessible approach.

Cancer patients' understandings of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical care

Genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) pose a growing challenge for patient communication and care in precision genomic medicine. To better understand patient perspectives of VUSs, we draw on qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 22 cancer patients and individuals with cancer family history who received a VUS result. The majority of patients did not recall receiving VUS results and those who remembered expressed few worries, while respondents who were tested because of a family history of cancer were more concerned about the VUS results. Personal characteristics, medical condition, family history, expectations prior to testing, and motivations for pursuing testing influence the ways patients came to terms with the uncertainty of the VUS result. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the findings to the debate on the responsibility of the patient in checking back for VUS reclassification and to implications for genetic counseling that emphasizes tailoring the pre- and post-test discussion of VUS as appropriate to the patients’ informational as well as emotional needs.

Re-analysis of genomic data: An overview of the mechanisms and complexities of clinical adoption

Re-analyzing genomic information from a patient suspected of having an underlying genetic condition can improve the diagnostic yield of sequencing tests, potentially providing significant benefits to the patient and to the health care system. Although a significant number of studies have shown the clinical potential of re-analysis, less work has been performed to characterize the mechanisms responsible for driving the increases in diagnostic yield. Complexities surrounding re-analysis have also emerged. The terminology itself represents a challenge because "re-analysis" can refer to a range of different concepts. Other challenges include the increased workload that re-analysis demands of curators, adequate reimbursement pathways for clinical and diagnostic services, and the development of systems to handle large volumes of data. Re-analysis also raises ethical implications for patients and families, most notably when re-classification of a variant alters diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. This review highlights the possibilities and complexities associated with the re-analysis of existing clinical genomic data. We propose a terminology that builds on the foundation presented in a recent statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and describes each re-analysis process. We identify mechanisms for increasing diagnostic yield and provide perspectives on the range of challenges that must be addressed by health care systems and individual patients.

Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals

The issue of recontacting past genetics patients is increasingly relevant, particularly with the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Improved testing can provide additional information on the pathogenicity and prevalence of genetic variants, often leading to a need to recontact patients. Some international genetics societies have position statements and recommendations to guide genetic health professionals (GHPs) navigating the legal, ethical and practical issues of recontacting. In the absence of a standardised Australasian protocol, we explored the experiences and opinions of Australasian GHPs regarding patient follow-up and recontacting practices. Forty-five respondents completed an online survey. Most respondents indicated that recontacting occurred on an ad hoc basis, but most genetic services relied on patients (or family) initiating recontact. Implementation of a routine recontacting system was widely dismissed by 73% of respondents, citing lack of resources, limited information on legal responsibility and setting unrealistic expectations as common barriers. If recontact was contemplated, e-communication was an acceptable first step. This study identified the need for integrated familial cancer registries to assist under-resourced genetic services to maintain up-to-date patient records. Developing a standard recontacting protocol with flexibility to account for patient individuality and circumstances might enable provision of equitable service within Australasia.

The environmental sustainability of data-driven health research: A scoping review

Data-Driven and Artificial Intelligence technologies are rapidly changing the way that health research is conducted, including offering new opportunities. This will inevitably have adverse environmental impacts. These include carbon dioxide emissions linked to the energy required to generate and process large amounts of data; the impact on the material environment (in the form of data centres); the unsustainable extraction of minerals for technological components; and e-waste (discarded electronic appliances) disposal. The growth of Data-Driven and Artificial Intelligence technologies means there is now a compelling need to consider these environmental impacts and develop means to mitigate them. Here, we offer a scoping review of how the environmental impacts of data storage and processing during Data-Driven and Artificial Intelligence health-related research are being discussed in the academic literature. Using the UK as a case study, we also offer a review of policies and initiatives that consider the environmental impacts of data storage and processing during Data-Driven and Artificial Intelligence health-related research in the UK. Our findings suggest little engagement with these issues to date. We discuss the implications of this and suggest ways that the Data-Driven and Artificial Intelligence health research sector needs to move to become more environmentally sustainable.

A Blockchain-Based Dynamic Consent Architecture to Support Clinical Genomic Data Sharing (ConsentChain): Proof-of-Concept Study

Background

In clinical genomics, sharing of rare genetic disease information between genetic databases and laboratories is essential to determine the pathogenic significance of variants to enable the diagnosis of rare genetic diseases. Significant concerns regarding data governance and security have reduced this sharing in practice. Blockchain could provide a secure method for sharing genomic data between involved parties and thus help overcome some of these issues.

Objective

This study aims to contribute to the growing knowledge of the potential role of blockchain technology in supporting the sharing of clinical genomic data by describing blockchain-based dynamic consent architecture to support clinical genomic data sharing and provide a proof-of-concept implementation, called ConsentChain, for the architecture to explore its performance.

Methods

The ConsentChain requirements were captured from a patient forum to identify security and consent concerns. The ConsentChain was developed on the Ethereum platform, in which smart contracts were used to model the actions of patients, who may provide or withdraw consent to share their data; the data creator, who collects and stores patient data; and the data requester, who needs to query and access the patient data. A detailed analysis was undertaken of the ConsentChain performance as a function of the number of transactions processed by the system.

Results

We describe ConsentChain, a blockchain-based system that provides a web portal interface to support clinical genomic sharing. ConsentChain allows patients to grant or withdraw data requester access and allows data requesters to query and submit access to data stored in a secure off-chain database. We also developed an ontology model to represent patient consent elements into machine-readable codes to automate the consent and data access processes.

Conclusions

Blockchains and smart contracts can provide an efficient and scalable mechanism to support dynamic consent functionality and address some of the barriers that inhibit genomic data sharing. However, they are not a complete answer, and a number of issues still need to be addressed before such systems can be deployed in practice, particularly in relation to verifying user credentials.

Assessing the relationship between patient preferences for recontact after BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic testing and their monitoring coping style in a Norwegian sample

Recontacting former patients regarding new genetic information is currently not standard care but might be implemented in the future. Little information is available on the implications of this practice from the point of view of former patients. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for recontact when new genetic information becomes available among patients tested for BRCA pathogenic variants. We further wanted to investigate whether having a high or low information-seeking coping style (monitoring) impacts preferences. Preferences for recontact were assessed using a self-constructed questionnaire. The Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI) was used to measure monitoring coping style. The questionnaires were sent to 500 randomly selected patients who had previously been tested for BRCA pathogenic variants within the time frame 2001-2014 at one genetic clinic in Norway. We received 323 completed questionnaires. Most respondents wanted to be recontacted with advances in genetic medicine (81.1%) and to receive highly personalized updates. Genetic counselors/geneticists were believed to be most responsible for recontact. There was a significant relationship between being a high monitor and wanting recontact to learn about own cancer risk and receive ongoing support. Patients have a high interest in being recontacted. The findings indicated a tendency for high monitors to prefer more detailed and personalized information.

Fragmented responsibility: views of Israeli HCPs regarding patient recontact following variant reclassification

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever-increasing diagnostic yield, recontacting patients after reclassification of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. Although periodical reinterpretation of VUSs is highly desired, recontacting former patients with new classifications is commonly not fulfilled in practice. We draw on semi-structured interviews with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome-wide sequencing to patients. Findings show agreement that an individual health care professional cannot address the task of recontacting patients after re-classification, and that responsibility should be shared among the medical specialties, laboratory scientists, as well as patients. In the absence of established guidelines, many respondents suggested that the patient should be informed about reclassification during a follow-up contact but they disagreed who should be responsible for informing the patient. HCPs agreed that the solution to this challenge involves a centralized automated database that is accessible, continuously updated, and facilitates retrospective as well as prospective flagging of reclassification for patients who can benefit from this information. National and international policies providing concrete guidelines on the optimal way to recontact patients with new valuable genomic information are needed.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base

The practice of recontacting patients has a long history in medicine but emerged as an issue in genetics as the rapid expansion of knowledge and of testing capacity raised questions about whether, when and how to recontact patients. Until recently, the debate on recontacting has focussed on theoretical concerns of experts. The publication of empirical research into the views of patients, clinicians, laboratories and services in a number of countries has changed this. These studies have filled out, and altered our view of, this issue. Whereas debates on the duty to recontact have explored all aspects of recontact practice, recent contributions have been developing a more nuanced view of recontacting. The result is a narrowing of the scope of the duty, so that a norm on recontacting focuses on the practice of reaching out to discharged patients. This brings into focus the importance of the consent conversation, the resource implications of this duty, and the role of the patient in recontacting.

Genetic health professionals' experiences with initiating reanalysis of genomic sequence data

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients' inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients' and clinicians' roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.

A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens

Background

Clinical genomics represents a paradigm shifting change to health service delivery and practice across many conditions and life-stages. Introducing this complex technology into an already complex health system is a significant challenge that cannot be managed in a reductionist way. To build robust and sustainable, high quality delivery systems we need to step back and view the interconnected landscape of policymakers, funders, managers, multidisciplinary teams of clinicians, patients and their families, and health care, research, education, and philanthropic institutions as a dynamic whole. This study holistically mapped the landscape of clinical genomics within Australia by developing a complex graphic: a rich picture. Using complex systems theory, we then identified key features, challenges and leverage points of implementing clinical genomics.

Methods

We used a multi-stage, exploratory, qualitative approach. We extracted data from grey literature, empirical literature, and data collected by the Australian Genomic Health Alliance. Nine key informants working in clinical genomics critiqued early drafts of the picture, and validated the final version.

Results

The final graphic depicts 24 stakeholder groups relevant to implementation of genomics into Australia. Clinical genomics lies at the intersection of four nested systems, with interplay between government, professional bodies and patient advocacy groups. Barriers and uncertainties are also shown. Analysis using complexity theory showed far-reaching interdependencies around funding, and identified unintended consequences.

Conclusion

The rich picture of the clinical genomic landscape in Australia is the first to show key stakeholders, agencies and processes and their interdependencies. Participants who critiqued our results were instantly intrigued and engaged by the graphics, searching for their place in the whole and often commenting on insights they gained from seeing the influences and impacts of other stakeholder groups on their own work. Funding patterns showed unintended consequences of increased burdens for clinicians and inequity of access for patients. Showing the system as a dynamic whole is the only way to understand key drivers and barriers to largescale interventions. Trial Registration: Not applicable

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-021-00910-5.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed.

METHODS

The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented.

RESULTS

Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?

Recontacting patients for multigene panel testing in hereditary cancer: Efficacy and insights

In hereditary cancer, multigene panel testing is currently replacing older single-gene approaches. Patients whose tests were previously uninformative could benefit from updated testing. Research suggests that patients desire to be recontacted about updated genetic testing, but few studies have tested the efficacy of recontact efforts. This study investigated the outcomes of a recontact effort in a hereditary cancer clinic and explored the impact of four different recontact letters, randomized in a 2X2 factorial design. Patients who had negative genetic testing for single genes or conditions were mailed letters inviting them to schedule an appointment to discuss updated testing. Patients were randomized to receive one of four letters and each letter emphasized different implications of updated multigene genetic testing: (a) personal medical management implications, (b) implications for family members, (c) both personal and family implications or (d) a control letter. The proportion of patients who arrived for appointments was assessed approximately 7 months after mailing along with associations with patient demographics and type of letter received. Letters were mailed to 586 patients who had initial testing between 2001 and 2015. Most patients were white (78%) and female (97%) with private insurance (65%). At 7 months, 25 patients (4.3%, 95% CI: 2.6% to 5.9%) had arrived for an appointment. Older age was significantly associated with response rate (p = .01), while type of recontact letter was not (p = .54). This study suggests that recontacting patients about updated genetic testing by mail does not yield a large response. It also suggests that personal and/or familial implications do not seem to be significant factors that determine response rate. Nevertheless, results provide meaningful information for cancer clinics about the outcomes of recontact efforts via informational letter.

Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing.

Men's experiences of recontact about a potential increased risk of prostate cancer due to Lynch Syndrome: "Just another straw on the stack"

The practice of recontacting patients to provide new health information is becoming increasingly common in clinical genetics, despite the limited research to evidence the patient experience. We explored how men with Lynch Syndrome (LS) understand and experience being recontacted about a potential increased risk of prostate cancer. Sixteen men with LS (Meanage 51 years) were recruited from an Australian screening study to undergo a semi-structured interview. A modified grounded theory approach was used to guide data collection and thematic analysis. Qualitative coding was shared by the research team to triangulate analysis. The practice of recontact was viewed by participants as acceptable and was associated with minimal emotional distress. The majority of men understood that they may be above population risk of prostate cancer, although evidence was still emerging. Men reported high engagement with personal and familial health, including regular screening practices and familial risk communication. Findings suggest that men's carrier status and beliefs about the actionability of the new cancer risk information influence their response to recontact. Recontact practices that include the offer of risk management strategies may lead to improved patient outcomes (e.g., reduced cancer worry and increased health engagement), if perceived as valuable by recipients.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

Ethics in genetic counselling

Difficult ethical issues arise for patients and professionals in medical genetics, and often relate to the patient's family or their social context. Tackling these issues requires sensitivity to nuances of communication and a commitment to clarity and consistency. It also benefits from an awareness of different approaches to ethical theory. Many of the ethical problems encountered in genetics relate to tensions between the wishes or interests of different people, sometimes even people who do not (yet) exist or exist as embryos, either in an established pregnancy or in vitro. Concern for the long-term welfare of a child or young person, or possible future children, or for other members of the family, may lead to tensions felt by the patient (client) in genetic counselling. Differences in perspective may also arise between the patient and professional when the latter recommends disclosure of information to relatives and the patient finds that too difficult, or when the professional considers the genetic testing of a child, sought by parents, to be inappropriate. The expectations of a patient's community may also lead to the differences in perspective between patient and counsellor. Recent developments of genetic technology permit genome-wide investigations. These have generated additional and more complex data that amplify and exacerbate some pre-existing ethical problems, including those presented by incidental (additional sought and secondary) findings and the recognition of variants currently of uncertain significance, so that reports of genomic investigations may often be provisional rather than definitive. Experience is being gained with these problems but substantial challenges are likely to persist in the long term.

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study

With large-scale genome sequencing initiatives underway, vast amounts of genomic data are being generated. Results-including secondary findings (SF)-are being returned, although policies around generation and management remain inconsistent. In order to inform relevant policy, it is essential that the views of stakeholders be considered-including participants who have made decisions about SF since the wider debate began. We conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen rare disease patients and parents enroled in genome sequencing to explore views towards SF. Informed by extensive contact with the healthcare system, interviewees demonstrated high levels of understanding of genetic testing and held pragmatic views: many are content not knowing SF. Interviewees expressed trust in the system and healthcare providers, as well as an appreciation of limited resources; acknowledging existing disease burden, many preferred to focus on their primary condition. Many demonstrated an expectation for recontact and assumed the possibility of later access to initially declined SF. In the absence of such an infrastructure, it is important that responsibilities for recontact are delineated, expectations are addressed, and the long-term impact of decisions is made clear during consent. In addition, some interviewees demonstrated fluid views towards SF, and suggestions were made that perceptions may be influenced by family history. Further research into the changing desirability of SF and behavioural impact of disclosure are needed, and the development and introduction of mechanisms to respond to changes in patient views should be considered.

Recontacting in light of new genetic diagnostic techniques for patients with intellectual disability: Feasibility and parental perspectives

A higher diagnostic yield from new diagnostic techniques makes re-evaluation in patients with intellectual disability without a causal diagnosis valuable, and is currently only performed after new referral. Active recontacting might serve a larger group of patients. We aimed to evaluate parental perspectives regarding recontacting and its feasibility in clinical genetic practice. A recontacting pilot was performed in two cohorts of children with intellectual disability. In cohort A, parents were recontacted by phone and in cohort B by letter, to invite them for a re-evaluation due to the new technologies (array CGH and exome sequencing, respectively). Parental opinions, preferences and experiences with recontacting were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire, and the feasibility of this pilot was evaluated. 47 of 114 questionnaires were returned. In total, 87% of the parents believed that all parents should be recontacted in light of new insights, 17% experienced an (positive or negative) emotional reaction. In cohort A, approached by phone, 36% made a new appointment for re-evaluation, and in cohort B, approached by letter, 4% did. Most parents have positive opinions on recontacting. Recontacting might evoke emotional responses that may need attention. Recontacting is feasible but time-consuming and a large additional responsibility for clinical geneticists.

Recontacting in clinical practice: the views and expectations of patients in the United Kingdom

This paper explores the views and expectations of patients concerning recontacting in clinical practice. It is based on 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in the United Kingdom. The sample comprised patients or parents of patients: without a diagnosis; recently offered a test for a condition or carrier risk; with a rare condition; with a variant of unknown significance – some of whom had been recontacted. Participants were recruited both via the National Health Service (NHS) and through online, condition-specific support groups. Most respondents viewed recontacting as desirable, however there were different opinions and expectations about what type of new information should trigger recontacting. An awareness of the potential psychological impact of receiving new information led some to suggest that recontacting should be planned, and tailored to the nature of the new information and the specific situation of patients and families. The lack of clarity about lines of responsibility for recontacting and perceptions of resource constraints in the NHS tended to mitigate respondents’ favourable positions towards recontacting and their preferences. Some respondents argued that recontacting could have a preventative value and reduce the cost of healthcare. Others challenged the idea that resources should be used to implement formalised recontacting systems – via arguments that there are ‘more pressing’ public health priorities, and for the need for healthcare services to offer care to new patients.