Adverse Events in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series

Pregnancy Planning and Genetic Testing: Exploring Advantages, and Challenges

Pregnancy planning and genetic testing (PPGT) has emerged as a tool in reproductive healthcare, offering parents-to-be insight in their risks of having a child with a genetic disorder. This paper reviews the advantages, drawbacks and challenges associated with PPGT, providing some practical guidance for health care professionals. Advantages include identification of genetic risks, a possibility to informed reproductive decision-making, and the potential to reduce the parents-to-be risk for an affected child. Challenges and drawbacks include provision of service, ethical considerations, genetic counselling complexities, and the need to increase public and professional awareness by comprehensive education and accessibility. Practical guidance involves considerations for selecting appropriate candidates, counselling strategies, and how to integrate PPGT into existing healthcare frameworks. By addressing these factors, PPGT can offer an increased reproductive informed choice for the individual and the couple reducing the burden of disease in the family.

Nursing strategies to address health disparities in genomics-informed care: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to map the available global evidence on strategies that nurses can use to facilitate genomics-informed health care to address health disparities to inform the development of a research and action agenda.

INTRODUCTION

The integration of genomics into health care is improving patient outcomes through better prevention, diagnostics, and treatment; however, scholars have noted concerns with widening health disparities. Nurses work across the health system and can address health disparities from a clinical, research, education, policy, and leadership perspective. To do this, a comprehensive understanding of existing genomics-informed strategies is required.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Published (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies, systematic and literature reviews and text and opinion papers) and unpublished (gray) literature that focuses on genomics-informed nursing strategies to address health disparities over the last 10 years were included. No limitations were placed on language.

METHODS

The review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A search was undertaken on May 25, 2023, across 5 databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Gray literature was searched through websites, including the International Society of Nurses in Genetics and the Global Genomics Nursing Alliance. Abstracts, titles, and full texts were screened by 2 or more independent reviewers. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool. The coded data were analyzed by 2 or more independent reviewers using conventional content analysis and the summarized results are presented using descriptive statistics and evidence tables.

RESULTS

In total, we screened 818 records and 31 were included in the review. The majority of papers were published in either 2019 (n=5, 16%), 2020 (n=5, 16%), or 2021 (n=5, 16%). Most papers came from the United States (n=25, 81%) followed by the Netherlands (n=3, 10%), United Kingdom (n=1, 3%), Tanzania (n=1, 3%) and written from a global perspective (n=1, 3%). Nearly half the papers discussed cancer-related conditions (n=14, 45%) and most of the others did not specify a disease or condition (n=12, 30%). In terms of population, nurse clinicians were mentioned the most frequently (n=16, 52%) followed by nurse researchers, scholars, or scientists (n=8, 26%). The patient population varied, with African American patients or communities (n=7, 23%) and racial or ethnic minorities (n=6, 19%) discussed most frequently. The majority of equity issues focused on inequitable access to genetic and genomics health services amongst ethnic and racial groups (n=14, 45%), individuals with lower educational attainment or health literacy (n=6, 19%), individuals with lower socioeconomic status (n=3, 10%), migrants (n=3, 10%), individuals with lack of insurance coverage (n=2, 6%), individuals living in rural or remote areas (n=1, 3%) individuals of older age (n=1, 3%). Root causes contributing to health disparity issues varied at the patient, provider, and system levels. Strategies were grouped into 2 categories: those to prepare the nursing workforce and those nurses can implement in practice. We further categorized the strategies by domains of practice, including clinical practice, education, research, policy advocacy, and leadership. Papers that mentioned strategies focused on preparing the nursing workforce were largely related to the education domain (n=16, 52%), while papers that mentioned strategies that nurses can implement were mostly related to clinical practice (n=19, 61%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses in all domains of practice can draw on the identified strategies to address health disparities related to genomics in health care. We found a notable lack of intervention and evaluation studies exploring the impact on health and equity outcomes. Additional research informed by implementation science and that measures health outcomes is needed to identify best practices.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A French-language version of the abstract of this review is available as Supplemental Digital Content [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A65 ].

Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

PURPOSE

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

METHODS

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

RESULTS

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

A systematic review of genomic education for nurses and nursing students: Are they sufficient in the era of precision health?

BACKGROUND

Integration of genomic content into nursing curricula and continuing education is limited.

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to identify educational strategies to deliver genomics content.

METHODS

CINAHL Plus, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2003 through July 6, 2023. The three domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor were used to categorize educational outcomes. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the data using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Quality assessment for bias was conducted independently; study quality ranged from fair to poor. No study used a complete psychometrically tested instrument to measure genomic cognitive or affective knowledge; none measured the psychomotor domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective strategies to deliver genomic education are a priority. Development of reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of educational interventions, including the psychomotor skills needed for practice.

Genetic counseling access and service delivery in New York State is variable for parents of infants with complex CFTR genotypes conferring uncertain phenotypes

BACKGROUND

New York State (NYS) utilizes a three-tiered cystic fibrosis newborn screening (CFNBS) algorithm that includes cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene sequencing. Infants with >1 CFTR variant of potential clinical relevance, including variants of uncertain significance or varying clinical consequence are referred for diagnostic evaluation at NYS cystic fibrosis (CF) Specialty Care Centers (SCCs).

AIMS

As part of ongoing quality improvement efforts, demographic, screening, diagnostic, and clinical data were evaluated for 289 CFNBS-positive infants identified in NYS between December 2017 and November 2020 who did not meet diagnostic criteria for CF and were classified as either: CFTR-related metabolic syndrome/CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID) or CF carriers.

RESULTS

Overall, 194/289 (67.1%) had CFTR phasing to confirm whether the infant's CFTR variants were in cis or in trans. Eighteen complex alleles were identified in cis; known haplotypes (p.R117H+5T, p.F508del+p.L467F, and p.R74W+p.D1270N) were the most common identified. Thirty-two infants (16.5%) with all variants in cis were reclassified as CF carriers rather than CRMS/CFSPID. Among 263 infants evaluated at an NYS SCC, 70.3% were reported as having received genetic counseling about their results by any provider, with 96/263 (36.5%) counseled by a certified genetic counselor.

CONCLUSION

Given the particularly complex genetic interpretation of results generated by CFNBS algorithms including sequencing analysis, additional efforts are needed to ensure families of infants with a positive CFNBS result have CFTR phasing when needed to distinguish carriers from infants with CRMS/CFSPID, and access to genetic counseling to address implications of CFNBS results.

The UTHealth Houston Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate Program: Efficacy and Impact on Healthcare Professionals

Background

The demand for genetic services has outpaced the availability of resources, challenging clinicians untrained in genetic integration into clinical decision-making. The UTHealth Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate (CGC) program trains non-genetic healthcare professionals to recognize, assess, and refer patients with heritable cardiovascular diseases. This asynchronous online course includes 24 modules in three tiers of increasing complexity, using realistic clinical scenarios, interactive dialogues, quizzes, and tests to reinforce learning. We hypothesized that the CGC will increase genomic competencies in this underserved audience and encourage applying genomic concepts in clinical practice.

Methods

Required course evaluations include pre- and post-assessments, knowledge checks in each module, and surveys for module-specific feedback. After 6 months, longitudinal feedback surveys gathered data on the long-term impact of the course on clinical practice and conducted focused interviews with learners.

Results

The CGC was accredited in September 2022. Principal learners were nurses (24%), nurse practitioners (21%), physicians (16%), and physician assistants. Scores of 283 learners in paired pre- and post-assessments increased specific skills related to recognizing heritable diseases, understanding inheritance patterns, and interpreting genetic tests. Interviews highlighted the CGC's modular structure and linked resources as key strengths. Learners endorsed confidence to use genetic information in clinical practice, such as discussing genetic concepts and risks with patients and referring patients for genetic testing. Learners were highly likely to recommend the CGC to colleagues, citing its role in enhancing heritable disease awareness.

Conclusions

The CGC program effectively empowers non-genetic clinicians to master genomic competencies, fostering collaboration to prevent deaths from heritable cardiovascular diseases, and potentially transforming healthcare education and clinical practice.

The urgency for a change in genetics healthcare provision: views from Portuguese medical geneticists

In the last decades, genetics has experienced significant technological advancements worldwide. However, in Portugal, serious limitations persist, compromising the functioning of healthcare in medical genetics. This study aimed to promote sharing and discussion among genetic medical professionals, to outline concrete actions to address gaps in clinical practice. Three focus groups were conducted with 19 specialists in medical genetics. The data were analyzed using the thematic analysis method to extract the main themes from the discussions. From the analysis, four conceptual themes emerged: (i) framing Portuguese genetic services in light of the European context; (ii) improvement of medical genetics education and population literacy; (iii) transforming of medical genetics services; and (iv) operationalizing the change. The results demonstrated that increasing training resources and strengthening multiprofessional teams by hiring more genetic professionals, such as clinical geneticists, molecular geneticists, and other genetic specialists, is crucial to enhancing the responsiveness of genetic services. Integrating medical genetics into all specialties and primary care, as well as updating the national network of medical genetics, are critical points for increasing equity and enabling healthcare to be provided more fairly. Including other medical genetics professionals such as genetic counsellors, nurses and psychologists also plays a significant role in providing comprehensive and quality care. This collaborative approach aims to provide effective genetic assistance and enhance the adequacy of genetic healthcare. The findings are compiled as recommendations to support the profession moving forward that can be applied to other healthcare contexts worldwide.

The VUS Challenge in Cystic Kidney Disease: A Case-Based Review

Genetic testing in nephrology is becoming increasingly important to diagnose patients and to provide appropriate care. This is especially true for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) because this is a common cause of kidney failure and genetically complex. In addition to the major genes, PKD1 and PKD2 , there are at least six minor loci, and phenotypic, and in some cases, genetic overlap with other cystic disorders. Targeted next-generation sequencing, a low-cost, high-throughput technique, has made routine genetic testing viable in nephrology clinics. Appropriate pre- and post-testing genetic counseling is essential to the testing process. Carefully assessing variants is also critical, with the genetic report classifying variants in accordance with American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines. However, variant of uncertain significance (VUSs) may pose a significant challenge for the ordering clinician. In ADPKD, and particularly within PKD1 , there is high allelic heterogeneity; no single variant is present in more than 2% of families. The Mayo/Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation variant database, a research tool, is the best current database of PKD1 and PKD2 variants containing over 2300 variants identified in individuals with polycystic kidney disease, but novel variants are often identified. In patients with a high pretest probability of ADPKD on the basis of clinical criteria, but no finding of a pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant in a cystic kidney gene, additional evaluation of cystic gene VUS can be helpful. In this case-based review, we propose an algorithm for the assessment of such variants in a clinical setting and show how some can be reassigned to a diagnostic grouping. When assessing the relevance of a VUS, we consider both patient/family-specific and allele-related factors using population and variant databases and available prediction tools, as well as genetic expertise. This analysis plus further family studies can aid in making a genetic diagnosis.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling

PURPOSE

Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden.

CONCLUSION

The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Are Graduate Medical Trainees Prepared for the Personalized Genomic Medicine Revolution? Trainee Perspectives at One Institution

Although the use of genomics to inform clinical care is increasing, clinicians feel underprepared to integrate personalized medicine (PM) into care decisions. The educational needs of physician residents and fellows, also known as graduate medical trainees (GMTs), have been overlooked. We administered an anonymous, web-based survey to all GMTs participating in training programs affiliated with our institution to evaluate their knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward PM. Of the 1190 GMTs contacted, 319 (26.8%) returned surveys. Most (88.4%) respondents reported receiving PM education in the past. Although the respondents agreed that knowledge of disease genetics (80.9%) or pharmacogenetics (87.1%) would likely lead to improved clinical outcomes, only 33.2% of the respondents felt sufficiently informed about PM. The respondents who had received PM education in residency and/or fellowship had significantly higher self-reported knowledge, ability, awareness, and adoption of PM than those who had not received this education (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.01, respectively). Targeted training is needed to improve GMTs' confidence in interpreting and explaining genetic test results. The ideal timing for this education appears to be in residency and/or fellowship rather than in medical school.

Summary of the experiences, knowledge, medical management, and family communication of monoallelic MUTYH carriers

Germline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk is increasingly being performed with multigene panel testing with MUTYH often included on colorectal cancer- and polyposis-focused panels, as well as on broader pan-cancer panels. With up to 1%-2% of the general population being monoallelic MUTYH carriers, pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in MUTYH are one of the most common findings on multigene cancer panels. However, little is known about patient experience and understanding of monoallelic MUTYH P/LP variants, nor whether such findings influence medical management recommendations and familial communication, which this study aims to better understand. Monoallelic P/LP MUTYH carriers were recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT) and completed a cross-sectional self-report survey on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and family history, experiences with MUTYH genetic testing, genetics and MUTYH knowledge, perceived cancer risk, and familial communication. Of 115 eligible PROMPT participants, 49 (43%) completed the survey who were primarily female (94%), white (96%), had a history of cancer (61%), and a median age of 51.4 years. Most participants (61%) reported satisfaction with how their healthcare provider managed their genetic test result and care, and 65% of survey participants reported their provider recommended colonoscopy based on their genetic test results. Participants' responses also reflected variable levels of knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening recommendations for MUTYH carriers. The majority (98%) of participants shared their genetic test results with at least some of their relatives; however, only 13% of eligible relatives reportedly underwent cascade testing. Taken together, this study provides needed insight into the overall experiences of monoallelic MUTYH carriers and highlights numerous areas for improvement in clinician education, communication, and management of these individuals.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities

Cancer predictive or diagnostic assays, offered as Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), have been subject to regulatory authority and enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration. Many LDTs enter the market without US Food and Drug Administration or any regulatory review. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments focuses on analytic performance, but has limited oversight of the quality or utility of LDTs, including whether patients have been harmed as a result of their use. Increasingly, LDTs for cancer risk or early detection have been marketed directly to consumers, with many LDT developers depicting these tests, requested by patients but ordered by personal or company-associated physicians, as procedures falling under the practice of medicine. This patchwork of regulation and enforcement uncertainty regarding LDTs and public concerns about accuracy of tests given emergency authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT (in vitro clinical test) Development Act of 2021. This pending federal legislation represents an opportunity to harmonize regulatory policies and address growing concerns over quality, utility, and safety of LDTs for cancer genomics, including tests marketed directly to consumers. We review here questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of some cancer-related LDTs for cancer risk and presymptomatic molecular diagnosis, increasingly marketed to oncologists or directly to the worried well. We offer specific proposals to strengthen oversight of the accuracy and clinical utility of cancer genetic testing to ensure public safety.

Genetic testing and counseling for the unexplained epilepsies: An evidence‐based practice guideline of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Epilepsy, defined by the occurrence of two or more unprovoked seizures or one unprovoked seizure with a propensity for others, affects 0.64% of the population and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. A majority of unexplained epilepsy (seizures not attributed to an acquired etiology, such as trauma or infection) is estimated to have an underlying genetic etiology. Despite rapid progress in understanding of the genetic underpinnings of the epilepsies, there are no recent evidence-based guidelines for genetic testing and counseling for this population. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for approaching genetic testing in the epilepsies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision framework. We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of diagnostic yield of genetic tests in patients with epilepsy. We also compiled data from other sources, including recently submitted conference abstracts and peer-reviewed journal articles. We identified and prioritized outcomes of genetic testing as critical, important or not important and based our recommendations on outcomes deemed critical and important. We considered the desirable and undesirable effects, value and acceptability to relevant stakeholders, impact on health equity, cost-effectiveness, certainty of evidence, and feasibility of the interventions in individuals with epilepsy. Taken together, we generated two clinical recommendations: (1) Genetic testing is strongly recommended for all individuals with unexplained epilepsy, without limitation of age, with exome/genome sequencing and/or a multi-gene panel (>25 genes) as first-tier testing followed by chromosomal microarray, with exome/genome sequencing conditionally recommended over multi-gene panel. (2) It is strongly recommended that genetic tests be selected, ordered, and interpreted by a qualified healthcare provider in the setting of appropriate pre-test and post-test genetic counseling. Incorporation of genetic counselors into neurology practices and/or referral to genetics specialists are both useful models for supporting providers without genetics expertise to implement these recommendations.

Adapting a Theoretically-Based intervention for underserved clinical populations at increased risk for hereditary Cancer: Lessons learned from the BRCA-Gist experience

•

The use of GCT in underserved diverse populations is suboptimal.

•

Translational genomics research has been conducted with mostly NHW.

•

Adapting EBIs can enhance the reach of EBI to underserved diverse populations.

•

This paper describes the adaptation BRCA Gist, for at-risk Blacks and Latinas.

•

Findings illustrate the need to integrate fidelity and adaptation considerations.

Background

Minorities at increased risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) frequently have low awareness and use of genetic counseling and testing (GCT). Making sure that evidence-based interventions (EBIs) reach minorities is key to reduce disparities. BRCA-Gist is a theory-informed EBI that has been proven to be efficacious in mostly non-Hispanic White non-clinical populations. We conducted formative work to inform adaptations of BRCA-Gist for use in clinical settings with at-risk diverse women.

Methods

Genetic counselors (n = 20) were recruited nationally; at-risk Latinas and Blacks (n = 21) were recruited in Washington DC and Virginia. They completed the BRCA-Gist EBI between April 2018 – September 2019. Participants completed an acceptability scale and an interview to provide suggestions about implementation adaptations. T-tests for independent samples compared acceptability between at-risk women and genetic counselors. The Consensual Qualitative Research Framework was used to code adaptation suggestions. Suggested adaptations were discussed by a multidisciplinary team to integrate fidelity and adaptation considerations.

Results

At-risk women had a significantly higher acceptability (M = 4.17, SD = 0.47 vs. M = 3.24, SD = 0.64; p = 0.000; scale 1–5) and satisfaction scores (M = 8.3, SD = 1.3 vs. M = 4.2, SD = 2.0; p = 0.000; scale 1–10) than genetic counselors. Genetic counselors and at-risk women suggested contextual (e.g. format) and content (e.g. shortening) adaptations to enhance the fit of BRCA-Gist for diverse clinical populations.

Conclusions

Findings illustrate the process of integrating fidelity and adaptation considerations to ensure that EBIs retain their core components while enhancing the fit to minoritized clinical populations. Future studies will test the efficacy of the adapted BRCA-Gist in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Postgraduate training in Cancer Genetics-a cross-specialty survey exploring experience of clinicians in Ireland

BACKGROUND

As genomic profiling of constitutional and tumour-derived DNA becomes increasingly critical in cancer risk estimation, prognostication and treatment, there is a growing need for clinicians involved in cancer care to up-skill in Cancer Genetics. In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), this is particularly crucial, given a paucity of vocationally trained Clinical Geneticists per capita compared to other European countries.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the self-reported confidence of postgraduate medical/surgical trainees in ROI in requesting, interpreting, and managing genomic data in patients with cancer, and to assess their selfreported experience, and demand for future training in this area.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of postgraduate trainees in four specialties (Medical and Radiation Oncology, Surgery, and Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G)), training in ROI, was undertaken. A bespoke electronic questionnaire was designed to capture data regarding preceding experience, and confidence across several hypothetical clinical scenarios involving genomic testing. The survey was circulated to eligible participants by training programme administrators, after relevant institutional ethical approval. Data was collected anonymously.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 62 respondents. A paucity of cancer genetics training at every level was demonstrated, with "hardly any" or "none at all" reported by 47(76%), 62(100%), and 50(81%) during undergraduate, core specialty, and higher specialist training, respectively. A relative lack of confidence in all clinical scenarios was apparent, particularly among Surgery/O&G trainees. Most respondents would value more training in Cancer Genetics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates an unmet need in dedicated Cancer Genetics training for postgraduate specialty trainees in ROI.

Oncology Nurse Practitioners in Genetics: Examining Scope of Practice and Competence

Genomic science is rapidly evolving, and ordering germline testing requires appropriate and comprehensive assessment of a patient's personal and family history, as well as the knowledge base to facilitate selection of the best test or panel of tests, provision of pretest counseling for informed consent, interpretation of test results, post-test recommendations, and coordination of care for other at-risk family members. Prior to ordering germline genetic testing, an advanced practice RN's scope of practice accountability includes consideration of competence in the provision of genomic care. This article provides a case study to illustrate the complexities of issues related to competence when ordering germline genetic testing.

Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting

To meet current and expected future demand for genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), adjustments to traditional service delivery models are necessary. Effective programs for the training of non-genetics providers (NGPs) may address the known barriers to providing genetic services including limited genetics knowledge and lack of confidence. The SouthSeq project aims to use genome sequencing to make genomic diagnoses in the neonatal period and evaluate a scalable approach to delivering genome sequencing results to populations with limited access to genetics professionals. Thirty-three SouthSeq NGPs participated in a live, interactive training intervention and completed surveys before and after participation. Here, we describe the protocol for the provider training intervention utilized in the SouthSeq study and the associated impact on NGP knowledge and confidence in reviewing, interpreting, and using genome sequencing results. Participation in the live training intervention led to an increased level of confidence in critical skills needed for real-world implementation of genome sequencing. Providers reported a significant increase in confidence level in their ability to review, understand, and use genome sequencing result reports to guide patient care. Reported barriers to implementation of genome sequencing in a NICU setting included test cost, lack of insurance coverage, and turn around time. As implementation of genome sequencing in this setting progresses, effective education of NGPs is critical to provide access to high-quality and timely genomic medicine care.

Challenges and Errors in Genetic Testing: The Fifth Case Series

PURPOSE

In this ongoing case series, 33 genetic testing cases are documented in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly and/or in which clinicians faced challenges related to history/reports provided by patients or laboratories.

METHODS

An invitation to submit cases of challenges or errors in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, as part of a case series with Precision Oncology News, and via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Deidentified clinical documentation was requested and reviewed when available. Thirty-three cases were submitted, reviewed, and accepted. A thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve cases before submission.

RESULTS

All cases took place in the United States, involved hereditary cancer testing and/or findings in cancer predisposition genes, and involved medical-grade genetic testing, direct-to-consumer testing, or research genetic testing. In 9 cases, test results were misinterpreted, leading to incorrect screening or risk-reducing procedures being performed/recommended. In 5 cases, incorrect or unnecessary testing was ordered/recommended. In 3 cases, incorrect clinical diagnoses were made, or opportunities for diagnoses were delayed. In 3 cases, errors or challenges arose related to medical intervention after testing or reported genetic diagnosis. In 2 cases, physicians provided incorrect information related to the inheritance pattern of a syndrome. In 2 cases, there were challenges related to the interpretation of genetic variants. In 2 cases, challenges arose after direct-to-consumer testing. One case involved test results that should never have been reported based on sample quality. In 1 case, a patient presented a falsified test result. In 5 cases, multiple errors were made.

DISCUSSION

As genetic testing continues to become more complicated and common, it is critical that patients and nongenetics providers have access to accurate and timely genetic counseling information. Even as multiple medical bodies highlight the value of genetic counselors (GCs), tension exists in the genomics community as GCs work toward licensure and Medicare provider status. It is critical that health care communities leverage, rather than restrict, the expertise and experience of GCs so that patients can benefit from, and not be harmed by, genetic testing. In order to responsibly democratize genomics, it will be important for genetics and nongenetic health care providers to collaborate and use alternative service delivery models and technology solutions at point of care. To deliver on the promise of precision medicine, accurate resources and tools must be utilized.

Genetic Referral Patterns and Responses to Clinical Scenarios: A Survey of Primary Care Providers and Clinical Geneticists

Introduction:

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are considered the gatekeepers of genetic services, but they often underutilize or inappropriately utilize such services, leading to lack of early treatment, incorrect diagnoses, and unnecessary procedures. This study aims to delineate PCP referral patterns, including the frequency of, motivators for, and barriers to genetic referrals and testing in the present landscape of genomics.

Methods:

A 34-item online survey was distributed to PCPs in the United States (US). PCP demographics, practice characteristics, and referral patterns, motivators, and barriers were analyzed. Six hypothetical clinical scenarios included in the survey also were presented to a cohort of clinical geneticists. We calculated PCPs’ rates of ordering genetic tests and of referral to genetics services in the past year. Rates and responses to clinical scenarios were compared based on respondents’ personal and practice characteristics.

Results:

A total of 95 PCPs and 25 clinical geneticists participated. Among the PCPs, 79% reported referring and 50% reported ordering genetic testing in the last year. PCPs with genetic counselors (GCs) in their clinic referred at significantly higher rates than those without (P = .008). White PCPs referred at significantly higher rates compared to Black or African American PCPs (P = .009). The most commonly reported motivators for referring patients to genetic services were preference for specialist coordination, lack of knowledge, and family’s desire for risk information. The most commonly reported barriers were patient refusal, provider concerns about costs to patients, and uncertainty of when a genetic referral is appropriate. In response to clinical scenarios, clinical geneticists were in agreement about the need for genetic testing or referral for 2 of the scenarios. For these 2 scenarios, only 48% and 71% of PCPs indicated that they would offer genetic testing or referral, respectively.

Conclusions:

Responses to clinical scenarios suggest that it is not clear to PCPs when referrals or testing are needed. Collaboration with GCs is one approach to reducing barriers to and improving PCPs’ utilization of genetic services. Clear guidelines from clinical geneticists may help facilitate appropriate use of genetics services by PCPs. Additional research is needed to further describe barriers that PCPs face in genetic testing/referrals.

Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results

The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.

Using a Genomics Taxonomy: Facilitating Patient Care Safety and Quality in the Era of Precision Oncology

Oncology nurses need to be competent in the ever-expanding application of genomics in cancer care, and understanding foundational terms is necessary. A landscape analysis of Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) materials, a literature review, and expert opinion revealed inconsistencies and varying use of genomic terms, some of which are outdated. In response, the ONS Genomics Taxonomy was built to address inaccuracies and discrepancies in terms and to be an accessible resource for oncology nurses. The taxonomy is a living document that is updated to reflect evolving science and evidence and serves to diminish confusion, improve genomic literacy, and assist oncology nurses in providing safe genomic care.

Molecular genetic testing strategies used in diagnostic flow for hereditary endocrine tumour syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Although current guidelines prefer the use of targeted testing or small-scale gene panels for identification of genetic susceptibility of hereditary endocrine tumour syndromes, next generation sequencing based strategies have been widely introduced into every day clinical practice. The application of next generation sequencing allows rapid testing of multiple genes in a cost effective manner. Increasing knowledge about these techniques and the demand from health care providers and society, shift the molecular genetic testing towards using high-throughput approaches.

PURPOSE

In this expert opinion, the authors consider the molecular diagnostic workflow step by step, evaluating options and challenges of gathering family information, pre- and post-test genetic counselling, technical and bioinformatical analysis related issues and difficulties in clinical interpretation focusing on molecular genetic testing of hereditary endocrine tumour syndromes.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

Considering all these factors, a diagnostic genetic workflow is also proposed for selection of the best approach for testing of patients with hereditary genetic tumour syndromes in order to minimalize difficult interpretation, unwanted patient anxiety, unnecessary medical interventions and cost. There are potential benefits of utilizing high throughput approaches however, important limitations have to be considered and should discussed towards the clinicians and patients.

Call for improvement in medical school training in genetics: results of a national survey

PURPOSE

To assess, from the student perspective, medical school training in genetics and genomics.

METHODS

In 2019, the Undergraduate Training in Genomics (UTRIG) Working Group developed genetics-related survey and knowledge questions for the RISE-FIRST, an exam administered to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pathology residents in the United States during their first months of training. Survey questions focused on perceived knowledge in genetics and the structure and quality of training with responses compared with those in control areas.

RESULTS

There were 401 PGY1 pathology residents who took the 2019 RISE-FIRST (65% of those in the United States). There was significantly lower perceived understanding of genetics compared with nongenetics topics. Respondents also reported less time spent learning genetics and lower quality training compared with control areas. Only 53% indicated an interaction during medical school with a medical geneticist. Residents also did not perform as well on the UTRIG-developed knowledge questions than those in other areas of pathology.

CONCLUSION

The RISE-FIRST is a useful tool in assessing the current state of medical school training in genetics. This needs assessment may serve as a call to action to improve medical school genetics education and promote greater understanding of the role of genetics professionals in patient care.

The role of genomics in global cancer prevention

Despite improvements in the understanding of cancer causation, much remains unknown regarding the mechanisms by which genomic and non-genomic factors initiate carcinogenesis, drive cell invasion and metastasis, and enable cancer to develop. Technological advances have enabled the analysis of whole genomes, comprising thousands of tumours across populations worldwide, with the aim of identifying mutation signatures associated with particular tumour types. Large collaborative efforts have resulted in the identification and improved understanding of causal factors, and have shed light on new opportunities to prevent cancer. In this new era in cancer genomics, discoveries from studies conducted on an international scale can inform evidence-based strategies in cancer control along the cancer care continuum, from prevention to treatment. In this Review, we present the relevant history and emerging frontiers of cancer genetics and genomics from the perspective of global cancer prevention. We highlight the importance of local context in the adoption of new technologies and emergent evidence, with illustrative examples from worldwide. We emphasize the challenges in implementing important genomic findings in clinical settings with disparate resource availability and present a conceptual framework for the translation of such findings into clinical practice, and evidence-based policies in order to maximize the utility for a population.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

[Hereditary cancer syndromes: a modern paradigm]

About 5-10% of malignant neoplasms (MN) are hereditary. Carriers of mutations associated with hereditary tumor syndromes (HTS) are at high risk of developing tumors in childhood and young age and synchronous and metachronous multiple tumors. At the same time, this group of diseases remains mainly an oncological problem, and clinical decisions are made only when MNs are detected in carriers of pathogenic mutations.Individual recommendations for cancer screening, treatment, and prevention should be developed for carriers of mutations associated with HTS to prevent an adverse outcome of the disease. It is essential to identify patients at risk by doctors of all specialties for further referral to medical and genetic counseling with molecular genetic testing (in case of indications). The problems of standardization of enrollment criteria for genetic tests, further tactics of prevention, screening, and treatment of many hereditary oncological diseases remain unsolved.This review was created to inform doctors of various specialties, including endocrinologists, about the HTS. This allows them to get acquainted with main clinical features of specific syndromes, helps to understand the difference between hereditary and non-hereditary cancer, recognize signs of hereditary cancer, and introduce the indications for genetic examination and genetic counseling of the patient. Also, significant differences between international and domestic recommendations on screening measures, diagnosis, and treatment of HTS underline the need to review the existing and develop new algorithms for medical support of patients with HTS.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Genetic counselors' perspectives on population-based screening for BRCA-related hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome

Early identification of those with BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome has the potential for early cancer detection and/or prevention; as such, these conditions are considered Tier 1 genetic conditions by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Given the decreasing cost of genetic testing, population-based screening (PBS) for such conditions may be the next step toward cancer prevention. This study aimed to understand genetic counselors' perspectives toward offering PBS for the Tier 1 conditions BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch syndrome. An online survey was distributed to 3,609 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. A total of 367 individuals participated in the study. Fifty percent of respondents felt that PBS for inherited cancer should not be offered; 93.3% felt that the current healthcare system is unprepared for implementation of PBS. However, most respondents agreed that PBS should be implemented within the next 10 years. Attitudes toward offering PBS were associated with respondents' work setting, cancer specialization, and perceived preparedness (p's < 0.05). The most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of PBS were shortage of genetic professionals and lack of infrastructure. Data in this study provide evidence that infrastructural barriers and educational gaps of non-genetic professionals would need to be addressed before successful integration of PBS into the healthcare system.

Genetic testing for hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes: Interpreting results in today's practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in genomics have led to the discovery of multiple predisposition genes linked to increased risk for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. The goal of this review is to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in understanding the current paradigm shift in clinical genetic testing for hereditary GI cancer predisposition syndromes; with a focus on multigene panel testing (MGPT) and test results interpretation. Additionally, this review introduces direct-to-consumer and at-home genetic testing. Both delivery models are increasing in popularity and clinicians will be expected to address results from patients who utilize these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Technological advancement and reduced costs have transformed the genetic testing approach from single syndrome genetic testing to broad-based MGPT. MGPT has the benefit of aiding in efficient genetic diagnosis; however, clinicians should be knowledgeable of possible results including variants of uncertain significance, secondary findings, and pathogenic variants within high- and low-to-moderate risk genes, as well as genes for which risks are ill-defined. The landscape of clinical cancer genetics continues to evolve rapidly. Timely updates are critical to ensure the medical community is familiar with current considerations and ongoing challenges regarding genetic testing for hereditary GI cancer susceptibility.