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

Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan

Genetic testing advances have enabled the provision of previously unavailable information on the pathogenicity of genetic variants, frequently necessitating the recontact of former patients by clinicians. In Japan, national health insurance coverage was extended to BRCA1/2 testing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for patients who meet certain criteria in 2020, and conditions necessitating recontact were expected to increase. Studies and discussions regarding recontact have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe; however, in Japan, the national discussion around recontact remains undeveloped. We conducted a cross-sectional study by interviewing 73 facilities accredited by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer regarding the practice of recontacting patients at these facilities. Sixty-six facilities responded that they recontact patients, but only 17 facilities had a protocol for this. The most common reason for recontact was that it could benefit the patient. Facilities that did not recontact stated that they lacked the necessary personnel or services. Most facilities indicated that a recontact system should be implemented in their practice. The increased burden on too few medical personnel, unestablished systems, patient confusion, and the right not to know were cited as barriers to implementing recontact. Although developing recommendations on recontact would be useful for providing equitable healthcare in Japan, there is an urgent need to deepen the discussion on recontacting, as negative opinions about recontacting patients were observed.

Duty to recontact in genomic cancer care: a tool helping to assess the professional’s responsibility

Tumour DNA and germline testing, based on DNA-wide sequencing analysis, are becoming more and more routine in clinical-oncology practice. A promising step in medicine, but at the same time leading to challenging ethicolegal questions. An important one is under what conditions individuals (patients and their relatives, research participants) should be recontacted with new information, even if many years have passed since the last contact. Based on legal- and ethical study, we developed a tool to help professionals to decide whether or not to recontact an individual in specific cases. It is based on four assessment criteria: (1) professional relationship (2) clinical impact (3) individual's preferences and (4) feasibility. The tool could also serve as a framework for guidelines on the topic.

Characterization of variant reclassification and patient re-contact in a cancer genetics clinic

Expanded genetic testing guidelines for hereditary cancers, increased utilization of large multigene panels, and improved methods for reclassifying variants have led to a greater need to understand how variant reclassification and patient re-contact are managed. This study aimed to describe the process of variant reclassification and subsequent patient re-contact at a comprehensive cancer genetic counseling service in a large metropolitan medical center with several statewide satellite locations. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify reclassified variants between 1/1/1997 and 12/1/2020. In total, 8.4% (211/2503) of variants were reclassified over the 24-year period, which includes multiple cases involving the same unique variant. Several variants underwent more than one reclassification, resulting in 232 total reclassifications among 194 individuals. Nearly all reclassifications were prompted by the laboratory (99.1%; 230/232) rather than the genetics clinic staff. Overall, 10.3% (24/232) of all reclassifications were upgrades, but only 9.1% (21/232) led to a change in management recommendations. The median time for variant reclassification was 1.7 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.8-3.2 years). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to reclassification for White patients (median = 1.6 years; IQR = 0.8-2.8 years) compared to non-White patients (median = 2.0 years; IQR = 0.9-3.7 years; Mann-Whitney U = 4,764.0, p = 0.066). Patient re-contact was attempted for 97.4% (226/232) of variants and was always performed by a genetic counselor, most often through a mailed letter (85.8%, 194/226). Specifically for reclassifications that led to a change in management recommendations, re-contact was always attempted, most often through combined telephone and mailed letter (95.2%; 20/21). Overall, the median time from reclassification to attempted patient re-contact was 13 days (range: 0-589 days). The characterization of this clinic's reclassification and re-contact procedures can serve as an example for other genetics clinics trying to incorporate re-contact into their workflow.

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.

Reanalysis of exome negative patients with rare disease: a pragmatic workflow for diagnostic applications

Background

Approximately two third of patients with a rare genetic disease remain undiagnosed after exome sequencing (ES). As part of our post-test counseling procedures, patients without a conclusive diagnosis are advised to recontact their referring clinician to discuss new diagnostic opportunities in due time. We performed a systematic study of genetically undiagnosed patients 5 years after their initial negative ES report to determine the efficiency of diverse reanalysis strategies.

Methods

We revisited a cohort of 150 pediatric neurology patients originally enrolled at Radboud University Medical Center, of whom 103 initially remained genetically undiagnosed. We monitored uptake of physician-initiated routine clinical and/or genetic re-evaluation (ad hoc re-evaluation) and performed systematic reanalysis, including ES-based resequencing, of all genetically undiagnosed patients (systematic re-evaluation).

Results

Ad hoc re-evaluation was initiated for 45 of 103 patients and yielded 18 diagnoses (including 1 non-genetic). Subsequent systematic re-evaluation identified another 14 diagnoses, increasing the diagnostic yield in our cohort from 31% (47/150) to 53% (79/150). New genetic diagnoses were established by reclassification of previously identified variants (10%, 3/31), reanalysis with enhanced bioinformatic pipelines (19%, 6/31), improved coverage after resequencing (29%, 9/31), and new disease-gene associations (42%, 13/31). Crucially, our systematic study also showed that 11 of the 14 further conclusive genetic diagnoses were made in patients without a genetic diagnosis that did not recontact their referring clinician.

Conclusions

We find that upon re-evaluation of undiagnosed patients, both reanalysis of existing ES data as well as resequencing strategies are needed to identify additional genetic diagnoses. Importantly, not all patients are routinely re-evaluated in clinical care, prolonging their diagnostic trajectory, unless systematic reanalysis is facilitated. We have translated our observations into considerations for systematic and ad hoc reanalysis in routine genetic care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01069-z.

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.

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.

Early technology assessment of using whole genome sequencing in personalized oncology

Introduction: Personalized medicine-based treatments in advanced cancer hold the promise to offer substantial health benefits to genetic subgroups, but require efficient biomarker-based patient stratification to match the right treatment and may be expensive. Standard molecular diagnostics are currently very heterogeneous, and tests are often performed sequentially. The alternative to whole genome sequencing (WGS) i.e. simultaneously testing for all relevant DNA-based biomarkers thereby allowing immediate selection of the most optimal therapy, is more costly than current techniques. In the current implementation stage, it is important to explore the added value and cost-effectiveness of using WGS on a patient level and to assess optimal introduction of WGS on the level of the healthcare system.Areas covered: First, an overview of current worldwide initiatives concerning the use of WGS in clinical practice for cancer diagnostics is given. Second, a comprehensive, early health technology assessment (HTA) approach of evaluating WGS in the Netherlands is described, relating to the following aspects: diagnostic value, WGS-based treatment decisions, assessment of long-term health benefits and harms, early cost-effectiveness modeling, nation-wide organization, and Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications.Expert opinion: This study provides evidence to guide further development and implementation of WGS in clinical practice and the healthcare system.

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.

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?