Reactions to clinical reinterpretation of a gene variant by participants in a sequencing study

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

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

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.

Exploring the impact of the reclassification of a hereditary cancer syndrome gene variant: emerging themes from a qualitative study

The complexity of genetic variant interpretation means that a proportion of individuals who undergo genetic testing for a hereditary cancer syndrome will have their test result reclassified over time. Such a reclassification may involve a clinically significant upgrade or downgrade in pathogenicity, which may have significant implications for medical management. To date, few studies have examined the psychosocial impact of a reclassification in a hereditary cancer syndrome context. To address this gap, semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with eighteen individuals who had a BRCA1, BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome-related (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2) gene variant reclassified. The interviews were analysed utilising an inductive, qualitative approach and emergent themes were identified by thematic analysis. Variable levels of recall amongst participants were found. Common motivations for initial testing included a significant personal and/or family history of cancer and a desire to "find an answer". No individual whose uncertain result was upgraded reported negative psychosocial outcomes; most reported adapting to their reclassified result and appraised their genetic testing experience positively. However, individuals whose likely pathogenic/pathogenic results were downgraded reported feelings of anger, shock and sadness post reclassification, highlighting that additional psychosocial support may be required for some. Genetic counselling issues and recommendations for clinical practice are outlined.

Re-analysis of genomic data: An overview of the mechanisms and complexities of clinical adoption

Re-analyzing genomic information from a patient suspected of having an underlying genetic condition can improve the diagnostic yield of sequencing tests, potentially providing significant benefits to the patient and to the health care system. Although a significant number of studies have shown the clinical potential of re-analysis, less work has been performed to characterize the mechanisms responsible for driving the increases in diagnostic yield. Complexities surrounding re-analysis have also emerged. The terminology itself represents a challenge because "re-analysis" can refer to a range of different concepts. Other challenges include the increased workload that re-analysis demands of curators, adequate reimbursement pathways for clinical and diagnostic services, and the development of systems to handle large volumes of data. Re-analysis also raises ethical implications for patients and families, most notably when re-classification of a variant alters diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. This review highlights the possibilities and complexities associated with the re-analysis of existing clinical genomic data. We propose a terminology that builds on the foundation presented in a recent statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and describes each re-analysis process. We identify mechanisms for increasing diagnostic yield and provide perspectives on the range of challenges that must be addressed by health care systems and individual patients.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators

Genomics is being increasingly utilized in medical research and health care. Countless opportunities exist for social and behavioral scientists to answer novel and important research questions. Evidence that will be produced from such enquiries can help ensure appropriate use of genomic information and realize the potential of genomics to improve patient care and medical outcomes. Here, we provide an accessible overview of different types of genetic and genomic tests and the resulting information produced. There are important nuances that distinguish genetic from genomic tests and different information that each yield. We outline key examples where social and behavioral scientists have made an impact in this field, and opportunities for future research. The intention of this primer is to introduce or clarify genomics concepts to social and behavioral scientists, summarize prior research and outline future research directions. The time is ripe for social and behavioral scientists to engage in genomics and make important contributions to improve clinical and community translation of genomic discoveries.

How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?

Delivering high quality genomics-informed care to patients requires accurate test results whose clinical implications are understood. While other actors, including state agencies, professional organizations, and clinicians, are involved, this article focuses on the extent to which the federal agencies that play the most prominent roles - the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforcing CLIA and the FDA - effectively ensure that these elements are met and concludes by suggesting possible ways to improve their oversight of genomic testing.

Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel

Background

Congenital hearing loss affects approximately 1–2 infants out of every 1000, with 50% of the cases resulting from genetic factors. Targeted gene panels have been widely used for genetic diagnosis of hearing loss. This study aims to reveal new diagnoses via reanalyzing historical data of a multigene panel, and exam the reasons for new diagnoses.

Methods

A total of 210 samples were enlisted, including clinical reports and sequencing data of patients with congenital/prelingual hearing loss who were referred to clinical genetic testing from October 2014 to June 2017. All variants listed on the original clinical reports were reinterpreted according to the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP). Expanded analysis of raw data were performed in undiagnosed cases.

Results

Re-analysis resulted in nine new diagnoses, improving the overall diagnostic rate from 39 to 43%. New diagnoses were attributed to newly published clinical evidence in the literature, adoption of new interpretation guidelines and expanded analysis range.

Conclusion

This work demonstrates benefits of reanalysis of targeted gene panel data, indicating that periodical reanalysis should be performed in clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-019-0531-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.