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

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large.

RESULTS

Following incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.

CONCLUSION

The document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners.

"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.

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

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

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Reclassification of clinically-detected sequence variants: Framework for genetic clinicians and clinical scientists by CanVIG-UK (Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK)

PURPOSE

Variant classifications may change over time, driven by emergence of fresh or contradictory evidence or evolution in weighing or combination of evidence items. For variant classifications above the actionability threshold, which is classification of likely pathogenic or pathogenic, clinical actions may be irreversible, such as risk-reducing surgery or prenatal interventions. Variant reclassification up or down across the actionability threshold can therefore have significant clinical consequences. Laboratory approaches to variant reinterpretation and reclassification vary widely.

METHODS

Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK is a multidisciplinary network of clinical scientists and genetic clinicians from across the 24 Molecular Diagnostic Laboratories and Clinical Genetics Services of the United Kingdom (NHS) and Republic of Ireland. We undertook surveys, polls, and national meetings of Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK to evaluate opinions about clinical and laboratory management regarding variant reclassification.

RESULTS

We generated a consensus framework on variant reclassification applicable to cancer susceptibility genes and other clinical areas, which provides explicit recommendations for clinical and laboratory management of variant reclassification scenarios on the basis of the nature of the new evidence, the magnitude of evidence shift, and the final classification score.

CONCLUSION

In this framework, clinical and laboratory resources are targeted for maximal clinical effect and minimal patient harm, as appropriate to all resource-constrained health care settings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores

Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.

Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry

PURPOSE

Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process.

METHODS

GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them.

RESULTS

Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories.

CONCLUSION

Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.

Assessment of genetic referrals and outcomes for women with triple negative breast cancer in regional cancer centres in Australia

Background

Guidelines for referral to cancer genetics service for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer have changed over time. This study was conducted to assess the changing referral patterns and outcomes for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer across three regional cancer centres during the years 2014–2018.

Methods

Following ethical approval, a retrospective electronic medical record review was performed to identify those women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and whether they were referred to a genetics service and if so, the outcome of that genetics assessment and/or genetic testing.

Results

There were 2441 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seen at our cancer services during the years 2014–2018, of whom 237 women were diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer. Based on age of diagnosis criteria alone, 13% (31/237) of our cohort fulfilled criteria for genetic testing, with 81% (25/31) being referred to a cancer genetics service. Of this group 68% (21/31) were referred to genetics services within our regions and went on to have genetic testing with 10 pathogenic variants identified; 5x BRCA1, 4x BRCA2 and × 1 ATM:c.7271 T > G.

Conclusions

Referral pathways for women diagnosed with TNBC to cancer genetics services are performing well across our cancer centres. We identified a group of women who did not meet eligibility criteria for referral at their time of diagnosis, but would now be eligible, as guidelines have changed. The use of cross-discipline retrospective data reviews is a useful tool to identify patients who could benefit from being re-contacted over time for an updated cancer genetics assessment.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

SUMMARY

We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.

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

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

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

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

Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe

Advances in genomic medicine are improving diagnosis and treatment of some health conditions, and the question of whether former patients should be recontacted is therefore timely. The issue of recontacting is becoming more important with increased integration of genomics in 'mainstream' medicine. Empirical evidence is needed to advance the discussion over whether and how recontacting should be implemented. We administered a web-based survey to genetic services in European countries to collect information about existing infrastructures and practices relevant to recontacting patients. The majority of the centres stated they had recontacted patients to update them about new significant information; however, there were no standardised practices or systems in place. There was also a multiplicity of understandings of the term 'recontacting', which respondents conflated with routine follow-up programmes, or even with post-test counselling. Participants thought that recontacting systems should be implemented to provide the best service to the patients and families. Nevertheless, many barriers to implementation were mentioned. These included: lack of resources and infrastructure, concerns about potential negative psychological consequences of recontacting, unclear operational definitions of recontacting, policies that prevent healthcare professionals from recontacting, and difficulties in locating patients after their last contact. These barriers are also intensified by the highly variable development (and establishment) of the specialties of medical genetics and genetic counselling across different European countries. Future recommendations about recontacting need to consider these barriers. It is also important to reach an 'operational definition' that can be useful in different countries.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

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

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