A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings

Actionability and familial uptake following opportunistic genomic screening in a pediatric cancer cohort

The care for patients with serious conditions is increasingly guided by genomic medicine, and genomic medicine may equally transform care for healthy individual if genomic population screening is implemented. This study examines the medical impact of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS) in a cohort of patients undergoing comprehensive genomic germline DNA testing for childhood cancer, including the impact on their relatives. Medical actionability and uptake after cascade testing in the period following disclosure of OGS results was quantified. A secondary finding was reported to 19/595 (3.2%) probands primarily in genes related to cardiovascular and lipid disorders. After a mean follow up time of 1.6 years (Interquartile range (IQR): 0.57-1.92 yrs.) only 12 (63%) of these variants were found to be medically actionable. Clinical follow up or treatment was planned in 16 relatives, and as in the probands, the prescribed treatment was primarily betablockers or cholesterol lowering therapy. No invasive procedures or implantation of medical devices were performed in probands or relatives, and no reproductive counseling was requested. After an average of 1.6 years of follow-up 2.25 relatives per family with an actionable finding had been tested. This real-world experience of OGS grants new insight into the practical implementation effects and derived health care demands of genotype-first screening. The resulting health care effect and impact on demand for genetic counseling and workup in relatives extends beyond the effect in the probands.

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.

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

Principles of Genetic Counseling in Inherited Heart Conditions

Cardiac genetic counseling is the process of helping individuals adapt to a personal diagnosis or family history of an inherited heart condition. The process is shown to benefit patients and includes specialized skills, such as counseling children and interpreting complex genetic results. Emerging areas include: evolving service delivery models for caring for patients and communicating risk to relatives, new areas of need including postmortem molecular autopsy, and new populations of individuals found to carry a likely pathogenic/pathogenic cardiac variant identified through genomic screening. This article provides an overview of the cardiac genetic counseling process and evolving areas in the field.

"How about me giving blood for the COVID vaccine and not being able to get vaccinated?" A cognitive interview study on understanding of and agreement with broad consent for future use of data and samples in Colombia and Nicaragua

Broad consent for future use, wherein researchers ask participants for permission to share participant-level data and samples collected within the study for purposes loosely related to the study objectives, is central to enabling ethical data and sample reuse. Ensuring that participants understand broad consent-related language is key to maintaining trust in the study and public health research. We conducted 52 cognitive interviews to explore cohort research participants' and their parents' understanding of the broad consent-related language in the University of California at Berkeley template informed consent (IC) form for biomedical research. Participants and their parents were recruited from long-standing infectious disease cohort studies in Nicaragua and Colombia and interviewed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semi-structured interviews to assess participants' agreement with the key concepts in the IC after clarifying them through the cognitive interview. Participants did not understand abstract concepts, including collecting and reusing genetic data. Participants wanted to learn about incidental findings, future users and uses. Trust in the research team and the belief that sharing could lead to new vaccines or treatments were critical to participant support for data and sample sharing. Participants highlighted the importance of data and sample sharing for COVID-19 response and equitable access to vaccines and treatments developed through sharing. Our findings on participants' understanding of broad consent and preferences for data and sample sharing can help inform researchers and ethics review committees working to enable ethical and equitable data and sample sharing.

Heath policy guiding the identification, analysis and management of secondary findings for individuals undergoing genomic sequencing: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing is increasingly enabling precision care across medical specialties; however, the discovery of genomic 'secondary findings' (SFs) unrelated to the patient's primary indication remains a profuse, unintended consequence. Existing practices within the continuum of SF identification, analysis and management are numerous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory across health conditions and regions. Final decisions are often at the discretion of the genomic sequencing laboratory, bioinformatician or treating physician. This difference in healthcare delivery causes inconsistent information, disclosure and downstream impacts required to manage SFs and patient outcomes. Improving our understanding of the SF health policy landscape can determine components of the SF policy continuum spanning generation through to management that are in conflict, limitations of current guidance and existing needs across clinical settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will carry out a systematic review to catalogue and appraise current guidance directing the identification, analysis and management of SFs for participants receiving genomic sequencing globally. We will conduct a comprehensive search of Medline (Medline R, Medline Epub Ahead of Print and Medline-In-Process & In-Data-Review Citations), Embase and Cochrane databases (n=5, inception to Feb 2022) and a grey literature search of international genomics websites (n=64; inception to May 2022). Key inclusion criteria include: guidance produced by health organisations, bioethics committees and professional associations, outlining recommendations for: (1) SF identification, (2) SF analysis or (3) SF management. Non-English language articles and conference abstracts will be excluded. Guidance will be critically appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument (AGREE) II tool. We will interpret our findings by process and across populations using a qualitative descriptive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our systematic review evaluates published data and does not require ethics review. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and workshops with precision medicine stakeholders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316079.

Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.