Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants

Assessing Decisional Regret Among Biobank Sample Donors

Background: Large biobanks that link biological specimens with specimen donors' health histories are a critical tool for precision medicine, and many health care institutions have invested significant resources in setting up and building up large collections for this purpose. As biobanks require consented participation from thousands of individual donors, much research has focused on the values and preferences of new and prospective donors who are actively contemplating an invitation to participate in the collection. Few studies, however, have focused on participants' opinions about their biobank participation in the months and years following enrollment. Methods: We conducted a survey in a large, established biobank and evaluated participants' levels of decisional regret regarding their decision to enroll in the biobank. Results: We found very low levels of decisional regret among established biobank participants. Multivariable regression analysis found that age, length of time in the biobank, lower educational attainment, inadequate health literacy, and previous invitations to research participation were all significant predictors of elevated regret. Discussion: Among those with elevated regret, several demographic factors may point to elevated likelihood of decisional regret. More research is needed to identify factors associated with long-term satisfaction with biobank participation and with elevated risk of regret and/or withdrawal from the collection.

Secondary (additional) findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: Disease manifestation, health care outcomes, and costs of disclosure

PURPOSE

The UK 100,000 Genomes Project offered participants screening for additional findings (AFs) in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or hereditary cancer syndromes including breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, MYH-associated polyposis, multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN), and von Hippel-Lindau. Here, we report disclosure processes, manifestation of AF-related disease, outcomes, and costs.

METHODS

An observational study in an area representing one-fifth of England.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 89 adult AF recipients. At disclosure, among 57 recipients of a cancer-predisposition-associated AF and 32 recipients of an FH-associated AF, 35% and 88%, respectively, had personal and/or family history evidence of AF-related disease. During post-disclosure investigations, 4 cancer-AF recipients had evidence of disease, including 1 medullary thyroid cancer. Six women with an HBOC AF, 3 women with a Lynch syndrome AF, and 2 individuals with a MEN AF elected for risk-reducing surgery. New hyperlipidemia diagnoses were made in 6 FH-AF recipients and treatment (re-)initiated for 7 with prior hyperlipidemia. Generating and disclosing AFs in this region cost £1.4m; £8680 per clinically significant AF.

CONCLUSION

Generation and disclosure of AFs identifies individuals with and without personal or familial evidence of disease and prompts appropriate clinical interventions. Results can inform policy toward secondary findings.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank

The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

The Prevalence and Molecular Landscape of Lynch Syndrome in the Affected and General Population

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most frequent genetically pre-disposed colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, accounting for 2-3% of all CRC cases. In Estonia, ~1000 new cases are diagnosed each year. This retroactive and prospective study aimed to estimate the prevalence of LS and describe disease-causing variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes in a diagnostic setting and in the Estonian general population.

METHODS

LS data for the diagnostic cohort were gathered from 2012 to 2022 and data for the general population were acquired from the Estonian Biobank (EstBB). Furthermore, we conducted a pilot study to estimate the improvement of LS diagnostic yield by raising the age limit to >50 years for immunohistochemistry analysis of MMR genes.

RESULTS

We estimated LS live birth prevalence between 1930 and 2003 in Estonia at 1:8638 (95% CI: 1: 9859-7588). During the study period, we gathered 181 LS individuals. We saw almost a six-fold increase in case prevalence, probably deriving from better health awareness, improved diagnostic possibilities and the implementation of MMR IHC testing in a broader age group.

CONCLUSION

The most common genes affected in the diagnostic and EstBB cohorts were MLH1 and PMS2 genes, respectively. The LS diagnosis mean age was 44.8 years for index cases and 36.8 years (p = 0.003) for family members. In the MMR IHC pilot study, 29% had LS.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Clinical case study meets population cohort: identification of a BRCA1 pathogenic founder variant in Orcadians

We multiply ascertained the BRCA1 pathogenic missense variant c.5207T > C; p.Val1736Ala (V1736A) in clinical investigation of breast and ovarian cancer families from Orkney in the Northern Isles of Scotland, UK. We sought to investigate the frequency and clinical relevance of this variant in those of Orcadian ancestry as an exemplar of the value of population cohorts in clinical care, especially in isolated populations. Oral history and birth, marriage and death registrations indicated genealogical linkage of the clinical cases to ancestors from the Isle of Westray, Orkney. Further clinical cases were identified through targeted testing for V1736A in women of Orcadian ancestry attending National Health Service (NHS) genetic clinics for breast and ovarian cancer family risk assessments. The variant segregates with female breast and ovarian cancer in clinically ascertained cases. Separately, exome sequence data from 2088 volunteer participants with three or more Orcadian grandparents, in the ORCADES research cohort, was interrogated to estimate the population prevalence of V1736A in Orcadians. The effects of the variant were assessed using Electronic Health Record (EHR) linkage. Twenty out of 2088 ORCADES research volunteers (~1%) carry V1736A, with a common haplotype around the variant. This allele frequency is ~480-fold higher than in UK Biobank participants. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA1 founder pathogenic variants has been demonstrated at a carrier frequency below the ~1% observed here. Thus we suggest that Orcadian women should be offered testing for the BRCA1 V1736A founder pathogenic variant, starting with those with known Westray ancestry.

Returning individual genomic results to population-based cohort study participants with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in human genome research have provided evidence for genotype-phenotype associations, pathogenicity, and clinical actionability of variants and genomic risk prediction of disease. However, the return of individual genomic results to healthy individuals is fraught with ethical and practical complexity.

METHODS

Individual genomic results were returned to BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers of the Tohoku Medical Megabank cohort study participants with an information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). One hundred and eighty participants, including 9 BRCA1/2 PV carriers, were asked about their willingness to receive individual genomic results, without revealing the gene name and related disorders, prior to the study. Of the 142 participants who responded, 103 showed willingness to know their genomic information. Each of the six BRCA1/2 PV carriers who consented to participate in the study received information about HBOC in person and underwent validation testing with blood resampling.

RESULTS

All participants were in their 60s or 70s; of the four females and two males, two had a history of breast cancer and five had a family history of HBOC-related cancers. All participants appreciated the information, without remarkable negative psychological impact of the return, and intended to undergo clinical risk surveillance. Five participants were accompanied by family members while receiving the results, and three first-degree female relatives wished to undergo genomic testing at the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that returning actionable genomic information to participants in a population-based genome cohort study is beneficial for preventing or providing early-stage intervention for associated diseases.

Precise, Genotype-First Breast Cancer Prevention: Experience With Transferring Monogenic Findings From a Population Biobank to the Clinical Setting

Although hereditary breast cancer screening and management are well accepted and established in clinical settings, these efforts result in the detection of only a fraction of genetic predisposition at the population level. Here, we describe our experience from a national pilot study (2018-2021) in which 180 female participants of Estonian biobank (of >150,000 participants in total) were re-contacted to discuss personalized clinical prevention measures based on their genetic predisposition defined by 11 breast cancer-related genes. Our results show that genetic risk variants are relatively common in the average-risk Estonian population. Seventy-five percent of breast cancer cases in at-risk subjects occurred before the age of 50 years. Only one-third of subjects would have been eligible for clinical screening according to the current criteria. The participants perceived the receipt of genetic risk information as valuable. Fluent cooperation of project teams supported by state-of-art data management, quality control, and secure transfer can enable the integration of research results to everyday medical practice in a highly efficient, timely, and well-accepted manner. The positive experience in this genotype-first breast cancer study confirms the value of using existing basic genomic data from population biobanks for precise prevention.

Do Biobank Recall Studies Matter? Long-Term Follow-Up of Research Participants With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Recall-by-genotype (RbG) studies conducted with population-based biobank data remain urgently needed, and follow-up RbG studies, which add substance to this research approach, remain solitary. In such studies, potentially disease-related genotypes are identified and individuals with those genotypes are recalled for consultation to gather more detailed clinical phenotypic information and explain to them the meaning of their genetic findings. Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is among the most common autosomal-dominant single-gene disorders, with a global prevalence of 1 in 500 (Nordestgaard et al., Eur. Heart J., 2013, 34 (45), 3478–3490). Untreated FH leads to lifelong elevated LDL cholesterol levels, which can cause ischemic heart disease, with potentially fatal consequences at a relatively early age. In most cases, the pathogenesis of FH is based on a defect in one of three LDL receptor-related genes–APOB, LDLR, and PCSK9. We present our first long-term follow-up RbG study of FH, conducted within the Estonian Biobank (34 recalled participants from a pilot RbG study and 291 controls harboring the same APOB, LDLR, and PCSK9 variants that were included in the pilot study). The participants’ electronic health record data (FH-related diagnoses, lipid-lowering treatment prescriptions) and pharmacogenomic risk of developing statin-induced myopathy were assessed. A survey was administered to recalled participants to discern the impact of the knowledge of their genetic findings on their lives 4–6 years later. Significant differences in FH diagnoses and lipid-lowering treatment prescriptions were found between the recalled participants and controls (34 and 291 participants respectively). Our study highlights the need for more consistent lipid-lowering treatment adherence checkups and encourage more follow-up RbG studies to be performed.

Reaching for Precision Healthcare in Finland via Use of Genomic Data

Concerns over future healthcare capacity along with continuing demands for sustainability call for novel solutions to improve citizens' health and wellbeing through effective prevention and improved diagnosis and treatment. Part of the solution to tackle the challenge could be making the most of the exploitation of genomic data in personalized risk assessment, creating new opportunities for data-driven precision prevention and public health. Presently, the utilization of genomic data in the Finnish healthcare system is limited to a few medical specialty areas. To successfully extend the use of genomic information in everyday healthcare, evidence-based and feasible strategies are needed. The national actions that Finland is taking towards this goal are 1) providing scientific evidence for the utility of genomic information for healthcare purposes; 2) evaluating the potential health-economic impact of implementing precision healthcare in Finland; 3) developing a relevant legal framework and infrastructures for the utilization of genomic information; 4) building a national multidisciplinary expert network bringing together relevant professionals and initiatives to achieve consensus among the different stakeholders on specific issues vital for translating genomic data into precision healthcare; 5) building competence and genomic literacy skills among various target groups; and 6) public engagement (informing and educating the public). Taken together, these actions will enable building a roadmap towards the expedient application of genomic data in Finnish healthcare and promoting the health of our citizens.

Population Screening in Health Systems

Applications of genomics to population screening are expanding in the United States and internationally. Many of these programs are being implemented in the context of healthcare systems, mostly in a clinical research setting, but there are some emerging examples of clinical models. This review examines these genomic population screening programs to identify common features and differences in screened conditions, genomic technology employed, approach to results disclosure, health outcomes, financial models, and sustainability. The diversity of approaches provides opportunities to learn and better understand the optimal approach to implementation based on the contextual setting. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 23 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

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.