Utilization and uptake of clinical genetics services in high-income countries: A scoping review

Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

PURPOSE

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

METHODS

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

RESULTS

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Genetic counselling legislation and practice in cancer in EU Member States

BACKGROUND

Somatic and germline genetic alterations are significant drivers of cancer. Increasing integration of new technologies which profile these alterations requires timely, equitable and high-quality genetic counselling to facilitate accurate diagnoses and informed decision-making by patients and their families in preventive and clinical settings. This article aims to provide an overview of genetic counselling legislation and practice across European Union (EU) Member States to serve as a foundation for future European recommendations and action.

METHODS

National legislative databases of all 27 Member States were searched using terms relevant to genetic counselling, translated as appropriate. Interviews with relevant experts from each Member State were conducted to validate legislative search results and provide detailed insights into genetic counselling practice in each country.

RESULTS

Genetic counselling is included in national legislative documents of 22 of 27 Member States, with substantial variation in legal mechanisms and prescribed details (i.e. the 'who, what, when and where' of counselling). Practice is similarly varied. Workforce capacity (25 of 27 Member States) and genetic literacy (all Member States) were common reported barriers. Recognition and/or better integration of genetic counsellors and updated legislation and were most commonly noted as the 'most important change' which would improve practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights substantial variability in genetic counselling across EU Member States, as well as common barriers notwithstanding this variation. Future recommendations and action should focus on addressing literacy and capacity challenges through legislative, regulatory and/or strategic approaches at EU, national, regional and/or local levels.

Delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services to patients newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers at three gynecologic oncology clinics in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico

OBJECTIVE

Three gynecologic oncology clinics located in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico collaborated to evaluate their delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services. This descriptive retrospective review study aimed to establish baseline rates and timeliness of guideline-recommended genetics service delivery to patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal (ovarian), and endometrial cancers at each clinic.

METHODS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers between September 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 were identified from the medical records of the clinics. Genetics service delivery metrics included the rates of mismatch repair deficiency tumor testing for patients with endometrial cancer (microsatellite instability/immunohistochemistry, MSI/IHC), referral to genetics services for patients with ovarian cancer, completed genetics consultations, and germline genetic testing for patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Timeliness was calculated as the average number of days between diagnosis and the relevant delivery metric. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data.

RESULTS

In total, 1195 patients (596 with ovarian cancer, 599 with endometrial cancer) were included in the analysis, and rates of genetics service delivery varied by clinic. For patients with ovarian cancer, referral rates ranged by clinic from 32.6% to 89.5%; 30.4-65.1% of patients completed genetics consultation and 32.6-68.7% completed genetic testing. The timeliness to genetic testing for patients with ovarian cancer ranged by clinic from 107 to 595 days. A smaller proportion of patients with endometrial cancer completed MSI/IHC testing (10.0-69.2%), with the average time to MSI/IHC ranging from 15 to 282 days. Rates of genetics consultation among patients with endometrial cancer ranged by clinic from 10.8% to 26.0% and 12.5-16.6% completed genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

All clinics successfully established baseline rates and timeliness of delivering hereditary cancer genetics services to patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Lower rates of delivering genetics services to patients with endometrial cancer warrant additional research and quality improvement efforts.

Defining Need Amid Exponential Change: Conceptual Challenges in Workforce Planning for Clinical Genetic Services

Rapid growth in the volume of referrals to clinical genetics services in many countries during the past 15 years makes workforce planning a critical policy tool in ensuring that the capacity of the clinical genetics workforce is large enough to meet current and future needs. This article explores the distinctive challenges of workforce planning in clinical genetics and provides recommendations for addressing these challenges using a needs-based planning approach. Specifically, at least 3 features complicate efforts to estimate the need for clinical genetic services: the difficulty in linking many clinical genetic services to concrete health outcomes; the rapidly changing nature of genetic medicine, which creates intrinsic uncertainty about the appropriate level of service; and the heightened relevance of patient preferences in this context. Our recommendations call for needs-based planning studies to include an explicit definition of necessary care, to be flexible in considering nonhealth benefits, to err on the side of including services currently funded by health systems even when evidence about outcomes is limited, and to use scenario analysis and expert input to explore the impact of uncertainty about patients' preferences and future technologies on estimates of workforce requirements.

Workforce Implications of Increased Referrals to Hereditary Cancer Services in Canada: A Scenario-Based Analysis

Over the last decade, utilization of clinical genetics services has grown rapidly, putting increasing pressure on the workforce available to deliver genetic healthcare. To highlight the policy challenges facing Canadian health systems, a needs-based workforce requirements model was developed to determine the number of Canadian patients in 2030 for whom an assessment of hereditary cancer risk would be indicated according to current standards and the numbers of genetic counsellors, clinical geneticists and other physicians with expertise in genetics needed to provide care under a diverse set of scenarios. Our model projects that by 2030, a total of 90 specialist physicians and 326 genetic counsellors (1.7-fold and 1.6-fold increases from 2020, respectively) will be required to provide Canadians with indicated hereditary cancer services if current growth trends and care models remain unchanged. However, if the expansion in eligibility for hereditary cancer assessment accelerates, the need for healthcare providers with expertise in genetics would increase dramatically unless alternative care models are widely adopted. Increasing capacity through service delivery innovation, as well as mainstreaming of cancer genetics care, will be critical to Canadian health systems' ability to meet this challenge.

Evaluation of out-of-pocket pay genetic testing in a publicly funded healthcare system

When genetic tests are not funded publicly, out-of-pocket (OOP) pay options may be discussed with patients. We evaluated trends in genetic testing and OOP pay for two publicly funded British Columbia clinical programs serving >12 000 patients/year (The Hereditary Cancer Program [HCP] and Provincial Medical Genetics Program [PMGP]) between 2015-2019. Linear and regression models were used to explore the association of OOP pay with patient demographic variables at HCP. An interrupted time series and linear and logistic regression models were used on PMGP data to examine the effect of a change in the funding body. The total number of tests completed through PMGP, and HCP increased by 260% and 320%, respectively. OOP pay increased at HCP by 730%. The mean annual income of patients who paid OOP at HCP was ≥$3500 higher than in the group with funded testing (p < 0.0001). The likelihood of OOP pay increased at PMGP before the funding body change (OR per month: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10); while this likelihood had an immediate 87% drop when the change occurred (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.32). Patients with higher incomes are more likely to pay OOP. Financial barriers can create disparities in clinical outcomes. Funding decisions have a significant impact on rate of OOP pay.

Attitudes among parents of persons with autism spectrum disorder towards information about genetic risk and future health

Clinical relevance of genetic testing is increasing in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Information about genetic risk may contribute to improved diagnostics, treatment and family planning, but may also be perceived as a burden. Knowledge about the families' preferences with regard to genetic risk information is important for both health care professionals and policy makers. We investigated attitudes towards sharing information about genetic risk of ASD and knowledge about future health among parent members of the Norwegian Autism Association (N = 1455) using a questionnaire, and the relationships with parent and child characteristics, such as age, gender and ASD severity. Most preferred autonomy in deciding whom to inform about genetic risk of ASD (74.4%) and a minority supported extensive intra-familial disclosure of the genetic risk (41.1%). The majority agreed that it is an obligation to know as much as possible relevant for future health (58.0%) and only 51.7% agreed to a principle of a 'right not to know'. In regression models, the attitudes were associated with opinions about benefits and harms of genetic testing (e.g., treatment, family planning, understanding of ASD pathology, insurance discrimination and family conflict). In sum, the findings show that most parents want to know as much as possible relevant for their children's future health and keep their autonomy and intra-familial confidentiality about genetic risk information. Nearly half of the parents were not concerned with a "right not to know". These attitudes can inform development of guidelines and bioethics in the age of genomic precision medicine.

Where is genetic medicine headed? Exploring the perspectives of Canadian genetic professionals on future trends using the Delphi method

Driven by technological and scientific advances, the landscape of genetic medicine is rapidly changing, which complicates strategic planning and decision-making in this area. To address this uncertainty, we sought to understand genetic professionals' opinions about the future of clinical genetic and genomic services in Canada. We used the Delphi method to survey Canadian genetic professionals about their perspectives on whether scenarios about changes in service delivery and the use of genomic testing would be broadly implemented in their jurisdiction by 2030. We conducted two survey rounds; the response rates were 32% (27/84) and 67% (18/27), respectively. The most likely scenario was the universal use of noninvasive prenatal screening. The least likely scenarios involved population-based genome-wide sequencing for unaffected individuals. Overall, the scenarios perceived as most likely were those that have existing evidence about their benefit and potential medical necessity, whereas scenarios were seen as unlikely if they involved emerging technologies. Participants expected that the need for genetic healthcare services would increase by 2030 owing to changes in clinical guidelines and increased use of genome-wide sequencing. This study highlights the uncertainty in the future of genetic and genomic service provision and contributes evidence that could be used to inform strategic planning in clinical genetics.