Recontacting in clinical genetics and genomic medicine? We need to talk about it

"Your cancer is no longer considered cancer": Psychological reactions to reclassification information and communication preferences

Objective

In 2016, the encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (EFVPTC) was reclassified as noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP). This reclassification removed the word "carcinoma" and the definition of cancer from the diagnosis. While the nomenclature change was expected to psychologically impact patients, that question has not been systematically explored. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to explore the psychological impact of reclassification on thyroid cancer patients and their preferences for receiving reclassification information.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with nine non-EFVPTC thyroid cancer survivors were conducted. Participants were presented with a hypothetical reclassification scenario, and interview transcripts were analyzed using a thematic content analytic approach.

Results

Participants expressed a range of psychological reactions to reclassification information, primarily negative, including anger, mistrust, and uncertainty, but also relief. All participants expressed difficulty understanding the concept of reclassification. Communication preferences favored conversation with an established medical provider over written materials, such as a letter.

Discussion and conclusion

Communication must align with patient preferences. Being mindful of potential negative psychological reactions when providing information on cancer reclassification is vital.

Innovation

This study examines reactions to cancer reclassification information and preferences for how this information should be communicated.

Re-evaluation of Genetic Variants in Parkinson's Disease Using Targeted Panel and Next-Generation Sequencing

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disorder with a significant genetic component. Genetic variations associated with PD play a crucial role in the disease's inheritance and prognosis. Currently, 31 genes have been linked to PD in the OMIM database, and the number of genes and genetic variations identified is steadily increasing. To establish a robust correlation between phenotype and genotype, it is essential to compare research findings with existing literature. In this study, we aimed to identify genetic variants associated with PD using a targeted gene panel with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology. Our objective was also to explore the idea of re-analyzing genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS). We screened 18 genes known to be related to PD using NGS in 43 patients who visited our outpatient clinic between 2018-2019. After 12-24 months, we re-evaluated the detected variants. We found 14 different heterozygous variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or VUS in 14 individuals from nonconsanguineous families. We re-evaluated 15 variants and found changes in their interpretation. Targeted gene panel analysis with NGS can help identify genetic variants associated with PD with confidence. Re-analyzing certain variants at specific time intervals can be especially beneficial in selected situations. Our study aims to expand the clinical and genetic understanding of PD and emphasizes the importance of re-analysis.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.

Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions

The evolving evidence base for the interpretation of variants identified in genetic and genomic testing has presented the genetics community with the challenge of variant reinterpretation. In particular, it is unclear whether an ethical duty of periodic reinterpretation should exist, who should bear that duty, and what its dimensions should be. Based on an analysis of the ethical arguments for and against a duty to reinterpret, we conclude that a duty should be recognized. Most importantly, by virtue of ordering and conducting tests likely to produce data on variants that cannot be definitively interpreted today, the health-care system incurs a duty to reinterpret when more reliable data become available. We identify four elements of the proposed ethical duty: data storage, initiation of reinterpretation, conduct of reinterpretation, and patient recontact, and we identify the parties best situated to implement each component. We also consider the reasonable extent and duration of a duty, and the role of the patient's consent in the process, although we acknowledge that some details regarding procedures and funding still need to be addressed. The likelihood of substantial patient benefit from a systematic approach to reinterpretation suggests the importance for the genetics community to reach consensus on this issue.

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential.

SUMMARY

Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.

Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing.

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

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

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.

Paediatric genomics: diagnosing rare disease in children

The majority of rare diseases affect children, most of whom have an underlying genetic cause for their condition. However, making a molecular diagnosis with current technologies and knowledge is often still a challenge. Paediatric genomics is an immature but rapidly evolving field that tackles this issue by incorporating next-generation sequencing technologies, especially whole-exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing, into research and clinical workflows. This complex multidisciplinary approach, coupled with the increasing availability of population genetic variation data, has already resulted in an increased discovery rate of causative genes and in improved diagnosis of rare paediatric disease. Importantly, for affected families, a better understanding of the genetic basis of rare disease translates to more accurate prognosis, management, surveillance and genetic advice; stimulates research into new therapies; and enables provision of better support.

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.

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

This paper explores the views and expectations of patients concerning recontacting in clinical practice. It is based on 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in the United Kingdom. The sample comprised patients or parents of patients: without a diagnosis; recently offered a test for a condition or carrier risk; with a rare condition; with a variant of unknown significance - some of whom had been recontacted. Participants were recruited both via the National Health Service (NHS) and through online, condition-specific support groups. Most respondents viewed recontacting as desirable, however there were different opinions and expectations about what type of new information should trigger recontacting. An awareness of the potential psychological impact of receiving new information led some to suggest that recontacting should be planned, and tailored to the nature of the new information and the specific situation of patients and families. The lack of clarity about lines of responsibility for recontacting and perceptions of resource constraints in the NHS tended to mitigate respondents' favourable positions towards recontacting and their preferences. Some respondents argued that recontacting could have a preventative value and reduce the cost of healthcare. Others challenged the idea that resources should be used to implement formalised recontacting systems - via arguments that there are 'more pressing' public health priorities, and for the need for healthcare services to offer care to new patients.

A 'joint venture' model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation

Advances in genomics often lead healthcare professionals (HCPs) to learn new information, e.g., about reinterpreted variants that could have clinical significance for patients seen previously. A question arises of whether HCPs should recontact these former patients. We present some findings interrogating the views of patients (or parents of patients) with a rare or undiagnosed condition about how such recontacting might be organised ethically and practically. Forty-one interviews were analysed thematically. Participants suggested a 'joint venture' model in which efforts to recontact are shared with HCPs. Some proposed an ICT-approach involving an electronic health record that automatically alerts them to potentially relevant updates. The need for rigorous privacy controls and transparency about who could access their data was emphasised. Importantly, these findings highlight that the lack of clarity about recontacting is a symptom of a wider problem: the lack of necessary infrastructure to pool genomic data responsibly, to aggregate it with other health data, and to enable patients/parents to receive updates. We hope that our findings will instigate a debate about the way responsibilities for recontacting under any joint venture model could be allocated, as well as the limitations and normative implications of using ICT as a solution to this intractable problem. As a first step to delineating responsibilities in the clinical setting, we suggest HCPs should routinely discuss recontacting with patients/parents, including the new information that should trigger a HCP to initiate recontact, as part of the consent process for genetic testing.