Personalised Medicine Approaches to Screening and Prevention

Professionals' views on providing personalized recurrence risks for de novo mutations: Implications for genetic counseling

When an apparent de novo (new) genetic change has been identified as the cause of a serious genetic condition in a child, many couples would like to know the risk of this happening again in a future pregnancy. Current practice provides families with a population average risk of 1%-2%. However, this figure is not accurate for any specific couple, and yet, they are asked to make decisions about having another child and/or whether to have prenatal testing. The PREcision Genetic Counseling And REproduction (PREGCARE) study is a new personalized assessment strategy that refines a couple's recurrence risk prior to a new pregnancy, by analyzing several samples from the parent-child trio (blood, saliva, swabs, and father's sperm) using deep sequencing and haplotyping. Overall, this approach can reassure ~2/3 of couples who have a negligible (<0.1%) recurrence risk and focus support on those at higher risk (i.e. when mosaicism is identified in one of the parents). Here we present a qualitative interview study with UK clinical genetics professionals (n = 20), which investigate the potential implications of introducing such a strategy in genetics clinics. While thematic analysis of the interviews indicated perceived clinical utility, it also indicates a need to prepare couples for the psychosocial implications of parent-of-origin information and to support their understanding of the assessment being offered. When dealing with personalized reproductive risk, a traditional non-directive approach may not meet the needs of practitioner and client(s) and shared decision-making provides an additional framework that may relieve some patient burden. Further qualitative investigation with couples is planned.

The 'molecularly unstratified' patient: a focus for moral, psycho-social and societal research

The biomedical paradigm of personalised precision medicine - identification of specific molecular targets for treatment of an individual patient - offers great potential for treatment of many diseases including cancer. This article provides a critical analysis of the promise, the hype and the pitfalls attending this approach. In particular, we focus on 'molecularly unstratified' patients - those who, for various reasons, are not eligible for a targeted therapy. For these patients, hope-laden therapeutic options are closed down, leaving them left out, and left behind, bobbing untidily about in the wake of technological and scientific 'advance'. This process creates a distinction between groups of patients on the basis of biomarkers and challenges our ability to provide equitable access to care for all patients. In broadening our consideration of these patients to include the research ecosystem that shapes their experience, we hypothesise that the combination of immense promise with significant complexity creates particular individual and organisational challenges for researchers. The novelty and complexity of their research consumes high levels of resource, possibly in parallel with undervaluing other 'low hanging fruit', and may be challenging current regulatory thinking. We outline future research to consider the societal, psycho-social and moral issues relating to 'molecularly unstratified' patients, and the impact of the drive towards personalisation on the research, funding, and regulatory ecosystem.