Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice

Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance

We discuss a case where clinical genomic investigation of muscle weakness unexpectedly found a genetic variant that might (or might not) predispose to kidney cancer. We argue that despite its off-target and uncertain nature, this variant should be discussed with the man who had the test, not because it is medical information, but because this discussion would allow the further clinical evaluation that might lead it to becoming so. We argue that while prominent ethical debates around genomics often take 'results' as a starting point and ask questions as to whether to look for and how to react to them, the construction of genomic results is fraught with ethical complexity, although often couched as a primarily technical problem. We highlight the need for greater focus on, and appreciation of, the ethical work undertaken daily by scientists and clinicians working in genomic medicine and discuss how public conversations around genomics need to adapt to prepare future patients for potentially uncertain and unexpected outcomes from clinical genomic tests.

Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers

Advances in genomic technology have generated possibilities for expanding newborn screening from traditional procedures to genomic newborn screening (gNBS). However, before the implementation of gNBS, it is crucial to address various aspects, including parental attitudes, at the national level. With this aim, we analyzed the attitudes and expectations of Slovenian peripartum mothers regarding gNBS and the acceptability of its implementation into the Slovenian health system. A questionnaire-based study was conducted on a convenience sample of 1136 peripartum mothers (a response rate of 84.1%) in a hospital setting in Slovenia. We measured participants' level of general genetic knowledge, motivation to undergo gNBS, attitude toward its benefits and drawbacks, willingness to participate financially, and factors that would influence their decision to undergo gNBS. Most participants exhibited a positive attitude (83.2%) and were motivated to undertake gNBS (63.4%). They were willing to share genetic data and also contribute to the testing costs. Mothers with better genetic literacy and higher education level, and those with the familial genetic testing experiences were more supportive of gNBS. However, several emotional and socio-ethical concerns were raised regarding how the genetic information would influence family and social life.

Public engagement with genomics

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis

BACKGROUND

It is proposed that, through restriction to individuals delineated as high risk, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) might enable more efficient targeting of existing cancer screening programmes and enable extension into new age ranges and disease types. To address this proposition, we present an overview of the performance of PRS tools (ie, models and sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms) alongside harms and benefits of PRS-stratified cancer screening for eight example cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, pancreas, ovary, kidney, lung, and testicular cancer).

METHODS

For this modelling analysis, we used age-stratified cancer incidences for the UK population from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (2016-18) and published estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for current, future, and optimised PRS for each of the eight cancer types. For each of five PRS-defined high-risk quantiles (ie, the top 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1%) and according to each of the three PRS tools (ie, current, future, and optimised) for the eight cancers, we calculated the relative proportion of cancers arising, the odds ratios of a cancer arising compared with the UK population average, and the lifetime cancer risk. We examined maximal attainable rates of cancer detection by age stratum from combining PRS-based stratification with cancer screening tools and modelled the maximal impact on cancer-specific survival of hypothetical new UK programmes of PRS-stratified screening.

FINDINGS

The PRS-defined high-risk quintile (20%) of the population was estimated to capture 37% of breast cancer cases, 46% of prostate cancer cases, 34% of colorectal cancer cases, 29% of pancreatic cancer cases, 26% of ovarian cancer cases, 22% of renal cancer cases, 26% of lung cancer cases, and 47% of testicular cancer cases. Extending UK screening programmes to a PRS-defined high-risk quintile including people aged 40-49 years for breast cancer, 50-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 60-69 years for prostate cancer has the potential to avert, respectively, a maximum of 102, 188, and 158 deaths annually. Unstratified screening of the full population aged 48-49 years for breast cancer, 58-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 68-69 years for prostate cancer would use equivalent resources and avert, respectively, an estimated maximum of 80, 155, and 95 deaths annually. These maximal modelled numbers will be substantially attenuated by incomplete population uptake of PRS profiling and cancer screening, interval cancers, non-European ancestry, and other factors.

INTERPRETATION

Under favourable assumptions, our modelling suggests modest potential efficiency gain in cancer case detection and deaths averted for hypothetical new PRS-stratified screening programmes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Restriction of screening to high-risk quantiles means many or most incident cancers will arise in those assigned as being low-risk. To quantify real-world clinical impact, costs, and harms, UK-specific cluster-randomised trials are required.

FUNDING

The Wellcome Trust.

Do genomic passports leave us more vulnerable or less vulnerable? Perspectives from an online citizen engagement

Since genomics is becoming commonplace in healthcare for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, the prospect of generating a genomic passport for all citizens is gaining traction. While this would have many advantages, it raises ethical issues requiring societal debate alongside academic reflection. Hence, Sciensano-the Belgian scientific Institute of Public Health-organised an online citizen engagement on genomic information usage, including a question on a genomic passport for all. The inductive thematic analysis of participants' contributions highlighted vulnerability as a fundamental concern, while this has not received sufficient attention so far in genomics. Participants expressed their vulnerability in two ways. First, the genomic passport would inform them about their ontological vulnerability. By revealing their constitutional weaknesses (predisposition to diseases), it reminds them that everyone is unavoidably and perennially at risk of being harmed. Second, the misuse of the genomic passport can add situational vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination causing psychological and economic harm). Moreover, the fundamental uncertainty in genomics-how will such sensitive information be used, and how will the science evolve?-exacerbates these vulnerabilities. This article ends with recommendations to alleviate these vulnerabilities in genomics now and in the future in which the genomic passport may become a reality.

Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data

Our ability to generate genomic data is currently well ahead of our ability to understand what they mean, raising challenges about how best to engage with them. This article considers ethical aspects of work with such data, focussing on research contexts that are intertwined with clinical care. We discuss the identifying nature of genomic data, the medical information intrinsic within them, and their linking of people within a biological family. We go on to consider what this means for consent, the importance of thoughtful sharing of genomic data, the challenge of constructing meaningful findings, and the legacy of unequal representation in genomic datasets. We argue that the ongoing success of genomic data research relies on public trust in the enterprise: to justify this trust, we need to ensure robust stewarding, and wide engagement about the ethical issues inherent in such practices.

Public perceptions and attitudes of the national project of bio-big data: A nationwide survey in the Republic of Korea

Background: The National Project of Bio-Big Data (NPBBD) is a South Korean bio-big data collection project, expected to include health, genomic, and lifelog data of one million Koreans. The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications study is a parallel study active since 2020. As part of the study, a public survey was conducted to evaluate public attitudes towards engagement schemes, such as public committees and web portals for communication between the public and researchers. Methods: An online survey was conducted from March 3-9, 2021, using structured questionnaires addressed to 1,000 adults aged 20-59 years. Results: Several respondents reported a positive attitude towards participation (43.6% "somewhat," 14.3% "definitely"), whereas approximately one-third (36.5%) reported a neutral attitude. Positive factors that may affect the willingness of the respondents to participate included receiving health information (25.1%), contributing to research on cancer and rare diseases (21.9%), and advancing personalized medicine (21.5%). Conversely, negative factors were mainly associated with concerns regarding the risk of data leakage (22.8%), discrimination (21.1%), lack of information (13.5%), possibility of knowing the risk of being diagnosed with an incurable diseases (12.5%), and possibility of using data in industry (11.3%). In terms of project governance, respondents tended to recognize the importance of public participation in incorporating public opinion into the project design. Conclusion: These results have implications for the participant recruitment process, public engagement strategies, and the scope of user (academics/industry, domestic/overseas) accessibility to the database.

How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review

The benefits of genomic testing are primarily reported in rare disease, cancer diagnosis and disease management. However, as research into its application in common, more complex conditions grows, as well as the increased prevalence of carrier screening programs, the genomic naive public is more likely to be offered testing in future. To promote social acceptability and ethical application of this technology, it is essential that public perceptions of genomics are considered. Previous studies, however, have primarily focussed on the views of those with genetic conditions or those undergoing genetic testing. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate the genomic naive public's perceptions of clinical genomics and clinical genomic testing. Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched, with a total of 3460 articles identified. Data analysis was organised according to the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Sixteen full-text articles were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies used questionnaires to determine attitudes of the public toward clinical genomics (n = 12). Public perceptions were found to underpin technology (Domain 2), value proposition (Domain 3), the adopter system (Domain 4) and the wider context (Domain 6) of the NASSS framework, highlighting its importance when considering implementation of an innovative technology such as genomic testing. Our study shows public perceptions are diverse, and highlights the need for more studies on the views of underrepresented groups and the impact of cultural contexts on perceptions.

A nationally agreed cross-professional competency framework to facilitate genomic testing

PURPOSE

The study aimed to develop a nationally agreed, cross-professional competency framework outlining the knowledge, skills, and behaviors required to facilitate genomic tests.

METHODS

Using principles of the nominal group technique, a consensus meeting with 25 experts mapped themes to an initial framework and voted on areas of inconsistency. A revised framework was open for consultation with health care professionals and patient communities before being published. An evaluation, using an online survey, was conducted to explore early use and factors to facilitate adoption of the framework.

RESULTS

The framework identified 8 competencies required to facilitate genomic tests. The evaluation (239 survey responses from health care professionals) indicated that the framework addresses a timely need among users and identified ways to improve awareness and accessibility for different health care professional groups.

CONCLUSION

This framework can be used as a guide for best practice by health care professionals who request genomic tests. It can also provide a foundation to identify learning needs and structure training such that conversations about genomic testing can be delivered in a consistent manner across specialties. These competencies can also be used as a reference to evaluate how consent is facilitated in different specialty areas to enhance the responsible delivery of genomic medicine.

"If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

What is the meaning of a 'genomic result' in the context of pregnancy?

Prenatal genetic testing and analysis in the past was usually only offered when a particular fetal phenotype was noted or suspected, meaning that filtering and interpretation of genetic variants identified could be anchored in attempts to explain an existing health concern. Advanced genomic testing is now increasingly used in "low-risk" pregnancies, producing information on genotype adrift of the phenotypic data that is necessary to give it meaning, thus increasing the difficulty in predicting whether and how particular genetic variants might affect future development and health. A challenge to healthcare scientists, clinicians, and parents therefore is deciding what qualities prenatal genotypic variation should have in order to be constructed as a 'result.' At the same time, such tests are often re requested in order to make binary decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy or not. As a range of professional organizations develop guidelines on the use of advanced genomic testing during pregnancy, we highlight the particular difficulties of discovering ambiguous findings such as variants with uncertain clinical significance, susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental problems and susceptibility to adult-onset diseases. We aim to foster international discussions about how decisions around disclosure are made and how uncertainty is communicated.