Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap

Next-generation sequencing in oncology: challenges in economic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) identifies genetic variants to inform personalized treatment plans. Insufficient evidence of cost-effectiveness impedes integration of NGS into routine cancer care. The complexity of personalized treatment challenges conventional economic evaluation. Clearly delineating challenges informs future cost-effectiveness analyses to better value and contextualize health, preference-, and equity-based outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a scoping review to characterize the applied methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of NGS in oncology and identify existing challenges. We included 27 articles published since 2016 from a search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Identified challenges included defining the evaluative scope, managing evidentiary limitations including lack of causal evidence, incorporating preference-based utility, and assessing distributional and equity-based impacts. These challenges reflect the difficulty of generating high-quality clinical effectiveness and real-world evidence (RWE) for NGS-guided interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

Adapting methodological approaches and developing life-cycle health technology assessment (HTA) guidance using RWE is crucial for implementing NGS in oncology. Healthcare systems, decision-makers, and HTA organizations are facing a pivotal opportunity to adapt to an evolving clinical paradigm and create innovative regulatory and reimbursement processes that will enable more sustainable, equitable, and patient-oriented healthcare.

The Diagnostic Landscape of Adult Neurogenetic Disorders

Neurogenetic diseases affect individuals across the lifespan, but accurate diagnosis remains elusive for many patients. Adults with neurogenetic disorders often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey, with multiple specialist evaluations and countless investigations without a satisfactory diagnostic outcome. Reasons for these diagnostic challenges include: (1) clinical features of neurogenetic syndromes are diverse and under-recognized, particularly those of adult-onset, (2) neurogenetic syndromes may manifest with symptoms that span multiple neurological and medical subspecialties, and (3) a positive family history may not be present or readily apparent. Furthermore, there is a large gap in the understanding of how to apply genetic diagnostic tools in adult patients, as most of the published literature focuses on the pediatric population. Despite these challenges, accurate genetic diagnosis is imperative to provide affected individuals and their families guidance on prognosis, recurrence risk, and, for an increasing number of disorders, offer targeted treatment. Here, we provide a framework for recognizing adult neurogenetic syndromes, describe the current diagnostic approach, and highlight studies using next-generation sequencing in different neurological disease cohorts. We also discuss diagnostic pitfalls, barriers to achieving a definitive diagnosis, and emerging technology that may increase the diagnostic yield of testing.

Determining the utility of diagnostic genomics: a conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic efficacy is now well established for diagnostic genomic testing in rare disease. Assessment of overall utility is emerging as a key next step, however ambiguity in the conceptualisation and measurement of utility has impeded its assessment in a comprehensive manner. We propose a conceptual framework to approach determining the broader utility of diagnostic genomics encompassing patients, families, clinicians, health services and health systems to assist future evidence generation and funding decisions. BODY: Building upon previous work, our framework posits that utility of diagnostic genomics consists of three dimensions: the domain or type and extent of utility (what), the relationship and perspective of utility (who), and the time horizon of utility (when). Across the description, assessment, and summation of these three proposed dimensions of utility, one could potentially triangulate a singular point of utility axes of type, relationship, and time. Collectively, the multiple different points of individual utility might be inferred to relate to a concept of aggregate utility.

CONCLUSION

This ontological framework requires retrospective and prospective application to enable refinement and validation. Moving forward our framework, and others which have preceded it, promote a better characterisation and description of genomic utility to inform decision-making and optimise the benefits of genomic diagnostic testing.

Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics

Given the limited therapeutic options for most rare diseases diagnosed through genomic sequencing (GS) and the proportion of patients who remain undiagnosed even after GS, it is important to characterize a broader range of benefits and potential harms of GS from the perspectives of families with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. We recruited parents of children enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Parents completed an in-depth interview, and we conducted a comparative content analysis of the data. Parents (n = 30) were demographically diverse, with 43.3% identifying as Hispanic, 33.3% primarily Spanish-speaking, and widely variable household income and education. Parents reported minimal changes in their child's health status following GS but did report a range of other forms of perceived utility, including improvements in their child's healthcare management and access, in their own psychological well-being, and in disease-specific social connections and research opportunities. Parents who received a diagnosis more frequently perceived utility across all domains; however, disutility also was reported by both those with and without a diagnosis. Impacts depended on multiple mediating factors, including parents' underlying expectations and beliefs, family sociodemographic characteristics, individual disease characteristics, and prior healthcare access. Our study suggests that the perceived utility of GS varies widely among parents and may depend on multiple individual, sociodemographic, and contextual factors that are relevant for pre- and post-GS counseling, for value assessment of GS, and for policymaking related to access to new genomic technologies.

Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

There is growing interest in extending the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year framework beyond health. Using a critical interpretive synthesis approach, the objective was to review peer-reviewed literature that has discussed non-health outcomes within the context of quality-adjusted life-years and synthesise information into a thematic framework. Papers were identified through searches conducted in Web of Science, using forward citation searching. A critical interpretive synthesis allows for the development of interpretations (synthetic constructs) that go beyond those offered in the original sources. The final output of a critical interpretive synthesis is the synthesising argument, which integrates evidence from across studies into a coherent thematic framework. A concept map was developed to show the relationships between different types of non-health benefits. The critical interpretive synthesis was based on 99 papers. The thematic framework was constructed around four themes: (1) benefits affecting well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, capability and empowerment); (2) benefits derived from the process of healthcare delivery; (3) benefits beyond the recipient of care (spillover effects, externalities, option value and distributional benefits); and (4) benefits beyond the healthcare sector. There is a wealth of research concerning non-health benefits and the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year. Further dialogue and debate are necessary to address conceptual and normative challenges, to explore the societal willingness to sacrifice health for benefits beyond health and to consider the equity implications of different courses of action.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Measuring Attitudes About Genomic Medicine: Validation of the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale)

OBJECTIVES

Assessing public attitudes about genomic medicine is critical for anticipating patient receptivity to clinical applications of genomics. Although scholars have highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholder opinions and views regarding advances in clinical genomics, to date there has not been a robust tool for measuring these attitudes. We designed a study to evaluate the validity of an instrument we developed for measuring attitudes about genomic medicine.

METHODS

We used psychometric methods to validate the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale). Our goal was to create an easy-to-use tool for evaluating positive and negative attitudes about genomic medicine.

RESULTS

We describe the validation testing of the GO Scale in a nationally representative sample of 1536 individuals residing in the United States. We report results from convergent and divergent validity testing and Rasch modeling analysis. The study produced a 26-item scale with 2 dimensions-optimism and pessimism.

CONCLUSIONS

The GO Scale may be used to characterize attitudinal perspectives among patients, clinicians, and the public. The GO Scale may also be useful in evaluating shifts in attitude over time, for example, following educational interventions, which has not been feasible to date.

Public Understanding and Opinions regarding Genetic Research on Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND

Participants willing to provide genetic samples are needed to propel research on Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment and prevention forward. A limited public understanding of what AD genetic research entails and concerns about participation may constitute recruitment challenges.

OBJECTIVES

This study seeks to understand how well older adults understand AD genetic research and whether their understanding is related to concerns about participation or willingness to engage.

METHODS

Our surveys included a mock consent form with corresponding knowledge and opinion questions regarding AD. The surveys were mailed to participants from the University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Center and to a list of randomly selected individuals within the same age range from a local voter registration list. Descriptive and multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The returned surveys (n = 502) demonstrated limits to what the respondents understood immediately after reading the relevant material, with a mean summary knowledge score of 74.5 out of 100. While comprehension gaps were not related to level of concern or willingness to engage, concerns were related to willingness to engage. Concerns were greater among individuals not actively involved in research, individuals from minority groups, and those with higher levels of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Focusing on concerns specifically, rather than on knowledge more generally, may help increase participation.

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation

PURPOSE

Research on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects.

METHODS

Up to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs.

RESULTS

Key barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice.

On the personal utility of Alzheimer's disease-related biomarker testing in the research context

Many healthy volunteers choose to take part in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies because they want to know whether they will develop dementia-and what they can do to reduce their risk-and are therefore interested in learning the results of AD biomarker tests. Proponents of AD biomarker disclosure often refer to the personal utility of AD biomarkers, claiming that research participants will be able to use AD biomarker information for personal purposes, such as planning ahead or making important life decisions. In this paper, the claim that AD biomarkers have personal utility for asymptomatic individuals is critically assessed. It demonstrates that in the absence of clinical validity, AD biomarkers cannot have personal utility and do not serve research participants' autonomy. Over the next few years, many research groups will be confronted with participants' preferences to learn the results of AD biomarker tests. When researchers choose to make results available upon explicit request, they should ensure adequate information provision and education, notably on the uncertain clinical significance of AD biomarker information. Routine disclosure of AD biomarkers to cognitively unimpaired individuals in research settings cannot be justified with an appeal to the personal utility of AD biomarker information.

Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment

This study enumerated patients’ preference-based personal utility and willingness-to-pay for massively parallel sequencing (MPS) genetic testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Our setting was the New Exome Technology in (NEXT) Medicine Study, a randomized control trial of usual care genetic testing vs. exome sequencing. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), we elicited patient preferences for information on genetic causes of CRC. We estimated personal utility for the following four attributes: proportion of individuals with a genetic cause of CRC who receive a diagnosis, number of tests used, wait time for results, and cost. A total of 122 patients completed our DCE (66% response rate). On average, patients preferred genetic tests identifying more individuals with a diagnosis and involving a shorter wait time. Assuming MPS identifies more individuals with a Mendelian form of CRC risk, involves fewer tests, and results in a shorter wait than traditional diagnostic testing, average willingness-to-pay (WTP) for MPS ranged from US$400 (95% CI: $300, $500) to US$1541 (95% CI: $1224, $1859). These results indicate that patients value information on genetic causes of CRC and replacing traditional diagnostic testing with MPS testing will increase patients’ utility. Future research exploring the costs and benefits of MPS for CRC risk is warranted.

The who, what, and why of research participants' intentions to request a broad range of secondary findings in a diagnostic genomic sequencing study

PURPOSE

In a diagnostic exome sequencing study (the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-Generation Exome Sequencing project, NCGENES), we investigated adult patients' intentions to request six categories of secondary findings (SFs) with low or no medical actionability and correlates of their intentions.

METHODS

At enrollment, eligible participants (n = 152) completed measures assessing their sociodemographic, clinical, and literacy-related characteristics. Prior to and during an in-person diagnostic result disclosure visit, they received education about categories of SFs they could request. Immediately after receiving education at the visit, participants completed measures of intention to learn SFs, interest in each category, and anticipated regret for learning and not learning each category.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight percent of participants intended to learn at least some SFs. Logistic regressions examined their intention to learn any or all of these findings (versus none) and interest in each of the six individual categories (yes/no). Results revealed little association between intentions and sociodemographic, clinical, or literacy-related factors. Across outcomes, participants who anticipated regret for learning SFs reported weaker intention to learn them (odds ratios (ORs) from 0.47 to 0.71), and participants who anticipated regret for not learning these findings reported stronger intention to learn them (OR 1.61-2.22).

CONCLUSION

Intentions to request SFs with low or no medical actionability may be strongly influenced by participants' desire to avoid regret.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Quantify the Value of Genomic-Based Diagnostic Tests: Recommendations for Practice and Research

AIMS

New sequencing technologies allow increased opportunities to use genomic-based diagnostic tests (genomic tests) in routine clinical practice, which will impact healthcare budgets and patients' outcomes. This article aims to generate a list of recommendations on how the principles and methods of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can be used to quantify the costs and benefits of genomic tests.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified publications describing the use of CEA to evaluate genomic tests. Data were extracted as key concepts to produce a thematic list of previously described challenges and solutions to using CEA to evaluate genomic tests. Defining features of evaluating genomic tests were categorized into a list of key recommendations for applying methods in practice and for research needs.

RESULTS

Features producing challenges in the implementation of CEA to evaluate genomic tests were as follows: the ability of the tests to diagnose multiple disorders; potential consequences for future generations suggesting an infinite time horizon; and the potential need to consider nonhealth benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA was identified as an appropriate evaluative framework for genomic tests, although standard methods may need modification and important method research questions remain. Key recommendations suggest a need for research to reflect: sharing genomic information across generations; genomic tests for multiple disorders; and health and nonhealth benefits.

Diagnosis of rare diseases under focus: impacts for Canadian patients

This paper presents an in-depth qualitative analysis of the impact of diagnosis on the lives of rare disease (RD) patients. While diagnosis may be described as a watershed step for RD patients, no extensive account of non-medical outcomes following a RD diagnosis exists within the literature. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap through an analysis of the impact of diagnosis on the lives of RD patients according to their personal experiences. Qualitative research was conducted in three provinces across Canada, with a total of 23 participants, both adult and parents of children with RD, diagnosed and not yet diagnosed. A thematic approach guided the analysis of the transcripts. The results reveal that the impacts of a RD diagnosis for both adults and paediatric patients are multifold, ranging from social to personal and medical impacts (including cases where etiological treatments for the diseases are non-existent). Furthermore, the results shed light on distinct factors that affect the scope of impacts of a diagnosis.

Budget impact and cost-effectiveness: can we afford precision medicine in oncology?

Over the past decade there have been remarkable advancements in the understanding of the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. Methods of testing capable of elucidating patients' molecular profiles are now readily available and there is an increased desire to incorporate the information derived from such tests into treatment selection for cancer patients. This has led to more appropriate application of existing treatments as well as the development of a number of innovative and highly effective treatments or what is known collectively as precision medicine. The impact that precision medicine will have on health outcomes is uncertain, as are the costs it will incur. There is, therefore, a need to develop economic evidence and appropriate methods of evaluation to support its implementation to ensure the resources allocated to these approaches are affordable and offer value for money. The market for precision medicine in oncology continues to rapidly expand, placing an increased pressure on reimbursement decision-makers to consider the value and opportunity cost of funding such approaches to care. The benefits of molecular testing can be complex and difficult to evaluate given currently available economic methods, potentially causing a distorted appreciation of their value. Funding decisions of precision medicine will also have far-reaching implications, requiring the consideration of both patient and public perspectives in decision-making. Recommendations to improve the value proposition of precision medicine are, therefore, provided with the hopes of facilitating a better understanding of its impact on outcomes and the overall health budget.

Participant Satisfaction With a Preference-Setting Tool for the Return of Individual Research Results in Pediatric Genomic Research

The perceived benefit of return of individual research results (IRRs) in accordance to participants' preferences in genomic biobank research is unclear. We developed an online preference-setting tool for return of IRRs based on the preventability and severity of a condition, which included an opt-out option for IRRs for mental illness, developmental disorders, childhood-onset degenerative conditions, and adult-onset conditions. Parents of patients <18 years of age at Boston Children's Hospital were randomized to the hypothetical scenario that their child was enrolled in one of four biobanks with different policies for IRRs to receive (a) "None," (b) "All," (c) "Binary"--choice to receive all or none, and (d) "Granular"--use the preference-setting tool to choose categories of IRRs. Parents were given a hypothetical IRRs report for their child. The survey was sent to 11,391 parents and completed by 2,718. The Granular group was the most satisfied with the process, biobank, and hypothetical IRRs received. The None group was least satisfied and least likely to agree that the biobank was beneficial (p < .001). The response to the statement that the biobank was harmful was not different between groups. Our data suggest that the ability to designate preferences leads to greater satisfaction and may increase biobank participation.

How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Gene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs baseline risk prediction, potentially affecting adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for women with early-stage breast cancer. Since only 15% will experience a recurrence, concerns have been raised about potential harms from overtreatment and high GEP costs in publicly funded healthcare systems. We aimed to estimate preferences and personal utility of GEP testing information and benefit-risk trade-offs in chemotherapy treatment decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING AND INTERVENTION

Based on literature review and findings from our qualitative research (focus groups, interviews with patients with breast cancer and medical oncologists), we developed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey and administered it via an internet panel. The DCE included 12 choice tasks with 5 attributes and 3 alternatives considering orthogonality, D-efficiency and level balance.

PARTICIPANTS

The DCE survey was administered to 1004 Canadian women from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preferences were analysed using conditional logit and hierarchical Bayes and evaluated for goodness of fit. We conducted simulation analyses for alternative scenarios.

RESULTS

GEP test score indicating likely benefit from chemotherapy was the most important attribute. Doctor's clinical estimate of the risk of cancer returning, trust in your cancer doctor and side effects of chemotherapy (temporary and permanent) were relatively less important but showed significant differences among levels. In the scenario analyses, 78% were likely to choose chemotherapy in a high-risk scenario, 55% in a moderate-risk scenario and 33% in a low-risk scenario, with the other attributes held constant. A high GEP score was more important in influencing the choice of chemotherapy for those at intermediate clinical risk.

CONCLUSIONS

GEP testing information influences chemotherapy treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer and varies depending on clinical risk. Clinicians should be aware of these differences and tailor the use of GEP testing accordingly.

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation

Background

The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Results

A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12920-016-0186-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine

The value of genomic sequencing is often understood in terms of its ability to affect diagnosis or treatment. In these terms, successes occur only in a minority of cases. This paper presents views from patients who had exome sequencing done clinically to explore how they perceive the utility of genomic medicine. The authors used semi-structured, qualitative interviews in order to study patients' attitudes toward genomic sequencing in oncology and rare-disease settings. Participants from 37 cases were interviewed. In terms of the testing's key values-regardless of having received what clinicians described as meaningful results-participants expressed four qualities that are separate from traditional views of clinical utility: Participants felt they had been empowered over their own health. They felt they had contributed altruistically to the progress of genomic technology in medicine. They felt their suffering had been legitimated. They also felt a sense of closure, having done everything they could. Patients expressed overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward sequencing. Their rationale was not solely based on the results' clinical utility. It is important for clinicians to understand this non-medical reasoning as it pertains to patient decision-making and informed consent.

Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions

While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative and empirical ethical literature. Four ethical signposts are thereby developed to help guide disclosure discussions. These are: respectful sharing of the clinician's expertise; transparent communication; epistemic modesty; and respect for the embedded nature of the patient. We conclude by considering the most common current disclosure positions in the light of the four ethical signposts.

Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings.

METHODS

We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model.

RESULTS

In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%).

INTERPRETATION

Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.

The development of a preference-setting model for the return of individual genomic research results

Understanding participants' preferences for the return of individual research results (IRR) in genomic research may allow for the implementation of more beneficial result disclosure methods. We tested four preference-setting models through cognitive interviews of parents to explore how parents conceptualize the process of setting preferences and which disease characteristics they believe to be most important when deciding what results to receive on their child. Severity and preventability of a condition were highly influential in decision making and certain groups of research results were anticipated by participants to have negative psychological effects. These findings informed the development of an educational tool and preference-setting model that can be scaled for use in the return of IRR from large biobank studies.

The clinical utility of whole-exome sequencing in the context of rare diseases - the changing tides of medical practice

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) carries the potential to facilitate the identification of disease causing genes. This is particularly relevant concerning rare diseases, which proves particularly difficult for physicians to diagnose. However, the complexity of this technology renders its applicability onto the clinical setting uncertain. Our study thus aims to understand physicians' perspectives regarding the clinical utility of WES, particularly for providing a diagnosis for patients with rare diseases. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians with experience and familiarity with WES, and the major themes that emerged from our interviews were (i) the relevance of WES in diagnosing patients with rare diseases (appropriateness); (ii) the cost-effectiveness of WES (accessibility), (iii) the practical issues related to the clinical implementation of WES (practicability); and (iv) ethical, legal and social issues (acceptability). Our study highlights how the clinical implementation of WES presents additional challenges where rare diseases are taken into consideration.

Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The value of the information that genetic testing services provide can be questioned for insurance-based health systems. The results of genetic tests oftentimes may not lead to well-defined clinical interventions; however, Lynch syndrome, a genetic mutation for which carriers are at an increased risk for colorectal cancer, can be identified through genetic testing, and meaningful health interventions are available via increased colonoscopic surveillance. Valuations of test information for such conditions ought to account for the full impact of interventions and contingent outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a discrete-choice experiment to elicit individuals' preferences for genetic test information.

METHODS

A Web-enabled discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to a representative sample of US residents aged 50 years and older. In addition to specifying expenditures on colonoscopies, respondents were asked to make a series of nine selections between two hypothetical genetic tests or a no-test option under the premise that a relative had Lynch syndrome. The hypothetical genetic tests were defined by the probability of developing colorectal cancer, the probability of a false-negative test result, privacy of the result, and out-of-pocket cost. A model specification identifying necessary interactions was derived from assumptions of risk behavior and the decision context and was estimated using random-parameters logit.

RESULTS

A total of 650 respondents were contacted, and 385 completed the survey. The monetary equivalent of test information was approximately $1800. Expenditures on colonoscopies to reduce mortality risks affected valuations. Respondents with lower income or who reported being employed significantly valued genetic tests more.

CONCLUSION

Genetic testing may confer benefits through the impact of subsequent interventions on private individuals.

Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis

PURPOSE

Recent policies specifying criteria about which individual research results to return leave considerable discretion to researchers. This study investigated the types of results that the public wants when participating in genetic research and whether preferences differ based on willingness to participate.

METHODS

A representative survey of US adults used conjoint analysis to measure priorities among eight principles of a results policy for a proposed large-cohort study. Policy preferences were measured using 12 tasks in which respondents chose between two groupings of the policy principles. Stratified analysis compared those self-identified as likely or unlikely to participate in genomic research.

RESULTS

Of 1,515 respondents, 56% would participate in the proposed study. All eight principles were positively endorsed by participants (all P < 0.003), with priority placed on providing results at no cost and returning well-validated results for treatable and serious diseases. Providing detailed result reports was more highly valued than providing staff to explain results (P = 0.0005). Receiving results about major changes in risk was marginally disvalued by those unlikely to participate (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Public preferences for well-validated individual research results for serious, actionable diseases agree with emerging recommendations. However, because preferences for receiving individual research results vary, some choices should be offered to research participants.

DTC-and-Me: Patient, Provider, Proteins and Regulators

The yet-unrealized potential for more "personalized" Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) tests to fundamentally alter the practice and economics of healthcare is undeniable. However, there are also many challenges to be met, including the herculean task of ensuring that the information provided by such tests is scientifically sound and, ideally, medically actionable. We consider recent events in DTC testing and suggest a "thought experiment" of an approach that could ultimately meet the needs of patients, providers and regulatory authorities.

Parents' preferences for return of results in pediatric genomic research

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to ascertain parental preferences for the return of genetic research results on themselves and their children and their choices for genetic research results to receive.

METHODS

A mail survey was sent to 6,874 families seen at Boston Children's Hospital. The survey included questions assessing the respondents' preferences regarding the types of result they wanted to receive on themselves and their children.

RESULTS

Most of the 1,060 respondents 'probably' or 'definitely' wanted to receive genetic research results about themselves (84.6%) and their children (88.0%). Among those who wanted to receive results, 83.4% wanted to receive all research results for themselves and 87.8% for their children. When questions about specific types of research results were combined into a composite measure, fewer respondents chose to receive all results for themselves (53.5%) and for their children (56.9%).

CONCLUSION

Although most parents report a desire to receive all research results on a general question, almost half chose to receive only a subset of research results when presented with specific types of research results. Our findings suggest that participants might not understand the implications of their choice of individual research results to receive unless faced with specific types of results.

The promise of using personalized genomic information to promote behavior change: is the debate over, or just beginning?

Over recent years, significant debate has centered on whether and how communication of personalized genomic risk information can positively influence health behavior change. Several thoughtful commentaries have cautioned that efforts to incorporate genomic risk feedback to motivate health behavior change have had little success. As a field, we should consider the reasons for this limited success and be strategic in the next steps for this line of research. In this article, we consider several reasons that prior research that integrates personalized genomic information has had relative degrees of success in changing or maintaining health behaviors. We suggest ways forward and outline the possibilities presented by emerging technologies and novel approaches in translational genomic research.

Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities

Genomic medicine--an aspirational term 10 years ago--is gaining momentum across the entire clinical continuum from risk assessment in healthy individuals to genome-guided treatment in patients with complex diseases. We review the latest achievements in genome research and their impact on medicine, primarily in the past decade. In most cases, genomic medicine tools remain in the realm of research, but some tools are crossing over into clinical application, where they have the potential to markedly alter the clinical care of patients. In this State of the Art Review, we highlight notable examples including the use of next-generation sequencing in cancer pharmacogenomics, in the diagnosis of rare disorders, and in the tracking of infectious disease outbreaks. We also discuss progress in dissecting the molecular basis of common diseases, the role of the host microbiome, the identification of drug response biomarkers, and the repurposing of drugs. The significant challenges of implementing genomic medicine are examined, along with the innovative solutions being sought. These challenges include the difficulty in establishing clinical validity and utility of tests, how to increase awareness and promote their uptake by clinicians, a changing regulatory and coverage landscape, the need for education, and addressing the ethical aspects of genomics for patients and society. Finally, we consider the future of genomics in medicine and offer a glimpse of the forces shaping genomic medicine, such as fundamental shifts in how we define disease, how medicine is delivered to patients, and how consumers are managing their own health and affecting change.

Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board

PURPOSE

Approaches to return individual results to participants in genomic research variably focus on actionability, duty to share, or participants' preferences. Our group at Boston Children's Hospital has prioritized participants' preferences by implementing the Gene Partnership, a genomic research repository, based on the "Informed Cohort" model that offers return of results in accordance with participant preferences. Recognizing that ethical oversight is essential, the Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board was convened in 2009.

METHODS

Over 3 years, the Informed Cohort Oversight Board developed guidelines for the return of individual genomic research results.

RESULTS

The Informed Cohort Oversight Board defined its guiding principles as follows: to respect the developing autonomy of pediatric participants and parental decision-making authority by returning results consistent with participants' preferences and to protect participants from harm. Potential harms and strategies to eliminate harm were identified. Guidelines were developed for participant preferences that consider the child's development and family dynamics. The Informed Cohort Oversight Board agreed that to prevent harm, including harms related to interfering with a child's future autonomy, there will be results that should not be returned regardless of participant preferences.

CONCLUSION

The Informed Cohort Oversight Board developed guidelines for the return of results that respect the preferences of parents, children, and adult participants while seeking to protect against harm.

Responses to FTO genetic test feedback for obesity in a sample of overweight adults: a qualitative analysis

Current evidence indicates that genetic testing for obesity risk has limited affective or behavioral impact, but few studies have explored the effects among individuals who self-identify as having weight problems. Here, we report findings from in-depth telephone interviews with seven overweight or obese volunteers who were genotyped for one weight-related gene (FTO), which may offer interesting insights into motivations to seek out genetic testing and immediate reactions to it. All participants had a BMI > 25. The gene test identified one participant as homozygous for the 'higher-risk' variant (AA), three heterozygous (AT), and three homozygous for the 'lower-risk' variant (TT) of FTO. All participants said they took part to find an explanation for their personal struggle with weight control. Those with one or two higher-risk variants experienced relief and saw the result as confirming their private assumption that they were susceptible to weight gain for reasons perceived as 'external' to them. However, at the same time, they described themselves as more motivated to overcome their genetic predisposition. Those with lower-risk variants reported brief disappointment, but then focused on alternative explanations, reinforcing the multifactorial nature of obesity. Despite objectively low 'information value,' all individuals derived some 'personal' benefit from FTO genetic test feedback. However, improving education about the multifactorial nature of complex conditions is important to decrease polarized thinking and associated genetic determinism and stigma to derive the greatest benefits of novel genetic technologies for individuals and their health.

Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies

AIM

Genomic interventions could enable improved disease stratification and individually tailored therapies. However, they have had a limited impact on clinical practice to date due to a lack of evidence, particularly economic evidence. This is partly because health economists are yet to reach consensus on whether existing methods are sufficient to evaluate genomic technologies. As different approaches may produce conflicting adoption decisions, clarification is urgently required. This article summarizes the methodological issues associated with conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A structured literature review was conducted to identify references that considered the methodological challenges faced when conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions.

RESULTS

Methodological challenges related to the analytical approach included the choice of comparator, perspective and timeframe. Challenges in costing centered around the need to collect a broad range of costs, frequently, in a data-limited environment. Measuring outcomes is problematic as standard measures have limited applicability, however, alternative metrics (e.g., personal utility) are underdeveloped and alternative approaches (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) underused. Effectiveness data quality is weak and challenging to incorporate into standard economic analyses, while little is known about patient and clinician behavior in this context. Comprehensive value of information analyses are likely to be helpful.

CONCLUSION

Economic evaluations of genomic technologies present a particular challenge for health economists. New methods may be required to resolve these issues, but the evidence to justify alternative approaches is yet to be produced. This should be the focus of future work in this field.

'Battling my biology': psychological effects of genetic testing for risk of weight gain

The availability of genetic tests for multifactorial conditions such as obesity raises concerns that higher-risk results could lead to fatalistic reactions or lower-risk results to complacency. No study has investigated the effects of genetic test feedback for the risk of obesity in non-clinical samples. The present study explored psychological and behavioral reactions to genetic test feedback for a weight related gene (FTO) in a volunteer sample (n = 18) using semi-structured interviews. Respondents perceived the gene test result as scientifically objective; removing some of the emotion attached to the issue of weight control. Those who were struggling with weight control reported relief of self-blame. There was no evidence for either complacency or fatalism; all respondents emphasized the importance of lifestyle choices in long-term weight management, although they recognized the role of both genes and environment. Regardless of the test result, respondents evaluated the testing positively and found it motivating and informative. Genetic test feedback for risk of weight gain may offer psychological benefits beyond its objectively limited clinical utility. As the role of genetic counselors is likely to expand, awareness of reasons for genetic testing for common, complex conditions and reactions to the test result is important.

Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review

There are several unresolved challenges associated with the clinical application of genome-wide sequencing technologies. One of the most discussed issues is incidental findings (IF), which are defined as discoveries made as a result of genetic testing that are unrelated to the indication for the test. The discussion surrounding IF began in the context of research, which we have used to frame consideration of IF in the clinical context. There is growing consensus that analytically valid and medically actionable IF should be offered to patients, but whether and to what extent clinicians should disclose other kinds of IF is debated. While others have systematically reviewed the literature concerning genetic IF, previous reviews focus on ethical and research-related issues and do not consider the implications for the genetic counseling profession specifically. This review discusses the practical considerations, ethical concerns and genetic counseling issues related to IF, with a particular focus on clinical genome-wide sequencing. To date, the bulk of the literature with respect to IF in the clinical context consists of commentaries, reviews and case reports. There is a need for more empirical studies to provide a foundation for institutional protocols and evidence-based clinical practice standards.

How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?

Advances in genomics have near-term impact on diagnosis and management of monogenic disorders. For common complex diseases, the use of genomic information from multiple loci (polygenic model) is generally not useful for diagnosis and individual prediction. In principle, the polygenic model could be used along with other risk factors in stratified population screening to target interventions. For example, compared to age-based criterion for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening, adding polygenic risk and family history holds promise for more efficient screening with earlier start and/or increased frequency of screening for segments of the population at higher absolute risk than an established screening threshold; and later start and/or decreased frequency of screening for segments of the population at lower risks. This approach, while promising, faces formidable challenges for building its evidence base and for its implementation in practice. Currently, it is unclear whether or not polygenic risk can contribute enough discrimination to make stratified screening worthwhile. Empirical data are lacking on population-based age-specific absolute risks combining genetic and non-genetic factors, on impact of polygenic risk genes on disease natural history, as well as information on comparative balance of benefits and harms of stratified interventions. Implementation challenges include difficulties in integration of this information in the current health-care system in the United States, the setting of appropriate risk thresholds, and ethical, legal, and social issues. In an era of direct-to-consumer availability of personal genomic information, the public health and health-care systems need to prepare for an evidence-based integration of this information into population screening.

Personalizing medicine with clinical pharmacogenetics

Clinical genetic testing has grown substantially over the past 30 years as the causative mutations for Mendelian diseases have been identified, particularly aided in part by the recent advances in molecular-based technologies. Importantly, the adoption of new tests and testing strategies (e.g., diagnostic confirmation, prenatal testing, and population-based carrier screening) has often been met with caution and careful consideration before clinical implementation, which facilitates the appropriate use of new genetic tests. Although the field of pharmacogenetics was established in the 1950s, clinical testing for constitutional pharmacogenetic variants implicated in interindividual drug response variability has only recently become available to help clinicians guide pharmacotherapy, in part due to US Food and Drug Administration-mediated product insert revisions that include pharmacogenetic information for selected drugs. However, despite pharmacogenetic associations with adverse outcomes, physician uptake of clinical pharmacogenetic testing has been slow. Compared with testing for Mendelian diseases, pharmacogenetic testing for certain indications can have a lower positive predictive value, which is one reason for underutilization. A number of other barriers remain with implementing clinical pharmacogenetics, including clinical utility, professional education, and regulatory and reimbursement issues, among others. This review presents some of the current opportunities and challenges with implementing clinical pharmacogenetic testing.

The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository

PURPOSE

Little is known about parental attitudes toward return of individual research results (IRRs) in pediatric genomic research. The aim of this study was to understand the views of the parents who enrolled their children in a genomic repository in which IRRs will be returned.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with parents of children with developmental disorders enrolled in the Gene Partnership (GP), a genomic research repository that offers to return IRRs, to learn about their understanding of the GP, motivations for enrolling their children, and expectations regarding the return of IRRs.

RESULTS

Parents hoped to receive IRRs that would help them better understand their children's condition(s). They understood that this outcome was unlikely, but hoped that their children's participation in the GP would contribute to scientific knowledge. Most parents wanted to receive all IRRs about their child, even for diseases that were severe and untreatable, citing reasons of personal utility. Parents preferred electronic delivery of the results and wanted to designate their preferences regarding what information they would receive.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important for researchers to understand participant expectations in enrolling in a research repository that offers to disclose children's IRRs in order to effectively communicate the implications to parents during the consenting process.

The role of disease characteristics in the ethical debate on personal genome testing

BACKGROUND

Companies are currently marketing personal genome tests directly-to-consumer that provide genetic susceptibility testing for a range of multifactorial diseases simultaneously. As these tests comprise multiple risk analyses for multiple diseases, they may be difficult to evaluate. Insight into morally relevant differences between diseases will assist researchers, healthcare professionals, policy-makers and other stakeholders in the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we identify and discuss four disease characteristics--severity, actionability, age of onset, and the somatic/psychiatric nature of disease--and show how these lead to specific ethical issues. By way of illustration, we apply this framework to genetic susceptibility testing for three diseases: type 2 diabetes, age-related macular degeneration and clinical depression. For these three diseases, we point out the ethical issues that are relevant to the question whether it is morally justifiable to offer genetic susceptibility testing to adults or to children or minors, and on what conditions.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests is challenging, for the ethical issues differ with the diseases tested for. An understanding of the ethical significance of disease characteristics will improve the ethical, legal and societal debate on personal genome testing.

Size of the direct-to-consumer genomic testing market

There has been enormous interest in the recent development of consumer genomics services, but very little is known about their impact. Using publicly available information, we estimate that the market for genetic susceptibility tests for complex diseases is much smaller than previously suggested, and hence consider that regulation through restrictive statutory legislation may be excessive.

Personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research in an era of fixed budgets

For personalized medicine to be widely adopted in clinical practice, stakeholders need evidence of effectiveness, cost effectiveness and financial viability. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using population based, retrospective data can inform assessments of personalized medicine. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential and the limitations of CER. While the analytic methods and data used for CER overcome many of the disadvantages of randomized controlled trials, there are significant barriers, including lack of routinely collected genetic information, patient-reported outcomes and information on new and emerging technologies. Recommendations for using CER include augmenting current data with genetic information, promoting the collection of uniform health outcomes, using value of information analysis to guide development of new technologies, and greater use of decision analysis. Finally, in order to address stakeholder concerns regarding short term financial viability, additional emphasis should be devoted to cost analysis of implementation costs and overall financial impact.

Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests

The use of predictive genetic tests is expanding rapidly. Given limited health care budgets and few national coverage decisions specifically for genetic tests, evidence of benefits and harms is a key requirement in decision making; however, assessing the benefits and harms of genetic tests raises a number of challenging issues. Frequently, evidence of medical benefits and harms is limited due to practical and ethical limitations of conducting meaningful clinical trials. Also, clinical endpoints frequently do not capture the benefit appropriately because the main purpose of many genetic tests is personal utility of knowing the test results, and costs of the tests and counseling can be insufficient indicators of the total costs of care. This study provides an overview of points to consider for the assessment of benefits and harms from genetic tests in an ethically and economically reflected manner. We discuss whether genetic tests are sufficiently exceptional to warrant exceptional methods for assessment and appraisal.

An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing

Personal genome testing is offered via the internet directly to consumers. Most tests that are currently offered use data from genome-wide scans to predict risks for multiple common diseases and traits. The utility of these tests is limited, predominantly because they lack predictive ability and clear benefits for disease prevention that are specific for genetic risk groups. In the near future, personal genome tests will likely be based on whole genome sequencing, but will these technological advances increase the utility of personal genome testing? Whole genome sequencing theoretically provides information about the risks of both monogenic and complex diseases, but the practical utility remains to be demonstrated. The utility of testing depends on the predictive ability of the test, the likelihood of actionable test results, and the options available for the reduction of risks. For monogenic diseases, the likelihood of known mutations will be extremely low in the general population and it will be a challenge to recognize new causal variants among all rare variants that are found using sequencing. For complex diseases, the predictive ability of genetic tests will be mainly restricted by the heritability of the disease, but also by the genetic complexity of the disease etiology, which determines the extent to which the heritability can be understood. Given that numerous genetic and non-genetic risk factors interact in the causation of complex diseases, the predictive ability of genetic models will likely remain modest. Personal genome testing will have minimal benefits for individual consumers unless major breakthroughs are made in the near future.

Parent opinions regarding the genetic testing of minors for BRCA1/2

PURPOSE

Although not currently recommended, genetic testing of minors for adult hereditary cancer syndromes, along with risks and benefits, is still being debated. Thus, we evaluated parent opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing of minors, in general, and hypothetically, for parents' own minor child.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess parent opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing in minors, along with parent rationale for and factors associated with these opinions.

RESULTS

In total, 246 parents at two academic cancer risk assessment programs who underwent BRCA1/2 testing completed the interview (60% response rate). In response to a dichotomous question, 37% of parents supported testing minors. Responses to an open-ended query suggest that 47% support testing minors in some or all circumstances. Parent negative BRCA1/2 test result (P = .02), parent male sex (P = .03), and minority race (P = .01) were independently associated with support of testing minors. In response to a dichotomous question, 44% of parents reported hypothetical interest in testing their own minor offspring. Responses to an open-ended query suggest that 55% would consider, hypothetically, testing their child in some or all circumstances. Parent negative test result (P = .01), less than a college education (P < .01), and older mean offspring age (P = .05) were associated with interest in testing one's own child.

CONCLUSION

Parents' opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing of minors are divided. Given the lack of evidence supporting either the permission or restriction of BRCA1/2 testing in minors, further evaluation of the risks and benefits of providing genetic risk information and genetic testing to minors for adult-onset disease is needed to inform clinical practice and guidelines.

Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability

Array genomic hybridization (AGH) provides a higher detection rate than does conventional cytogenetic testing when searching for chromosomal imbalance causing intellectual disability (ID). AGH is more costly than conventional cytogenetic testing, and it remains unclear whether AGH provides good value for money. Decision analytic modeling was used to evaluate the trade-off between costs, clinical effectiveness, and benefit of an AGH testing strategy compared to a conventional testing strategy. The trade-off between cost and effectiveness was expressed via the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed via Monte Carlo simulation. The baseline AGH testing strategy led to an average cost increase of $217 (95% CI $172-$261) per patient and an additional 8.2 diagnoses in every 100 tested (0.082; 95% CI 0.044-0.119). The mean incremental cost per additional diagnosis was $2646 (95% CI $1619-$5296). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 95% probability that AGH would be cost effective if decision makers were willing to pay $4550 for an additional diagnosis. Our model suggests that using AGH instead of conventional karyotyping for most ID patients provides good value for money. Deterministic sensitivity analysis found that employing AGH after first-line cytogenetic testing had proven uninformative did not provide good value for money when compared to using AGH as first-line testing.

The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors

One of the major anticipated benefits of genomic medicine is the area of preventive medicine. Commercially available genomic profiling is now able to generate risk information for a number of common conditions several of which have recognized preventive guidelines. Similarly, family history assessment affords powerful health risk prediction based on the shared genetic, physical and lifestyle environments within families. Thus, with the ability to help predict disease risk and enable preemptive health plans, genome-guided preventive medicine has the potential to improve population health on an individualized level. To realize this potential, steps to broaden access to accurate genomic health information must be considered. With expertise in genetic science, risk assessment and communication, and a patient-centered practice approach, genetic counselors are poised to play a critical role in facilitating the incorporation of genomic health risks into the burgeoning field of genome-guided preventive medicine.