Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom

Variant reclassification and clinical implications

Genomic technologies have transformed clinical genetic testing, underlining the importance of accurate molecular genetic diagnoses. Variant classification, ranging from benign to pathogenic, is fundamental to these tests. However, variant reclassification, the process of reassigning the pathogenicity of variants over time, poses challenges to diagnostic legitimacy. This review explores the medical and scientific literature available on variant reclassification, focusing on its clinical implications.Variant reclassification is driven by accruing evidence from diverse sources, leading to variant reclassification frequency ranging from 3.6% to 58.8%. Recent studies have shown that significant changes can occur when reviewing variant classifications within 1 year after initial classification, illustrating the importance of early, accurate variant assignation for clinical care.Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are particularly problematic. They lack clear categorisation but have influenced patient treatment despite recommendations against it. Addressing VUS reclassification is essential to enhance the credibility of genetic testing and the clinical impact. Factors affecting reclassification include standardised guidelines, clinical phenotype-genotype correlations through deep phenotyping and ancestry studies, large-scale databases and bioinformatics tools. As genomic databases grow and knowledge advances, reclassification rates are expected to change, reducing discordance in future classifications.Variant reclassification affects patient diagnosis, precision therapy and family screening. The exact patient impact is yet unknown. Understanding influencing factors and adopting standardised guidelines are vital for precise molecular genetic diagnoses, ensuring optimal patient care and minimising clinical risk.

"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.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited.

METHODS

An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed.

RESULTS

Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time.

CONCLUSION

Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research

The reanalysis of genomic sequencing results has the potential to provide results that are of considerable medical and personal importance to recipients. Employing interviews with forty-seven predominantly medically underserved families and ethnographic observations we argue that there is pressing need to standardize the approach taken to reanalysis. Our findings highlight that study participants were unclear as to the likelihood of reanalysis happening, the process of initiating reanalysis, and whether they would receive revised results. Their reflections mirror the lack a specific focus upon reanalysis within consent and results sessions as observed in clinical settings. Mechanisms need to be put into place that standardize the approach to reanalysis in research and in clinical contexts. This would enable clinicians and genetic counsellors to communicate clearly with research participants with respect to potential for reanalysis of results and the process of reanalysis. We argue that that the role of reanalysis is too important to be referred to in an ad-hoc manner. Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of the current process may increase health inequities given the likelihood that only those families who have the means to press for reanalysis are likely to receive it.

Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan

Genetic testing advances have enabled the provision of previously unavailable information on the pathogenicity of genetic variants, frequently necessitating the recontact of former patients by clinicians. In Japan, national health insurance coverage was extended to BRCA1/2 testing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for patients who meet certain criteria in 2020, and conditions necessitating recontact were expected to increase. Studies and discussions regarding recontact have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe; however, in Japan, the national discussion around recontact remains undeveloped. We conducted a cross-sectional study by interviewing 73 facilities accredited by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer regarding the practice of recontacting patients at these facilities. Sixty-six facilities responded that they recontact patients, but only 17 facilities had a protocol for this. The most common reason for recontact was that it could benefit the patient. Facilities that did not recontact stated that they lacked the necessary personnel or services. Most facilities indicated that a recontact system should be implemented in their practice. The increased burden on too few medical personnel, unestablished systems, patient confusion, and the right not to know were cited as barriers to implementing recontact. Although developing recommendations on recontact would be useful for providing equitable healthcare in Japan, there is an urgent need to deepen the discussion on recontacting, as negative opinions about recontacting patients were observed.

Characterization of variant reclassification and patient re-contact in a cancer genetics clinic

Expanded genetic testing guidelines for hereditary cancers, increased utilization of large multigene panels, and improved methods for reclassifying variants have led to a greater need to understand how variant reclassification and patient re-contact are managed. This study aimed to describe the process of variant reclassification and subsequent patient re-contact at a comprehensive cancer genetic counseling service in a large metropolitan medical center with several statewide satellite locations. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify reclassified variants between 1/1/1997 and 12/1/2020. In total, 8.4% (211/2503) of variants were reclassified over the 24-year period, which includes multiple cases involving the same unique variant. Several variants underwent more than one reclassification, resulting in 232 total reclassifications among 194 individuals. Nearly all reclassifications were prompted by the laboratory (99.1%; 230/232) rather than the genetics clinic staff. Overall, 10.3% (24/232) of all reclassifications were upgrades, but only 9.1% (21/232) led to a change in management recommendations. The median time for variant reclassification was 1.7 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.8-3.2 years). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to reclassification for White patients (median = 1.6 years; IQR = 0.8-2.8 years) compared to non-White patients (median = 2.0 years; IQR = 0.9-3.7 years; Mann-Whitney U = 4,764.0, p = 0.066). Patient re-contact was attempted for 97.4% (226/232) of variants and was always performed by a genetic counselor, most often through a mailed letter (85.8%, 194/226). Specifically for reclassifications that led to a change in management recommendations, re-contact was always attempted, most often through combined telephone and mailed letter (95.2%; 20/21). Overall, the median time from reclassification to attempted patient re-contact was 13 days (range: 0-589 days). The characterization of this clinic's reclassification and re-contact procedures can serve as an example for other genetics clinics trying to incorporate re-contact into their workflow.

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.

Fragmented responsibility: views of Israeli HCPs regarding patient recontact following variant reclassification

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever-increasing diagnostic yield, recontacting patients after reclassification of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. Although periodical reinterpretation of VUSs is highly desired, recontacting former patients with new classifications is commonly not fulfilled in practice. We draw on semi-structured interviews with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome-wide sequencing to patients. Findings show agreement that an individual health care professional cannot address the task of recontacting patients after re-classification, and that responsibility should be shared among the medical specialties, laboratory scientists, as well as patients. In the absence of established guidelines, many respondents suggested that the patient should be informed about reclassification during a follow-up contact but they disagreed who should be responsible for informing the patient. HCPs agreed that the solution to this challenge involves a centralized automated database that is accessible, continuously updated, and facilitates retrospective as well as prospective flagging of reclassification for patients who can benefit from this information. National and international policies providing concrete guidelines on the optimal way to recontact patients with new valuable genomic information are needed.

Uptake and Patient Perspectives on Additional Testing for Novel Disease-Associated Genes: Lessons from a PAH Cohort

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has an identifiable genetic cause in 5% of all PAH cases. Due to health benefits conferred by the early detection of PAH and the recent identification of additional PAH-associated genes, we decided to offer (extended) genetic testing to all incident and prevalent idiopathic PAH (iPAH) and pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD) patients in our clinic. Here, we report the lessons learned from (re-)contacting iPAH/PVOD patients concerning the uptake and analysis of identified PAH-associated genes and patient perspectives of the approach. Methods: Between January 2018 and April 2020, all iPAH/PVOD patients who were not previously genetically tested (contact group) and those who tested negative on prior analysis of BMPR2 and SMAD9 variants (re-contact group) were (re-)contacted for (additional) genetic testing. Results: With our approach, 58% of patients (84 out of 165) opted for genetic counselling, and a pathogenic variant was found in 12% of cases (n = 10) (re-contact group, 11%, and contact group, 13%). Eighty-six percent of participants of the survey study appreciated being (re-)contacted for genetic testing. Mild psychosocial impacts were observed. Conclusions: Our report shows the importance of (re-)contact and interest of patients (as indicated by the uptake, mild psychosocial impact and appreciation) in PAH.

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.

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.

Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences

Background

CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients’ experiences with this approach.

Methods

Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4–27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients’ experiences with our approach.

Results

In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing.

Conclusions

The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.

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.

Pre-Test Probability and Genes and Variants of Uncertain Significance in Familial Long QT Syndrome

The genetics underlying familial long QT syndrome (LQTS) are among the best characterised of all of the inherited heart conditions. Cohort and registry studies have demonstrated important genotype-phenotype correlations that are now essential in guiding clinical practice of patients with the most common three genotypes; KCNQ1 (LQT type 1), KCNH2 (LQT type 2) and SCN5A (LQT type 3). However, the growing number of genes-now more than 16-is confusing, and there is much doubt as to whether many actually cause LQTS at all. Furthermore, changes in sequencing techniques, evolving variant classification criteria and new scientific discoveries make all genes and variants subject to a continuous process of re-classification. This review discusses the nature of variant adjudication, the important concept of pre-test probability in interpreting a genetic result and how the nomenclature of LQTS is shifting in response to this new knowledge. It further discusses the role of deep phenotyping, the inclusion of evaluation of family members in interpreting a genetic test result, or even deciding if genetic testing should occur at all, and the role of specialist multidisciplinary teams to translate this continuously evolving knowledge into the best clinical advice, in partnership with referring cardiologists.

A pediatric perspective on genomics and prevention in the twenty-first century

We present evidence from diverse disciplines and populations to identify the current and emerging role of genomics in prevention from both medical and public health perspectives as well as key challenges and potential untoward consequences of increasing the role of genomics in these endeavors. We begin by comparing screening in healthy populations (newborn screening), with testing in symptomatic populations, which may incidentally identify secondary findings and at-risk relatives. Emerging evidence suggests that variants in genes subject to the reporting of secondary findings are more common than expected in patients who otherwise would not meet the criteria for testing and population testing for variants in these genes may more precisely identify discrete populations to target for various prevention strategies starting in childhood. Conversely, despite its theoretical promise, recent studies attempting to demonstrate benefits of next-generation sequencing for newborn screening have instead demonstrated numerous barriers and pitfalls to this approach. We also examine the special cases of pharmacogenomics and polygenic risk scores as examples of ways genomics can contribute to prevention amongst a broader population than that affected by rare Mendelian disease. We conclude with unresolved questions which will benefit from future investigations of the role of genomics in disease prevention.

Perceptions of genetic variant reclassification in patients with inherited cardiac disease

Interpretation of sequence variants is an ongoing challenge and new approaches aim to increase stringency. The reclassification of variants has the potential to alter medical management and elicit psychosocial consequences for patients. The perspective of patients with an inherited cardiac disease and a clinically significant variant reclassification was explored through semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were recruited from two specialized multidisciplinary centers in Canada and Australia. Qualitative analysis was performed through a thematic analysis approach. Fifteen participants were interviewed, including 9 (60%) with an inherited cardiomyopathy and 6 (40%) with an inherited arrhythmia syndrome. Six (40%) patients had a classification upgrade, while 9 (60%) had a downgrade. Four major themes emerged: (1) reactions towards the reclassified variant; (2) impact on decision-making; (3) perception of the reclassification process; and (4) improvement of the reclassification process. Many patients adjusted to the reclassification, however some misunderstood the implications, impacting their responses and decision-making. In conclusion, careful discussion with patients about uncertainty and the potential for reclassification are crucial to ensure a deeper understanding of the outcome of genetic testing and impact on families.

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.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

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.

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

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.

Reinterpretation of sequence variants: one diagnostic laboratory's experience, and the need for standard guidelines

PurposeThe advent of next-generation sequencing resulted in substantial increases in the number of variants detected, interpreted, and reported by molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories. Recent publications have provided standards for the interpretation of sequence variants, but there are currently no standards regarding reinterpretation of these variants. Recognizing that significant changes in variant classification may occur over time, many genetics diagnostic laboratories have independently developed practices for variant reinterpretation. The purpose of this study is to describe our laboratory approach to variant reinterpretation.MethodsWe surveyed eight genetics diagnostic laboratories in Canada and the United States.ResultsEach laboratory had differing protocols, but most felt that clinically relevant changes to variant classifications should be communicated to ordering providers. Based on results of this survey and our experience, we developed a cost-effective and resource-efficient approach to variant reinterpretation.ConclusionOngoing variant reinterpretation is required to maintain the highest standards for delivering genetics laboratory services. Our approach to variant reinterpretation offers an efficient solution that does not compromise accuracy or timely delivery of genetics laboratory services.

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.

Genetic Testing: Challenges and Changes in Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

BACKGROUND

The practice of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has changed dramatically in recent years, and patients often approach oncology nurses requesting information about genetic testing.
.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to explore changes in cancer genetics, the role of genetics professionals in providing comprehensive genetic care, and the implications of these new developments in genetics for oncology nurses.
.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted and focused on articles about the updating of genetic tests with panel testing, insurance changes, alternative genetic counseling strategies, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses play an important role in identifying and referring patients, including those who have tested negative for hereditary susceptibility genes, to genetics professionals. Genetics professionals can assist with insurance issues, interpretation of test results, clarification when a variant of unknown clinical significance is detected, and recommendations for care based on personal and family history and testing results. Oncology nurses can assist families with understanding the limitations of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

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.

Physicians' duty to recontact and update genetic advice

This perspective addresses whether physicians have a duty to recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genomic information. Genetic information is unique compared with other medical data in that the underlying data do not appreciably change during the patients' lifetime, but the clinical significance of that information will continue to evolve. Based on relevant case law and guidelines, there is no general, established legal duty for physicians to affirmatively recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genetic information. However, integration of genomics into clinical practice is advancing quickly, and there may be limited, specific situations where a physician may have a duty to provide updated genetic information.

Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.

GROWING POINTS

SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.

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.

Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person’s care and responsibility for connected others.

Classification of Genes: Standardized Clinical Validity Assessment of Gene-Disease Associations Aids Diagnostic Exome Analysis and Reclassifications

Ascertaining a diagnosis through exome sequencing can provide potential benefits to patients, insurance companies, and the healthcare system. Yet, as diagnostic sequencing is increasingly employed, vast amounts of human genetic data are produced that need careful curation. We discuss methods for accurately assessing the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships to interpret new research findings in a clinical context and increase the diagnostic rate. The specifics of a gene-disease scoring system adapted for use in a clinical laboratory are described. In turn, clinical validity scoring of gene-disease relationships can inform exome reporting for the identification of new or the upgrade of previous, clinically relevant gene findings. Our retrospective analysis of all reclassification reports from the first 4 years of diagnostic exome sequencing showed that 78% were due to new gene-disease discoveries published in the literature. Among all exome positive/likely positive findings in characterized genes, 32% were in genetic etiologies that were discovered after 2010. Our data underscore the importance and benefits of active and up-to-date curation of a gene-disease database combined with critical clinical validity scoring and proactive reanalysis in the clinical genomics era.

Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom

This article explores the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in genetics about the existence of a duty and/or responsibility to recontact former patients when the genetic information relevant to their health, or that of family members, changes in a potentially important manner. It is based on N=30 semi-structured interviews guided by vignettes of recontacting scenarios. The sample included healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom from different medical specialties (clinical genetics, other 'mainstream' specialties now offering genetic testing), and scientists from regional genetics laboratories. While viewing recontacting as desirable under certain circumstances, most respondents expressed concerns about its feasibility within the current constraints of the National Health Service (NHS). The main barriers identified were insufficient resources (time, staff, and suitable IT infrastructures) and lack of clarity about role boundaries and responsibilities. All of these are further complicated by genetic testing being increasingly offered by mainstream specialties. Reaching a consensus about roles and responsibilities of clinical specialties with regard to recontacting former patients in the light of evolving genetic information, and about what resources and infrastructures would be needed, was generally seen as a pre-requisite to developing guidelines about recontact.