Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review

Evaluating parental personal utility of pediatric genetic and genomic testing in a diverse, multilingual population

There is increasing evidence of the clinical utility of genetic and genomic testing (GT); however, factors influencing personal utility of GT, especially in diverse, multilingual populations, remain unclear. We explored these factors in a diverse cohort of parents/guardians (participants) whose children received clinical GT through the NYCKidSeq program. A total of 847 participants completed surveys at baseline, post-results disclosure, and 6 months (6m) post-results. The largest population groups were Hispanic/Latino(a) (48%), White/European American (24%), and Black/African American (16%). Personal utility was assessed using the Personal Utility (PrU) scale, adapted for pediatric populations and included on the surveys. Three PrU subscales were identified using factor analysis: practical, educational, and parental psychological utility. Overall personal utility summary score and the three subscales significantly decreased after receiving results and over time. Hispanic/Latino(a) participants identified greater overall personal utility than European American and African American participants at all time points (p < 0.001) as did participants whose children received positive/likely positive results compared with those with negative and uncertain results (post-results: p < 0.001 and p < 0.001; 6m post-results: p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). Post-results, higher subscale scores were associated with lower education levels (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.02) and higher levels of trust in the healthcare system (practical, parental psychological: p ≤ 0.04). These findings help to understand the perspectives of diverse parents/guardians, which is critical to tailoring pre- and post-test counseling across a variety of populations and clinical settings.

How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks.

RESULTS

Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.

Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on genetic counseling and genetic diagnosis in vascular anomalies

Genomic technologies are now utilized for the genetic diagnosis of vascular anomalies. This provides the opportunity for genetic counselors to make a significant contribution to patient care for this complex disease. The aim of this study was to explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on the relatively recent integration of molecular diagnostic testing for vascular anomalies, with or without genetic counseling support. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian healthcare professionals involved in the provision of care for individuals with vascular anomalies. Thematic analysis identified six themes: (1) Molecular diagnosis is beneficial; (2) psychosocial needs can motivate families to pursue a molecular diagnosis; (3) molecular genetic testing for vascular anomalies is complex; (4) genetic service provision is not a one size fits all; (5) a client-centered approach for genetic service provision can go a long way; and (6) the value of genetic counselors. Based on our findings, implementation of a vascular anomalies genetic diagnostic program inclusive of genetic counseling may be challenging, yet such programs are likely to benefit both patients and their families, as well as healthcare professionals. As this paradigm shift unfolds, genetic counselors have an opportunity to contribute to the vascular anomaly field by educating healthcare professionals and patients, by participating in multidisciplinary clinics to support complex cases and by raising awareness regarding their practice and potential contributions.

Family communication of cancer genetic test results in an ethnically diverse population: a qualitative exploration of more than 200 patients

Previous research on family communication of cancer genetic test results has primarily focused on non-Hispanic White patients with high-risk pathogenic variants (PV). There are limited data on patient communication of moderate-risk PVs, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and negative results. This qualitative study examined communication of positive, negative, and VUS hereditary cancer multi-gene panel (MGP) results in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population. As part of a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 patients who underwent MGP testing at three hospitals in California, USA, free-text written survey responses to the question: "Feel free to share any thoughts or experiences with discussing genetic test results with others" were collected from participant questionnaires administered at 3 and 12-months post results disclosure. Content and thematic analyses were performed using a theory-driven analysis, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), on 256 responses from 214 respondents. Respondents with high perceived utility of sharing genetic test results often reported positive attitudes towards sharing test results and direct encouragement for genetic testing of others. Respondents with high self-efficacy in the sharing process were likely to report high perceived utility of sharing, whereas patients with low self-efficacy more often had VUS results and were more likely to report uncertainty about sharing. Consistent with TPB, our findings suggest that clinician reinforcement of the utility of genetic testing may increase intent for patients to communicate genetic information. Our findings suggest that clinicians should focus on strategies to improve patient understanding of VUS results.

Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing

PURPOSE

Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS.

METHODS

Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments.

RESULTS

We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

The value of genomic testing in severe childhood speech disorders

With increasing gene discoveries for severe speech disorders, genomic testing can alter the diagnostic and clinical paradigms, enabling better life outcomes for children and their families. However, evidence on the value of the outcomes generated is lacking, impeding optimal translation into health care. This study aims to estimate the value and uptake of genomic testing for severe childhood speech disorders. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to elicit preferences for genomic testing from the perspective of the Australian public (n = 951) and parents of children experiencing severe speech disorder (n = 56). Choice attributes associated with genomic testing were identified through focus groups. A Bayesian D-efficient design was used to develop choice scenarios and choice data were analyzed using a panel error component mixed logit model and a latent class model. Statistically significant preferences were identified across all seven attributes. The mean monetary value of the benefits of genomic testing relative to standard diagnostic care in Australia was estimated at AU$7489 (US$5021) and AU$4452 (US$2985) from the perspectives of the Australian public and families with lived experience of severe speech disorders, with a corresponding test uptake of 94.2% and 99.6%. To ensure fair prioritization of genomics, decision-makers need to consider the wide range of risks and benefits associated with genomic information.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child

BACKGROUND

Counseling for whole-exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio-analysis, both before and after receiving results.

RESULTS

Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch-22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child's development is needed. Third, default opt-ins and opt-outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

Cost-Effectiveness of Whole-Genome vs Whole-Exome Sequencing Among Children With Suspected Genetic Disorders

Importance

The diagnosis of rare diseases and other genetic conditions can be daunting due to vague or poorly defined clinical features that are not recognized even by experienced clinicians. Next-generation sequencing technologies, such as whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES), have greatly enhanced the diagnosis of genetic diseases by expanding the ability to sequence a large part of the genome, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of WGS compared with WES and conventional testing in children with suspected genetic disorders.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a bayesian Markov model was implemented from January 1 to June 30, 2023. The model was developed using data from a cohort of 870 pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders who were enrolled and underwent testing in the Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, Italy, from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022. The robustness of the model was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value of information analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall costs, number of definitive diagnoses, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per diagnosis were measured. The cost-effectiveness analyses involved 4 comparisons: first-tier WGS with standard of care; first-tier WGS with first-tier WES; first-tier WGS with second-tier WES; and first-tier WGS with second-tier WGS.

Results

The ages of the 870 participants ranged from 0 to 18 years (539 [62%] girls). The results of the analysis suggested that adopting WGS as a first-tier strategy would be cost-effective compared with all other explored options. For all threshold levels above €29 800 (US $32 408) per diagnosis that were tested up to €50 000 (US $54 375) per diagnosis, first-line WGS vs second-line WES strategy (ie, 54.6%) had the highest probability of being cost-effective, followed by first-line vs second-line WGS (ie, 54.3%), first-line WGS vs the standard of care alternative (ie, 53.2%), and first-line WGS vs first-line WES (ie, 51.1%). Based on sensitivity analyses, these estimates remained robust to assumptions and parameter uncertainty.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this economic evaluation encourage the development of policy changes at various levels (ie, macro, meso, and micro) of international health systems to ensure an efficient adoption of WGS in clinical practice and its equitable access.

Moving to the Middle Ground: Redefining Genomic Utility to Expand Understanding of Familial Benefit

Translational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.

The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results

PURPOSE

We aimed to adapt and validate an existing patient-reported outcome measure, the personal-utility (PrU) scale, for use in the pediatric genomic context.

METHODS

We adapted the adult version of the PrU and obtained feedback from 6 parents whose child had undergone sequencing. The resulting measure, the Parent PrU, was administered to parents of children in 4 pediatric cohorts of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium after they received their children's genomic results. We investigated the measure's structural validity and internal consistency.

RESULTS

We conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation on data from 755 participants to determine structural validity. These analyses yielded a 3-factor solution, accounting for 76% of the variance in the 16 items. We used Cronbach's α to assess the internal consistency of each factor: (1) child benefits (α = .95), (2) affective parent benefits (α = .90), and (3) parent control (α = .94).

CONCLUSION

Our evidence suggests that the Parent PrU scale has potential as a measure for assessing parent-reported personal utility of their children's genomic results. Additional research is needed to further validate the Parent PrU scale, including by comparing its findings with utility assessments reported by clinicians and children themselves.

QALYs and rare diseases: exploring the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing for childhood and adult-onset rare genetic conditions in Australia

BACKGROUND

Genomic testing transforms the diagnosis and management of rare conditions. However, uncertainty exists on how to best measure genomic outcomes for informing healthcare priorities. Using the HTA-preferred method should be the starting point to improve the evidence-base. This study explores the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing across childhood and adult-onset genetic conditions.

METHOD

Self-reported patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were obtained from: primary caregivers of children with suspected neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs) or genetic kidney diseases (GKDs) (carers' own PRO), adults with suspected GKDs using SF-12v2; adults with suspected complex neurological disorders (CNDs) using EQ-5D-5L; and adults with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) using AQol-8D. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardised response mean effect-size based on diagnostic (having a confirmed genomic diagnosis), personal (usefulness of genomic information to individuals or families), and clinical (clinical usefulness of genomic information) utility anchors.

RESULTS

In total, 254 people completed PRO measures before genomic testing and after receiving results. For diagnostic utility, a nearly moderate positive effect size was identified by the AQoL-8D in adult DCM patients. Declines in physical health domains masked any improvements in mental or psychosocial domains in parents of children affected by NDs and adult CNDs and DCM patients with confirmed diagnosis. However, the magnitude of the changes was small and we did not find statistically significant evidence of these changes. No other responsiveness evidence related to diagnostic, clinical, and personal utility of genomic testing was identified.

CONCLUSION

Generic PRO measures may lack responsiveness to the diagnostic, clinical and personal outcomes of genomics, but further research is needed to establish their measurement properties and relevant evaluative space in the context of rare conditions. Expected declines in the physical health of people experiencing rare conditions may further challenge the conventional application of quality of life assessments.

A decision-making framework for genomic testing in paediatric nephrology

AIM

Technological advances and increased access have led to genomics expanding beyond the genetics clinic. Consequently, nephrologists can now order genomic testing for their patients. Consistent decision-making around patient and test selection is required to ensure equitable access while maximising the utility of genomic testing. However, there are currently no frameworks to guide decision-making for testing in this context. We aimed to develop an ethical decision-making framework for genomic testing in paediatric nephrology.

METHODS

A three-stage approach was used: (i) review of the literature on decision-making for genomic testing in nephrology and other disciplines; (ii) ethnographic observation of approaches to genomic testing in the general nephrology and renal genetics clinics at an Australian paediatric hospital; (iii) review and revision of the framework with key stakeholders, including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, paediatric nephrologists and families from the renal genetics service. The initial framework was modified until consensus from key stakeholders was reached.

RESULTS

A decision-making framework was created with questions designed to explore the impact of genomic testing on patient management, clinical validity, patient characteristics, alternatives to genomic testing, genetic counselling, resource availability, implications for family members, psychosocial considerations, patient autonomy, research, support services and insurance. Case studies were developed to demonstrate the framework's application.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework was designed to guide decisions around patient selection for genomic testing in nephrology in the Australian health-care setting, with potential utility in other institutions and medical disciplines. It may help facilitate consistent approaches to genomic testing, to maximise equity and utility.

Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty

PURPOSE

Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity.

METHOD

Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework.

CONCLUSION

Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.

Genomic medicine in neonatal care: progress and challenges

During the neonatal period, many genetic disorders present and contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Genomic medicine-the use of genomic information in clinical care- has the potential to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in the neonatal period and improve outcomes for this population. Diagnostic genomic testing for symptomatic newborns, especially rapid testing, has been shown to be feasible and have diagnostic and clinical utility, particularly in the short-term. Ongoing studies are assessing the feasibility and utility, including personal utility, of implementation in diverse populations. Genomic screening for asymptomatic newborns has also been studied, and the acceptability and feasibility of such an approach remains an active area of investigation. Emerging precision therapies, with examples even at the "n-of-1" level, highlight the promise of precision diagnostics to lead to early intervention and improve outcomes. To sustainably implement genomic medicine in neonatal care in an ethical, effective, and equitable manner, we need to ensure access to genetics and genomics knowledge, access to genomic tests, which is currently limited by payors, feasible processes for ordering these tests, and access to follow up in the clinical and research realms. Future studies will provide further insight into enablers and barriers to optimize implementation strategies.

Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling

Objective

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) can inform advanced cancer patients' treatment decisions, and also reveal secondary germline findings-information about inherited risks for cancer and other disorders. We sought to develop a measure of patient perceptions of the clinical and personal utility of secondary germline findings.

Methods

We developed a draft survey based on literature and patient interview data (n=40). We evaluated and refined the survey through cognitive interviews with advanced cancer patients who received secondary germline findings from TGP (n=10). The survey was psychometrically validated with data from two independent samples of advanced cancer patients undergoing TGP (total n=349).

Results

Cognitive interviews offered opportunities for survey refinement and confirmation of its comprehensible nature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the survey identified 16 items across three subscales with strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.79): perceived utility for others, perceived utility for self and health, and confidence in secondary findings.

Conclusion

We developed a novel valid scale with promise for measuring advanced cancer patients' perceptions of the utility of secondary germline findings.

Innovation

We offer a new patient-derived measure of perceived utility of and confidence in secondary germline findings with potential applications for precision oncology research and clinical communication.

The Diagnostic Landscape of Adult Neurogenetic Disorders

Neurogenetic diseases affect individuals across the lifespan, but accurate diagnosis remains elusive for many patients. Adults with neurogenetic disorders often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey, with multiple specialist evaluations and countless investigations without a satisfactory diagnostic outcome. Reasons for these diagnostic challenges include: (1) clinical features of neurogenetic syndromes are diverse and under-recognized, particularly those of adult-onset, (2) neurogenetic syndromes may manifest with symptoms that span multiple neurological and medical subspecialties, and (3) a positive family history may not be present or readily apparent. Furthermore, there is a large gap in the understanding of how to apply genetic diagnostic tools in adult patients, as most of the published literature focuses on the pediatric population. Despite these challenges, accurate genetic diagnosis is imperative to provide affected individuals and their families guidance on prognosis, recurrence risk, and, for an increasing number of disorders, offer targeted treatment. Here, we provide a framework for recognizing adult neurogenetic syndromes, describe the current diagnostic approach, and highlight studies using next-generation sequencing in different neurological disease cohorts. We also discuss diagnostic pitfalls, barriers to achieving a definitive diagnosis, and emerging technology that may increase the diagnostic yield of testing.

Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis of Whole genome sequencing versus Whole exome sequencing in a pediatric population with suspected genetic disorders

Genetic diseases are medical conditions caused by sequence or structural changes in an individual's genome. Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are increasingly used for diagnosing suspected genetic conditions in children to reduce the diagnostic delay and accelerating the implementation of appropriate treatments. While more information is becoming available on clinical efficacy and economic sustainability of WES, the broad implementation of WGS is still hindered by higher complexity and economic issues. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of WGS versus WES and standard testing for pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders. A Bayesian decision tree model was set up. Model parameters were retrieved both from hospital administrative datasets and scientific literature. The analysis considered a lifetime time frame and adopted the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). Bayesian inference was performed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation method. Uncertainty was explored through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a value of information analysis (VOI). The present analysis showed that implementing first-line WGS would be a cost-effective strategy, against the majority of the other tested alternatives at a threshold of €30,000-50,000, for diagnosing outpatient pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders. According to the sensitivity analyses, the findings were robust to most assumption and parameter uncertainty. Lessons learnt from this modeling study reinforces the adoption of first-line WGS, as a cost-effective strategy, depending on actual difficulties for the NHS to properly allocate limited resources.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

Motivations to learn genomic information are not exceptional: Lessons from behavioral science

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility-the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes-is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, its clinical utility and personal utility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

Genomics Research with Undiagnosed Children: Ethical Challenges at the Boundaries of Research and Clinical Care

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of parents of undiagnosed children enrolled in genomic diagnosis research regarding their motivations for enrolling their children, their understanding of the potential burdens and benefits, and the extent to which their experiences ultimately aligned with or diverged from their original expectations.

STUDY DESIGN

In-depth interviews were conducted with parents, audio-recorded and transcribed. A structured codebook was applied to each transcript, after which iterative memoing was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Fifty-four parents participated, including 17 (31.5%) whose child received a diagnosis through research. Themes describing parents' expectations and experiences of genomic diagnosis research included (1) the extent to which parents' motivations for participation focused on their hope that it would directly benefit their child, (2) the ways in which parents' frustrations regarding the research process confused the dual clinical and research goals of their participation, and (3) the limited clinical benefits parents ultimately experienced for their children.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that parents of undiagnosed children seeking enrollment in genomic diagnosis research are at risk of a form of therapeutic misconception-in this case, diagnostic misconception. These findings indicate the need to examine the processes and procedures associated with this research to communicate appropriately and balance the potential burdens and benefits of study participation.

Ethical Aspects of Pediatric Genetic Care: Testing and Treatment

Pediatric health care providers caring for patients and families with genetic disease will encounter a range of ethical issues. These include traditional pediatric health care issues, such as surrogate decision making and end-of-life care. Genetic testing raises the importance of informed consent for potential risks that move beyond the oft discussed physical risks and into longer term concepts such as psychological impact, privacy and potential discrimination. Predictive testing in childhood also raises questions of whether the child has an autonomy interest in delaying testing until they have decision making capacity to do so on their own. And finally, treatments including gene therapies and gene editing, may raise issues of identity for families dealing with genetic disease.

"I am not a number!" Opinions and preferences of people with intellectual disability about genetic healthcare

There is limited research exploring the knowledge and experiences of genetic healthcare from the perspective of people with intellectual disability. This study, conducted in New South Wales (Australia), addresses this gap. Eighteen adults with intellectual disability and eight support people were interviewed in this inclusive research study. The transcribed interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis. The findings were discussed in a focus group with ten adults with intellectual disability and in three multi-stakeholder advisory workshops, contributing to the validity and trustworthiness of the findings. Five main themes emerged: (i) access to genetic healthcare services is inequitable, with several barriers to the informed consent process; (ii) the experiences and opinions of people with intellectual disability are variable, including frustration, exclusion and fear; (iii) genetic counselling and diagnoses can be profoundly impactful, but translating a genetic diagnosis into tailored healthcare, appropriate support, peer connections and reproductive planning faces barriers; (iv) people with intellectual disability have a high incidence of exposure to trauma and some reported that their genetic healthcare experiences were associated with further trauma; (v) recommendations for a more respectful and inclusive model of genetic healthcare. Co-designed point-of-care educational and consent resources, accompanied by tailored professional education for healthcare providers, are required to improve the equity and appropriateness of genetic healthcare for people with intellectual disability.

Refining a Multifaceted Model of Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing Results

INTRODUCTION

Research on the perceived utility of genomic sequencing has focused primarily on pediatric populations and on individuals and families with rare genetic diseases. Here, we evaluate how well a multifaceted perceived utility model developed with these populations applies to a diverse, adult population aged 18-49 at risk for hereditary cancer and propose new considerations for the model.

METHODS

Participants received clinical genomic sequencing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants at 1 and 6 months after results disclosure. We used an approach influenced by grounded theory to examine perceptions of the utility of genomic sequencing and analyzed how utility in CHARM mapped to the published multifaceted perceived utility model, noting which domains were represented or absent and which were most salient to our population.

RESULTS

Participants' discussions of utility often involved multiple domains and revealed the variety of ways in which receiving sequencing results can impact one's life. Results demonstrated that an individual's perception of utility can change over the life course when sequenced at a relatively young age and may be influenced by the resources available to them to act on the results.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate the relevance of a multifaceted perceived utility model for a diverse adult population at risk for hereditary cancer. We identified refinements that could make the model more robust, including emphasizing the overlapping nature of the domains and the importance of life stage and personal resources to the perception of utility.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Non-health Outcomes: A Person Trade-Off Study in the Context of Genomics

PURPOSE

Economic evaluations of health technologies traditionally aim to maximize population health outcomes measured by using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Non-health outcomes, however, may have high social value, and their exclusion has the potential to bias decisions regarding allocation of health care resources. This research positions Australian participants as societal decision-makers to explore their willingness to trade-off health gains in adults for non-health benefits in families with a child affected by a rare disease.

METHODS

To estimate the social value of the different health care interventions, a person trade-off (PTO) method was used. PTOs present participants with groups of beneficiaries that vary in terms of the number of individuals who will benefit, the individuals' characteristics, their expected benefits, or a combination, and ask which group should be prioritized. Each trade-off presented health gains from the treatment of moderate physical and mental health conditions described by the 3-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) health states. The health gains in these groups were traded-off against non-health gains in families accessing diagnostic genomic testing, and equivalence values were calculated, using median and ratio of means methods, based on the ratio of the group sizes at the point of equivalence. Participants were recruited through Prolific and were stratified according to age, sex, and education. The impact of participant characteristics on equivalence values was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests and ordinary least-squares log-linear regressions.

FINDINGS

Participants (N = 434) positioned as societal decision-makers were generally willing to trade-off adult health gains with the familial non-health benefits of genomic testing, showing a preference for valuing both types of outcomes within public health policy. The aggregation of preferences generated 2 weightings for genomic testing against each health treatment, an unadjusted value and a reweighted value to match target demographic characteristics. Converted into QALY value per test, it was found that participants valued the non-health benefits of genomic testing between 0.730 and 0.756 QALY. A minority of participants always prioritized diagnostic genomic testing over the physical (6.0%) or mental (4.6%) health treatments, with a larger minority always prioritizing the physical (15.4%) or mental (14.8%) health treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicate that participants perceived the non-health parental benefits in children experiencing rare disease to have comparable value to health gains in adults experiencing the moderate physical or mental health conditions described using EQ-5D-3L. These findings suggest that the benefits of genomic tests would be underestimated if only health benefits are included in economic evaluations.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU.

METHODS

Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews.

RESULTS

Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt.

CONCLUSION

Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

Is It Just for a Screening Program to Give People All the Information They Want?

Genomic screening at population scale generates many ethical considerations. One is the normative role that people's preferences should play in determining access to genomic information in screening contexts, particularly information that falls beyond the scope of screening. We expect both that people will express a preference to receive such results and that there will be interest from the professional community in providing them. In this paper, we consider this issue in relation to the just and equitable design of population screening programs like reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Drawing on a pluralistic public health ethics perspective, we claim that generating and reporting information about genetic variants beyond the scope of the screening program usually lacks clinical, and perhaps personal, utility. There are both pragmatic and ethical reasons to restrict information provision to that which fits the stated purpose of the program.

"I Have Fought for so Many Things": Disadvantaged families' Efforts to Obtain Community-Based Services for Their Child after Genomic Sequencing

BACKGROUND

Families whose child has unexplained intellectual or developmental differences often hope that a genetic diagnosis will lower barriers to community-based therapeutic and support services. However, there is little known about efforts to mobilize genetic information outside the clinic or how socioeconomic disadvantage shapes and constrains outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an ethnographic study with predominantly socioeconomically disadvantaged families enrolled in a multi-year genomics research study, including clinic observations and in-depth interviews in English and Spanish at multiple time points. Coding and thematic development were used to collaboratively interpret fieldnotes and transcripts.

RESULTS

Thirty-two families participated. Themes included familial expectations that a genetic diagnosis could be translated into information, understanding, and assistance to improve the quality of a child's day-to-day life. After sequencing, however, genetic information was not readily converted into improved access to services beyond the clinic, with families often struggling to use a genetic diagnosis to advocate for their child.

CONCLUSION

Families' ability to use a genetic diagnosis as an effective advocacy tool beyond the clinic was limited by the knowledge and resources available to them, and by the eligibility criteria used by therapeutic service providers' - which focused on clinical diagnosis and functional criteria more than etiologic information. All families undertaking genomic testing, particularly those who are disadvantaged, need additional support to understand the limits and potential benefits of genetic information beyond the clinic.

Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review

Importance

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in health care has led to recognition that these tests provide personal as well as clinical utility to patients and families. However, available systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the demographic backgrounds of participants in studies of personal utility, leaving generalizability unclear.

Objective

To determine the demographic characteristics of participants in studies examining the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in health care.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, we utilized and updated the results of a highly cited 2017 systematic review on the personal utility of genetics and genomics, which identified relevant articles published between January 1, 2003, and August 4, 2016. We also used the original methods to update this bibliography with literature published subsequently up to January 1, 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies reported empirical data on the perspectives of patients, family members, and/or the general public in the US on the personal utility of any type of health-related genetic or genomic test. We utilized a standardized codebook to extract study and participant characteristics. We summarized demographic characteristics descriptively across all studies and by subgroup based on study and participant characteristics.

Findings

We included 52 studies with 13 251 eligible participants. Sex or gender was the most frequently reported demographic characteristic (48 studies [92.3%]), followed by race and ethnicity (40 studies [76.9%]), education (38 studies [73.1%]), and income (26 studies [50.0%]). Across studies, participants disproportionately were women or female (mean [SD], 70.8% [20.5%]), were White (mean [SD], 76.1% [22.0%]), had a college degree or higher (mean [SD], 64.5% [19.9%]), and reported income above the US median (mean [SD], 67.4% [19.2%]). Examination of subgroups of results by study and participant characteristics evidenced only small shifts in demographic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review examined the demographic characteristics of individual participants in studies of the personal utility of health-related genetic and genomic testing in the US. The results suggest that participants in these studies were disproportionately White, college-educated women with above-average income. Understanding the perspectives of more diverse individuals regarding the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing may inform barriers to research recruitment and uptake of clinical testing in currently underrepresented populations.

Key drivers of family-level utility of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research

Given that pediatric genomic sequencing (GS) may have implications for the health and well-being of both the child and family, a clearer understanding of the key drivers of the utility of GS from the family perspective is needed. The purpose of this study is to explore what is important to caregivers of pediatric patients regarding clinical GS, with a focus on family-level considerations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers (n = 41) of pediatric patients who had been recommended for or completed GS that explored the scope of factors caregivers considered when deciding whether to pursue GS for their child. We analyzed the qualitative data in multiple rounds of coding using thematic analysis. Caregivers raised important family-level considerations, in addition to those specifically for their child, which included wanting the best chance at good quality of life for the family, the ability to learn about family health, the impact on the caregiver's well-being, privacy concerns among family members, and the cost of testing to the family. We developed a framework of key drivers of utility consisting of four domains that influenced caregivers' decision making: underlying values, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and other pragmatic considerations regarding GS. These findings can inform measurement approaches that better capture the utility of pediatric GS for families and improve assessments of the value of clinical GS.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including "non-medical" traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as "non-medical"; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results

PURPOSE

People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale.

METHODS

We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis.

RESULTS

The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Patient experiences with clinical confirmatory genetic testing after using direct-to-consumer raw DNA and third-party genetic interpretation services

The availability of raw DNA and genetic interpretation tools allow individuals to access genetic health risk information, where analytical false-positives exist. Little is known about the experience of individuals who receive pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant(s) through raw DNA interpretation and follow-up with clinical confirmatory genetic testing. This qualitative study set out to describe the experiences of individuals who pursued clinical confirmatory genetic testing, including their perception of the process. Participants were recruited from social media and eligible if they discovered a potential pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a raw DNA interpretation report, completed clinical confirmatory genetic testing in the U.S., and provided documentation of those results. Individuals participated in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 12 participants, 3 received clinical genetic testing results that confirmed pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants noted in raw DNA interpretation reports (confirmation positive), and 9 were not confirmed. Nearly all (n = 11) participants described emotional distress and information-seeking behavior as a coping mechanism after discovering a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in raw DNA interpretation. When pursuing confirmatory genetic testing, many (n = 9) faced challenges with finding knowledgeable healthcare providers and obtaining insurance coverage. Despite reporting concerns over raw DNA interpretation and a desire for more safeguards, almost all (n = 10) participants stated interest in using the service again. Overall, participants' experiences reveal they find personal utility in raw DNA interpretation results and provide insight into opportunities for patient and provider education.

How Clinicians Conceptualize "Actionability" in Genomic Screening

Over the last decade, the concept of actionability has become a primary framework for assessing whether genetic data is useful and appropriate to return to patients. Despite the popularity of this concept, there is little consensus about what should count as "actionable" information. This is particularly true in population genomic screening, where there is considerable disagreement about what counts as good evidence and which clinical actions are appropriate for which patients. The pathway from scientific evidence to clinical action is not straightforward-it is as much social and political as it is scientific. This research explores the social dynamics shaping the integration of "actionable" genomic data into primary care settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with 35 genetics experts and primary care providers, we find that clinicians vary in how they define and operationalize "actionable" information. There are two main sources of disagreement. First, clinicians differ on the levels and types of evidence required for a result to be actionable, such as when we can be confident that genomic data provides accurate information. Second, there are disagreements about the clinical actions that must be available so that patients can benefit from that information. By highlighting the underlying values and assumptions embedded in discussions of actionability for genomic screening, we provide an empirical basis for building more nuanced policies regarding the actionability of genomic data in terms of population screening in primary care settings.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Health inequity in genomic personalized medicine in underrepresented populations: a look at the current evidence

Improvements in sequencing technology coupled with dramatic declines in the cost of genome sequencing have led to a proportional growth in the size and number of genetic datasets since the release of the human genetic sequence by The Human Genome Project (HGP) international consortium. The HGP was undeniably a significant scientific success, a turning point in human genetics and the beginning of human genomics. This burst of genetic information has led to a greater understanding of disease pathology and the potential of employing this data to deliver more precise patient care. Hence, the recognition of high-penetrance disease-causing mutations which encode drivers of disease has made the management of most diseases more specific. Nonetheless, while genetic scores are becoming more extensively used, their application in the real world is expected to be limited due to the lack of diversity in the data used to construct them. Underrepresented populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and those living in rural areas, often experience greater health disparities and worse health outcomes compared to the general population. These disparities are often the result of systemic barriers, such as poverty, discrimination, and limited access to healthcare. Addressing health inequity in underrepresented populations requires addressing the underlying social determinants of health and implementing policies and programs which promoted health equity and reduce disparities. This can include expanding access to affordable healthcare, addressing poverty and unemployment, and promoting policies that combat discrimination and racism.

Return of non-ACMG recommended incidental genetic findings to pediatric patients: considerations and opportunities from experiences in genomic sequencing

BACKGROUND

The uptake of exome/genome sequencing has introduced unexpected testing results (incidental findings) that have become a major challenge for both testing laboratories and providers. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has outlined guidelines for laboratory management of clinically actionable secondary findings, debate remains as to whether incidental findings should be returned to patients, especially those representing pediatric populations.

METHODS

The Sequencing Analysis and Diagnostic Yield working group in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium has collected a cohort of pediatric patients found to harbor a genomic sequencing-identified non-ACMG-recommended incidental finding. The incidental variants were not thought to be associated with the indication for testing and were disclosed to patients and families.

RESULTS

In total, 23 "non-ACMG-recommended incidental findings were identified in 21 pediatric patients included in the study. These findings span four different research studies/laboratories and demonstrate differences in incidental finding return rate across study sites. We summarize specific cases to highlight core considerations that surround identification and return of incidental findings (uncertainty of disease onset, disease severity, age of onset, clinical actionability, and personal utility), and suggest that interpretation of incidental findings in pediatric patients can be difficult given evolving phenotypes. Furthermore, return of incidental findings can benefit patients and providers, but do present challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

While there may be considerable benefit to return of incidental genetic findings, these findings can be burdensome to providers and present risk to patients. It is important that laboratories conducting genomic testing establish internal guidelines in anticipation of detection. Moreover, cross-laboratory guidelines may aid in reducing the potential for policy heterogeneity across laboratories as it relates to incidental finding detection and return. However, future discussion is required to determine whether cohesive guidelines or policy statements are warranted.

Targeted Whole Exome Sequencing in Children With Early-Onset Epilepsy: Parent Experiences

This study investigated the experiences of 25 caregivers of children with early-onset, treatment-resistant epilepsy who pursued whole exome sequencing to determine the impact of the test results on their child's treatment. Caregivers who consented to be recontacted were recruited from a previous study investigating the diagnostic yield of whole exome sequencing. A semistructured interview addressed questions based on one of 2 study phases. The first phase discussed the decision-making process for genetic testing (15 interviews), which revealed 4 major themes: (1) prognosis, (2) engagement, (3) concerns, and (4) autonomy. The second phase discussed the impact of genetic testing on treatment (10 interviews), which revealed 3 major themes: (1) testing features, (2) emotional impact, and (3) treatment outcomes. Overall, parents pursued genetic testing to obtain a clear prognosis, inform treatment decisions, engage with other families, and exercise autonomy. Caregivers felt that early testing is warranted to inform their child's diagnostic odyssey.

Measures of Utility Among Studies of Genomic Medicine for Critically Ill Infants: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Genomic medicine holds promise to revolutionize care for critically ill infants by tailoring treatments for patients and providing additional prognostic information to families. However, measuring the utility of genomic medicine is not straightforward and has important clinical and ethical implications.

OBJECTIVE

To review the ways that researchers measure or neglect to measure the utility of genomic medicine for critically ill infants.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review included prospective full-text studies of genomic medicine of both whole exome and genome sequencing in critically ill infants younger than 1 year. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched with an English language restriction for articles published from the inception of each database through May 2022. Search terms included variations of the following: gene, sequencing, intensive care, critical care, and infant. From the included articles, information on how utility was defined and measured was extracted and synthesized. Information was also extracted from patient cases that authors highlighted by providing additional information. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the association between study size and utility.

FINDINGS

Synthesized data from the 21 included studies reflected results from 1654 patients. A mean of 46% (range, 15%-72%) of patients had a positive genetic test result, and a mean of 37% (range, 13%-61%) met the criteria for experiencing utility. Despite heterogeneity in how studies measured and reported utility, a standardized framework was created with 5 categories of utility: treatment change, redirection of care, prognostic information, reproductive information, and screening or subspecialty referral. Most studies omitted important categories of utility, notably personal utility (patient-reported benefits) (20 studies [95%]), utility of negative or uncertain results (15 [71%]), and disutility (harms) (20 [95%]). Studies disproportionally highlighted patient cases that resulted in treatment change. Larger studies reported substantially lower utility (r = -0.65; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that genomic medicine offered various categories of utility for a substantial proportion of critically ill infants. Studies measured utility in heterogeneous ways and focused more on documenting change than assessing meaningful benefit. Authors' decisions about which cases to highlight suggest that some categories of utility may be more important than others. A more complete definition of utility that is used consistently may improve understanding of potential benefits and harms of genetic medicine.

Geriatricians’ Perspectives on the Multiple Dimensions of Utility of Genetic Testing for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Qualitative Study

Background: Research advancements in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) raise opportunities for genetic testing to improve diagnostic and risk assessment. Despite emerging developments, it is unclear how geriatricians perceive the potential clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for their patients. Geriatricians’ perspectives are essential to understanding potential ethical, policy, and clinical challenges. Objective: In this paper, we report on geriatricians’ perspectives on the utility of genetic testing for AD. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with California geriatricians within different practices settings to collect and characterize their perspectives on genetic testing for AD. We used an adapted grounded theory approach to analyze recorded and transcribed interviews. Results: We identified geriatricians’ (n = 10) perspectives on the clinical and personal utility of testing, alongside their views on clinical care approaches for older adults. Geriatricians perceived minimal clinical utility of genetic testing for AD, though that may change with the availability of disease-modifying therapies. Yet, they recognized the potential personal utility of testing (e.g., assisting with future financial planning). Finally, geriatricians expressed concerns regarding patients’ anxiety from learning about genetic status, particularly through direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing. Conclusion: Our data highlight that the decision to order genetic testing requires clinical and ethical considerations, including balancing limited clinical utility with the potential personal utility. Although DTC testing is available, geriatricians perceive that they have an important role in managing the decision to test and interpreting the results. Further research is needed to inform policy and ethical guidelines to support geriatricians’ critical role to counsel patients considering clinical and DTC genetic testing.

The role of emotional sensitivity to probability in the decision to choose genetic testing

While the availability of genetic testing is rapidly increasing, many opt out of testing. The decision to test or not is emotionally charged, and both clinical research and theoretical work in psychology show that in emotional decisions, people often struggle to interpret and utilize risk information. Clinical research on genetic testing uptake also shows that feeling overwhelmed by numeric information may be a deterrent to testing. However, recent psychological research indicates that some portion of the population has greater emotional sensitivity to probability, (i.e., the extent to which emotional reactions to risk depend on probabilities) than others. We hypothesize that participants high in emotional sensitivity to probability will be more interested in genetic testing as an opportunity to seek greater precision in risk estimates and that this relationship is moderated by the testing context itself. In an online survey of a nationally representative sample (not recruited as patients), participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario describing a suspected diagnosis with an option for genetic testing. The scenario experimentally varied the pre-test probability estimate of the diagnosis (low or high) and whether the test results would result in certainty (ruling in or ruling out the diagnosis), or reduced uncertainty (providing a more precise individual risk estimate). Results indicated that emotional sensitivity to probability was a strong predictor of intention to test, particularly when the test allowed participants to rule out a diagnosis, reducing an already low probability to zero. These results highlight the way patients' individual characteristics interact with the testing context to guide decision-making and provide important insight into the way patients integrate risk probability information into intensely emotional decisions.

"Doctors shouldn't have to cheat the system": Clinicians' real-world experiences of the utility of genomic sequencing

PURPOSE

Emerging genetic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS) can generate a broad range of benefits, but funding criteria only prioritize diagnosis and clinical management. There is limited evidence on all types of benefits obtained from GS in practice. We aimed to explore real-world experiences of Canadian clinicians across specialties on the full range of benefits obtained from the results from GS.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with Canadian clinicians. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using constant comparison.

RESULTS

In total, 25 clinicians participated, including 12 geneticists, 7 genetic counselors, 4 oncologists, 1 neurologist, and 1 family physician. Although diagnoses and management were the most valued benefits of GS, clinicians also prioritized nontraditional utility, such as access to community supports. However, clinicians felt "restricted" by funding bodies, which only approved funding when GS would inform diagnoses and management. Consequently, clinicians sought ways to "cheat the system" to access GS (eg, research testing) but acknowledged workarounds were burdensome, drove inequity, and undermined patient care.

CONCLUSION

Current governance structures undervalue real-world benefits of GS leading clinicians to adopt workarounds, which jeopardize patient care. These results support calls for the expansion of the definition of clinical utility and research to quantify the additional benefits.

Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives' attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results

This study assessed the psychological predictors of attitudes toward the return of germline genomic sequencing results in cancer patients and their biological relatives with a likely genetic basis for their cancer diagnosis, who completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing genomic sequencing. Of 602 probands and relatives, 94% of probands and 89% of relatives thought people would like to be informed about single-gene conditions for which there is prevention or treatment. Amongst relatives, this view was associated with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (66%) and relatives (59%) thought people would be interested in learning about single-gene conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment. Amongst probands, this view was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty and amongst relatives with higher self-efficacy. Probands (92%) and relatives (90%) thought people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a major impact on health. Amongst probands this view was associated with lower perceived susceptibility of cancer recurrence, and amongst relatives, with higher perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Probands (86%) and relatives (86%) thought that people would like to be informed about polygenic conditions that can have a lower impact on health, and this view was associated with a lower perceived susceptibility of recurrence amongst probands. Inconclusion, these findings show that individuals' attitudes about the return of results depend on the perceived utility of different types of tests. Therefore, individuals need to gain a clear understanding of test utility, and appropriate consent processes are required to achieve informed choices.

How can we address the uncertainties regarding the potential clinical utility of polygenic score-based tests?

As common low penetrance variants associated with diseases are uncovered, attempts continue to be made to harness this knowledge for improving healthcare. Polygenic scores have been developed as the mechanism by which knowledge of common variants can be used to investigate genetic contributions to disease risk. They serve as a biomarker to provide an estimate of the genetic liability for a particular disease. Discussion continues as to whether polygenic scores are a useful biomarker and their readiness for incorporation into clinical and public health practice. In this paper, we investigate the key challenges that need to be addressed, in the description and assessment of the clinical utility of polygenic score-based tests for use in clinical and public health practice.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Perception of genetic testing among patients with inherited retinal disease: Benefits and challenges in a Japanese population

Inherited retinal disease (IRD) is clinically and genetically heterogeneous. Awareness of the importance of genetic testing for IRD in the clinical setting is increasing with the recent development of new therapeutic strategies, such as gene therapy. Here, the perception of genetic testing, including its benefits and potential challenges, among patients with IRD was investigated to establish strategies for IRD genetic testing and counseling practices that can meet the requirements of the patients in Japan. An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 275 patients with IRD who underwent genetic testing after clinical consultation and genetic counseling to investigate the motivations for genetic testing, benefits, challenges, status of communication of results to family, and attitude to timing of genetic testing. In total, 228 (82.9%) responses were analyzed. Several major motivations for genetic testing were identified, including gaining information on future treatment options and clarification of the inheritance pattern, among others. No association was found between the sharing of results with family members and the results of genetic testing. Moreover, according to patients who received positive results, the benefits of genetic testing included information on the inheritance pattern, additional information on the diagnosis, and mental preparation for the future. Even patients who received negative or inconclusive (variant of uncertain significance) results reported certain informative and psychological benefits. Altogether, these findings suggest that provisions for genetic testing and genetic counseling are necessary within a certain period after clinical diagnosis and it is necessary to facilitate appropriate family communication about genetic testing results while paying attention to the background of family relationships. Moreover, the benefits of genetic testing can be influenced by the careful interpretation and information provided on the test results during genetic counseling and consultation.

Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics

Given the limited therapeutic options for most rare diseases diagnosed through genomic sequencing (GS) and the proportion of patients who remain undiagnosed even after GS, it is important to characterize a broader range of benefits and potential harms of GS from the perspectives of families with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. We recruited parents of children enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Parents completed an in-depth interview, and we conducted a comparative content analysis of the data. Parents (n = 30) were demographically diverse, with 43.3% identifying as Hispanic, 33.3% primarily Spanish-speaking, and widely variable household income and education. Parents reported minimal changes in their child's health status following GS but did report a range of other forms of perceived utility, including improvements in their child's healthcare management and access, in their own psychological well-being, and in disease-specific social connections and research opportunities. Parents who received a diagnosis more frequently perceived utility across all domains; however, disutility also was reported by both those with and without a diagnosis. Impacts depended on multiple mediating factors, including parents' underlying expectations and beliefs, family sociodemographic characteristics, individual disease characteristics, and prior healthcare access. Our study suggests that the perceived utility of GS varies widely among parents and may depend on multiple individual, sociodemographic, and contextual factors that are relevant for pre- and post-GS counseling, for value assessment of GS, and for policymaking related to access to new genomic technologies.