Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Managing differential performance of polygenic risk scores across groups: Real-world experience of the eMERGE Network

The differential performance of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) by group is one of the major ethical barriers to their clinical use. It is also one of the main practical challenges for any implementation effort. The social repercussions of how people are grouped in PRS research must be considered in communications with research participants, including return of results. Here, we outline the decisions faced and choices made by a large multi-site clinical implementation study returning PRSs to diverse participants in handling this issue of differential performance. Our approach to managing the complexities associated with the differential performance of PRSs serves as a case study that can help future implementers of PRSs to plot an anticipatory course in response to this issue.

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Genetic risk prediction in Hispanics/Latinos: milestones, challenges, and social-ethical considerations

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have allowed the identification of disease-associated variants, which can be leveraged to build polygenic scores (PGSs). Even though PGSs can be a valuable tool in personalized medicine, their predictive power is limited in populations of non-European ancestry, particularly in admixed populations. Recent efforts have focused on increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GWAS, thus, addressing some of the limitations of genetic risk prediction in these populations. Even with these efforts, few studies focus exclusively on Hispanics/Latinos. Additionally, Hispanic/Latino populations are often considered a single population despite varying admixture proportions between and within ethnic groups, diverse genetic heterogeneity, and demographic history. Combined with highly heterogeneous environmental and socioeconomic exposures, this diversity can reduce the transferability of genetic risk prediction models. Given the recent increase of genomic studies that include Hispanics/Latinos, we review the milestones and efforts that focus on genetic risk prediction, summarize the potential for improving PGS transferability, and highlight the challenges yet to be addressed. Additionally, we summarize social-ethical considerations and provide ideas to promote genetic risk prediction models that can be implemented equitably.

When Positive is Negative: Health Literacy Barriers to Patient Access to Clinical Laboratory Test Results

BACKGROUND

Health literacy is a multidimensional set of skills (e.g., narrative, numeracy, digital, medication) that patients need to access and understand health information timely and accurately to make evidence-based informed decisions.

CONTENT

Multiple barriers prevent patients from effectively interacting with health information. The most salient barriers are poor overall health literacy skills and linguistic proficiency in English. As patients prefer direct access to laboratory test results, especially those of routine tests, contextualization and provider-directed interpretation of results are required to foster shared decision-making to address their healthcare issues and improve health outcomes.

SUMMARY

The use of systematic approaches that account for poor health literacy skills and include culturally and linguistically appropriate planning and availability of resources is warranted at individual and population health levels (e.g., human-centered design of patient portals).

The role of polygenic risk scores in breast cancer risk perception and decision-making

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to improve the accuracy of clinical risk assessments, yet questions about their clinical validity and readiness for clinical implementation persist. Understanding how individuals integrate and act on the information provided by PRS is critical for their effective integration into routine clinical care, yet few studies have examined how individuals respond to the receipt of polygenic risk information. We conducted an embedded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) study to examine if and how unaffected participants in a US population breast cancer screening trial understood and utilized PRS, as part of a multifactorial risk score combining traditional risk factors with a genetic risk assessment, to make screening and risk-reduction decisions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 trial participants who were designated at elevated risk for breast cancer due to their combined risk score. Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Participants understood PRS conceptually and accepted it as one of many risk factors to consider, yet the value and meaning they ascribed to this risk estimate varied. Most participants reported financial and insurance barriers to enhanced screening with MRI and were not interested in taking risk-reducing medications. These findings contribute to our understanding of how PRS may be best translated from research to clinical care. Furthermore, they illuminate ethical concerns about identifying risk and making recommendations based on polygenic risk in a population screening context where many may have trouble accessing appropriate care.

Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

Assessing patient-level knowledge of precision medicine in a community health center setting

As precision medicine approaches are implemented, cancer treatment decisions have come to require comprehension of genetic tests and their role in risk stratification and treatment options. Acceptance and implementation of precision medicine requires patient understanding of numeracy, genetic literacy, health literacy, and medical trust. Implementing precision medicine in a US federally qualified community health center (FQCHC) setting has received little attention. Using a mixed-methods approach, we sought to identify patient-level factors influencing the understanding of cancer risk and precision medicine among FQCHC patients. We enrolled 26 English-speaking adults aged 40-79 years. Participants enrolled in focus groups and completed surveys to assess patient-level understanding of precision medicine, numeracy, and health literacy. The majority of participants were female (77%) and self-identified as African American (89%). Approximately one-third reported having a high school degree or less. While health literacy was generally high, 42% felt that genes or genetics had little impact on health and most (69%) reported little familiarity with precision medicine. Many participants reported that trust in their providers was extremely or very important when receiving genetic tests. Numeracy levels were moderate, with nearly half reporting some discomfort working with fractions and 38% finding numerical information only occasionally useful. Findings suggest that patients may lack familiarity with precision medicine concepts relevant for understanding cancer treatment decisions. Future educational efforts may help bridge the gap in patient understanding and facilitate equitable opportunities for precision medicine for all patients, including those seeking care from community health centers.

Primary care physician use of patient race and polygenic risk scores in medical decision-making

PURPOSE

The use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race.

METHODS

Using an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race.

RESULTS

Across 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.

Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have generated considerable scholarly attention and public intrigue. Although the current consumer genetic testing regime relies on the reporting of individual variants of interest to consumers, there has recently been interest in the possibility of integrating polygenic scores (PGS), which aggregate genetic liability for disease across the entire genome. While PGS have thus far been extensively explored as clinical and public health tools, the use of PGS in consumer genetic testing has not yet received systematic attention, even though they are already in use for some consumer genetic tests. In this narrative review, we highlight the ethical, legal, and social implications of the use of PGS in DTC genetic tests and synthesize existing solutions to these concerns. We organize these concerns into three domains: (1) industry variation; (2) privacy and commercialization; and (3) patient safety and risk. While previously expressed concerns in these domains will remain relevant, the emergence of PGS-based DTC genetic tests raises challenges that will require novel approaches.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants’ Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels.