Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results

A Genomic Counseling Model for Population-Based Sequencing: A Pre-Post Intervention Study

PURPOSE

Novel uses of genome sequencing (GS) present an opportunity for return of results to healthy individuals, prompting the need for scalable genetic counseling strategies. We evaluate the effectiveness of a genomic counseling model (GCM) and explore preferences for GS findings in the general population.

METHODS

Participants (N = 466) completed GS and our GCM (digital genomics platform and group-based webinar) and indicated results preferences. Surveys were administered before (T0) and after (T1) GCM. Change in knowledge and decisional conflict (DC) were evaluated using paired-sample T and Wilcoxon tests. Factors influencing knowledge and results preferences were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Participants were 56% female, 58% white, and 53% ≥40 years of age. Mean knowledge scores increased (Limitations: 3.73 to 5.63; Benefits: 4.34 to 5.48, P < .0001), and DC decreased (-21.9, P < .0001) at T1 versus T0. Eighty-six percent of participants wished to learn all GS findings at T1 vs 78% at T0 (P < .0001). Older age, negative/mixed attitudes toward genetics and greater DC were associated with change in preferences after intervention.

CONCLUSION

In a population-based cohort undergoing GS interested in learning GS findings, our GCM increased knowledge and reduced DC, illustrating the GCM's potential effectiveness for GS counseling in the general population.

Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing

International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents' decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language (p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners (p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified (p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher's country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients' willingness to share their data - and value of the resulting research - should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

Canadian nursing and genomics: An engagement initiative

Advances in genome sequencing technologies and biomarker discoveries now inform individual risk assessments and treatment decision-making within cancer care. These advances have contributed to the emergence of precision healthcare where disease prevention and treatment recommendations are based upon individual genetic variability, as well as environmental and lifestyle considerations. To actively participate in precision healthcare and support patients, oncology nurses require specific knowledge and skills in cancer genomics. Nurses are poised to contribute to the safe and equitable delivery of precision healthcare and further education and engagement will support this endeavour. The Canadian Nursing and Genomics (CNG) promotes collaboration between nurses from the five domains of practice, from different healthcare sectors and educational backgrounds, as a key strategy to prepare nurses for the genomics era. This article provides a case study to illustrate genomics informed nursing practice across clinical settings and provides leadership strategies across the domains of nursing practice to support genomic literacy within nursing practice.

Soins infirmiers et génomique au Canada : un exemple de mobilisation

Les progrès de la technologie du séquençage génomique et la découverte de biomarqueurs jouent désormais un rôle dans l’évaluation du risque de cancer d’une personne et les décisions en matière de traitement. Ces progrès ont contribué à l’émergence de soins de santé de précision pour lesquels les recommandations relatives à la prévention et au traitement de la maladie se fondent sur la variabilité génétique individuelle, les facteurs environnementaux et le mode de vie. Pour jouer un rôle actif dans la prestation de soins de santé de précision et soutenir les patients dans ce nouvel univers, les infirmières en oncologie doivent posséder des connaissances particulières en génomique du cancer. Elles sont disposées à contribuer à la prestation de soins de santé sûrs et équitables; une formation et une mobilisation plus poussées permettront de soutenir cette démarche. Le projet Soins infirmiers et génomique au Canada veut promouvoir la collaboration entre les infirmières de cinq domaines de pratique, de divers secteurs de soins de santé et ayant des formations différentes, de façon à les préparer à entrer dans l’ère de la génomique. On présente ici une étude de cas qui illustre la pratique infirmière fondée sur la génomique en milieu clinique avant de proposer des stratégies de leadership à suivre dans les divers domaines de la pratique infirmière pour soutenir la littératie génomique dans la pratique infirmière.

Digital health-enabled genomics: Opportunities and challenges

Digital health solutions, with apps, virtual care, and electronic medical records, are gaining momentum across all medical disciplines, and their adoption has been accelerated, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal wearables, sensors, and mobile technologies are increasingly being used to identify health risks and assist in diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of health and disease. Genomics is a vanguard of digital healthcare as we witness a convergence of the fields of genomic and digital medicine. Spurred by the acute need to increase health literacy, empower patients' preference-sensitive decisions, or integrate vast amounts of complex genomic data into the clinical workflow, there has been an emergence of digital support tools in genomics-enabled care. We present three use cases that demonstrate the application of these converging technologies: digital genomics decision support tools, conversational chatbots to scale the genetic counseling process, and the digital delivery of comprehensive genetic services. These digital solutions are important to facilitate patient-centered care delivery, improve patient outcomes, and increase healthcare efficiencies in genomic medicine. Yet the development of these innovative digital genomic technologies also reveals strategic challenges that need to be addressed before genomic digital health can be broadly adopted. Alongside key evidentiary gaps in clinical and cost-effectiveness, there is a paucity of clinical guidelines, policy, and regulatory frameworks that incorporate digital health. We propose a research agenda, guided by learning healthcare systems, to realize the vision of digital health-enabled genomics to ensure its sustainable and equitable deployment in clinical care.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.

How aging of the global population is changing oncology

Population aging is causing a demographic redistribution with implications for the future of healthcare. How will this affect oncology? First, there will be an overall rise in cancer affecting older adults, even though age-specific cancer incidences continue to fall due to better prevention. Second, there will be a wider spectrum of health functionality in this expanding cohort of older adults, with differences between “physiologically older” and “physiologically younger” patients becoming more important for optimal treatment selection. Third, greater teamwork with supportive care, geriatric, mental health and rehabilitation experts will come to enrich oncologic decision-making by making it less formulaic than it is at present. Success in this transition to a more nuanced professional mindset will depend in part on the development of user-friendly computational tools that can integrate a complex mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs from evidence-based medicine, functional and cognitive assessments, and the personal priorities of older adults.

VALIDATION OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL IMPACT OF CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS IMPACT OF WAITING FOR GENOME SEQUENCING RESULTS

Objective

To determine whether the existing Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale, which assesses impact of receiving genetic test results on individuals being assessed for cancer risk, can be successfully adapted to cancer patients experiencing prolonged waiting for results of germline genome sequencing (GS).

Methods

Patients previously diagnosed with likely hereditary cancer (n = 250) who were waiting for germline GS results completed questionnaires 3 months after baseline. We adapted the MICRA to measure anxiety associated with waiting for results, and assessed factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and construct validation.

Results

Factor analysis revealed four factors: distress, positive experience, family support and uncertainty. Internal consistency for each sub‐scale was high with the values of Cronbach's alpha for the distress, positive experiences, family support and uncertainty sub‐scales 0.92, 0.88, 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Test–retest reliability was poor, with intra‐class correlations of 0.53, 0.13, 0.33 and 0.52 for the four factors, respectively. Construct validation showed large correlations between the MICRA distress and uncertainty sub‐scale scores and the Impact of Events score intrusion (0.42 and 0.62, respectively) and IES avoidant thinking sub‐scales (0.40 and 0.58, respectively) but not the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale sub‐scales.

Conclusions

The adapted MICRA identified test‐related anxiety and uncertainty in a population of cancer patients waiting for germline GS results. Results suggest that the distress and uncertainty sub‐scales of the adapted measure are most useful in this context.

The adapted Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale identifies germline genome sequencing (GS) test‐related anxiety and uncertainty in cancer patients undergoing prolonged waiting for results

Use of the adapted MICRA scale will enable identification of patients who require psychological support while awaiting germline GS test results

Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology

(1) Background: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and wellbeing through targeted prevention and treatment. Owing to uncertain clinical and economic outcomes, reimbursement has been limited. The objective of this pan-Canadian qualitative study was to investigate barriers to precision oncology implementation from the perspectives of health system stakeholders. (2) Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with health technology decision makers (n = 14) and clinicians (n = 18) experienced with precision oncology. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Recruitment continued until two qualitative analysts reached agreement that thematic saturation was reached. (3) Results: While cautiously optimistic about the potential for enhanced therapeutic alignment, participants identified multiple decisional challenges under conditions of evidentiary uncertainty. Decision makers voiced concern over resource requirements alongside small benefitting patient populations and limited evidence supporting patient and health system impacts. Clinicians were comparatively tolerant of evidentiary uncertainty guiding clinical decision-making practices. Clinicians applied a broader definition of patient benefit, focusing on the ability to assist patients making informed clinical decisions. (4) Conclusions: Sustainable precision oncology must balance demand with evidence demonstrating benefit. We show that clinicians and decision makers vary in their tolerance for evolving knowledge, suggesting a need to establish evidentiary standards supporting precision oncology reimbursement decisions.

Burden or benefit? Effects of providing education about and the option to request additional genomic findings from diagnostic exome sequencing: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Many people prefer to learn secondary or "additional" findings from genomic sequencing, including findings with limited medical actionability. Research has investigated preferences for and effects of learning such findings, but not psychosocial and behavioral effects of receiving education about them and the option to request them, which could be burdensome or beneficial (e.g., causing choice overload or satisfying strong preferences, respectively).

METHODS

335 adults with suspected genetic disorders who had diagnostic exome sequencing in a research study and were randomized to receive either diagnostic findings only (DF; n = 171) or diagnostic findings plus education about additional genomic findings and the option to request them (DF + EAF; n = 164). Assessments occurred after enrollment (Time 1), after return of diagnostic results and-for DF + EAF-the education under investigation (Time 2), and three and six months later (Times 3, 4).

RESULTS

Time 2 test-related distress, test-related uncertainty, and generalized anxiety were lower in the DF + EAF group (ps = 0.025-0.043). There were no other differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings show limited benefits and no harms of providing education about and the option to learn additional findings with limited medical actionability.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings can inform recommendations for returning additional findings from genomic sequencing (e.g., to research participants or after commercial testing).

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.

Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs.

CONCLUSION

This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.