Views of primary care providers regarding the return of genome sequencing incidental findings

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank

Purpose

Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.

Methods

We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.

Results

Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).

Conclusion

PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect?

Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.

Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings

The present study represents an initial step in understanding diverse academic perspectives on the disclosure of secondary findings (SFs) from genetic research conducted in Africa. Using an online survey completed by 674 university students and academic staff in South Africa, we elicited attitudes towards the return of SFs. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to classify sub-groups of participants according to their overall attitudes to returning SFs. We did not find substantial differences in attitudes towards the return of findings between staff and students. Overall, respondents were in favour of the return of SFs in genetics research, depending on the type. The majority of survey respondents (80%) indicated that research participants should be given the option of deciding whether to have genetic SFs returned. LCA revealed that the largest group (53%) comprised individuals with more favourable attitudes to the return of SFs in genetics research. Those with less favourable attitudes comprised only 4% of the sample. This study provides important insights that may, together with further empirical evidence, inform the development of research guidelines and policy to assist healthcare professionals and researchers.

Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs.

CONCLUSION

This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature

With the development of next generation sequencing, beyond identifying the cause of manifestations that justified prescription of the test, other information with potential interest for patients and their families, defined as secondary findings (SF), can be provided once patients have given informed consent, in particular when therapeutic and preventive options are available. The disclosure of such findings has caused much debate. The aim of this work was to summarize all opinion-based studies focusing on SF, so as to shed light on the concerns that this question generate. A review of the literature was performed, focusing on all PubMed articles reporting qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies that interviewed healthcare providers, participants, or society regarding this subject. The methodology was carefully analysed, in particular whether or not studies made the distinction between actionable and non-actionable SF, in a clinical or research context. From 2010 to 2016, 39 articles were compiled. A total of 14,868 people were interviewed (1259 participants, 6104 healthcare providers, 7505 representatives of society). When actionable and non-actionable SF were distinguished (20 articles), 92% of respondents were keen to have results regarding actionable SF (participants: 88%, healthcare providers: 86%, society: 97%), against 70% (participants: 83%, healthcare providers: 62%, society: 73%) for non-actionable SF. These percentages were slightly lower in the specific situation of children probands. For respondents, the notion of the «patient's choice» is crucial. For healthcare providers, the importance of defining policies for SF among diagnostic lab, learning societies and/or countries is outlined, in particular regarding the content and extension of the list of actionable genes to propose, the modalities of information, and the access to information about adult-onset diseases in minors. However, the existing literature should be taken with caution, since most articles lack a clear definition of SF and actionability, and referred to hypothetical scenarios with limited information to respondents. Studies conducted by multidisciplinary teams involving patients with access to results are sadly lacking, in particular in the medium term after the results have been given. Such studies would feed the debate and make it possible to measure the impact of such findings and their benefit-risk ratio.

Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results

There are ongoing debates on issues relating to returning individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) generated by genetic research in population-based biobanks. To understand how to appropriately return genetic results from biobank studies, we surveyed preferences for returning IRRs and IFs among participants of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (TMM). We mailed a questionnaire to individuals enrolled in the TMM cohort study (Group 1; n=1031) and a group of Tohoku region residents (Group 2; n=2314). The respondents were required to be over 20 years of age. Nearly 90% of Group 1 participants and over 80% of Group 2 participants expressed a preference for receiving their genetic test results. Furthermore, over 60% of both groups preferred to receive their genetic results ‘from a genetic specialist.’ A logistic regression analysis revealed that engaging in ‘health-conscious behaviors’ (such as regular physical activity, having a healthy diet, intentionally reducing alcohol intake and/or smoking and so on) was significant, positively associated with preferring to receive their genetic test results (odds ratio=2.397 (Group 1) and 1.897 (Group 2)). Our findings provided useful information and predictors regarding the return of IRRs and IFs in a population-based biobank.

Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm?

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the consequences of returning whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in paediatrics and facilitate its evidence-based clinical implementation, we studied parents' experiences with WGS and their preferences for the return of adult-onset secondary variants (SVs)-medically actionable genomic variants unrelated to their child's current medical condition that predict adult-onset disease.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with parents whose children were undergoing WGS as part of the SickKids Genome Clinic, a research project that studies the impact of clinical WGS on patients, families, and the healthcare system. Interviews probed parents' experience with and motivation for WGS as well as their preferences related to SVs. Interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Of 83 invited, 23 parents from 18 families participated. These parents supported WGS as a diagnostic test, perceiving clear intrinsic and instrumental value. However, many parents were ambivalent about receiving SVs, conveying a sense of self-imposed obligation to take on the 'weight' of knowing their child's SVs, however unpleasant. Some parents chose to learn about adult-onset SVs for their child but not for themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite general enthusiasm for WGS as a diagnostic test, many parents felt a duty to learn adult-onset SVs. Analogous to 'inflicted insight', we call this phenomenon 'inflicted ought'. Importantly, not all parents of children undergoing WGS view the best interests of their child in relational terms, thereby challenging an underlying justification for current ACMG guidelines for reporting incidental secondary findings from whole exome and WGS.

Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs)

Whole genome or exome sequencing is increasingly used in the clinical contexts, and ‘incidental’ findings are generated. There is need for an adequate policy for the reporting of these findings to individuals. Such a policy has been suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). We argue that ACMG’s policy is overly paternalistic, and that an adequate policy must take into account population preferences. We conducted a choice based conjoint survey of population preferences for reporting in a representative sample of the Danish population. In a 12 task survey respondents were asked about their preference for reporting in relation to three scenarios with seven different attributes. Of 1200 respondents 66.4% participated. We show that population preferences for reporting differs from ACMG’s recommendations, and suggest a new policy based on both medically and patient actionable genes.

Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice

The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

PURPOSE

As whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate regarding secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit.

METHODS

We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning "actionable" findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients' views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, whereas views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience with genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision making about SF and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.Genet Med 19 3, 283-293.

Attitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey

To investigate public attitudes towards receiving genetic information arising from a test on a relative, 955 University of Sheffield students and staff were surveyed using disease vignettes. Strength of attitude was measured on whether, in the event of relevant information being discovered, they, as an at-risk relative, would want to be informed, whether the at-risk relative's interest should override proband confidentiality, and, if they had been the proband, willingness to give up confidentiality to inform such relatives. Results indicated considerably more complexity to the decision-making than simple statistical risk. Desire for information only slightly increased with risk of disease manifestation [log odds 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) per percentage point increase in manifestation risk]. Condition preventability was the primary factor increasing desire [modifiable baseline, non-preventable log odds -1.74 (-2.04, -1.44); preventable 0.64 (0.34, 0.95)]. Disease seriousness also increased desire [serious baseline, non-serious log odds -0.89 (-1.19, -0.59); fatal 0.55 (0.25, 0.86)]. Individuals with lower education levels exhibited much greater desire to be informed [GCSE log odds 1.67 (0.64, 2.66)]. Age did not affect desire. Our findings suggest that attitudes were influenced more by disease characteristics than statistical risk. Respondents generally expressed strong attitudes demonstrating that this was not an issue which people felt ambivalent about. We provide estimates of the British population in favour/against disclosure for various disease scenarios.

Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening

Since newborn screening (NBS) began in the 1960s, technological advances have enabled its expansion to include an increasing number of disorders. Recent developments now make it possible to sequence an infant's genome relatively quickly and economically. Clinical application of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing is expanding at a rapid pace but presents many challenges. Its utility in NBS has yet to be demonstrated and its application in the pediatric population requires examination, not only for potential clinical benefits, but also for the unique ethical challenges it presents.

Actionable clinical decisions based on comprehensive genomic evaluation in asymptomatic adults

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) arises as a new approach in diagnosing individuals affected by multigenic and complex phenotypes. Herein, we aim to examine whether WES is useful in screening asymptomatic individuals for actionable interventions, which has not yet been established. Twenty-five healthy adults underwent WES, bioinformatics, and manual curation of their exomes. Six participants (24%) harbored significant, management-changing variants in cancer predisposition genes, American College of Medical Genetics, and genomics reportable cardiac diseases and pharmacogenomic biomarkers that have led to clinical recommendations and interventions. Furthermore, more than 80% of the participants (21) carried 1–3 genetic variants with an associated clinical guideline for an altered drug dosing or administration based on the FDA’s table of pharmacogenomics. These results support WES potential not only to answer specific diagnostic questions presented by the relevant personal and/or family history but also to uncover clinically important genetic findings unrelated to the primary indication for sequencing.

Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research

Genome-wide sequencing in a research setting has the potential to reveal health-related information of personal or clinical utility for the study participant. There is increasing pressure to return research findings to participants that may not be related to the project aims, particularly when these could be used to prevent disease. Such secondary, unsolicited or 'incidental findings' (IFs) may be discovered unintentionally when interpreting sequence data, or as the result of a deliberate opportunistic screen. This cross-sectional, web-based survey investigated attitudes of 6944 individuals from 75 countries towards returning IFs from genome research. Participants included four relevant stakeholder groups: 4961 members of the public, 533 genetic health professionals, 843 non-genetic health professionals and 607 genomic researchers who were invited via traditional media, social media and professional e-mail list-serve. Treatability and perceived utility of incidental results were deemed important with 98% of stakeholders personally interested in learning about preventable life-threatening conditions. Although there was a generic interest in receiving genomic information, stakeholders did not expect researchers to opportunistically screen for IFs in a research setting. On many items, genetic health professionals had significantly more conservative views compared with other stakeholders. This finding demonstrates a disconnect between the views of those handling the findings of research and those participating in research. Exploring, evaluating and ultimately addressing this disconnect should form a priority for researchers and clinicians alike. This social sciences study offers the largest dataset, published to date, of attitudes towards issues surrounding the return of IFs from sequencing research.

Practical considerations in the clinical application of whole-exome sequencing

Despite the exciting advent of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in medical genetics practices, the optimal interpretation of results requires further actions such as reconsidering clinical information and obtaining further laboratory testing. There are no published data to guide clinicians in this process. In a retrospective study on 93 patients who underwent clinical WES, we set out to assess and resolve these practical challenges. With the laboratories reporting a molecular diagnostic rate of 25.8%, the medical geneticists and the laboratories were 90% concordant in their interpretation of the WES results. Divergence occurred when the medical geneticist reconsidered clinical information and/or additional information regarding pathogenicity of a variant. Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 86% of patients, with 53.7% needing follow-up, such as additional laboratory tests and genotyping of family members. By layering clinical data (e.g. mode of inheritance and phenotypic fit) on to the laboratory results, we developed clinical categories for the WES results. These categories of definite diagnosis (14/93), likely diagnosis (8/93), possible diagnosis (13/93) and no diagnosis (58/93) could be used to convey results to patients uniformly. Our framework for a clinically informed interpretation of the results enhances the utility of WES within medical genetics practices.

On the justifiability of ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing

This paper examines three possible justifications for original ACMG recommendations to return incidental findings from whole exome or genome sequencing independent of patient preferences. The first two potential justifications, based on a patient's authentic values, then on harms to others, are founding lacking as a basis of justification for these recommendations. The third, grounded in analogous professional practices, might serve as a potential justification if several controversies can be avoided. However, given the nature of these controversies and the need to instill public trust in this newly emerging science, the paper finds that updated ACMG recommendations that recognize opt-out rights on behalf of patients is the most prudent, and justifiable, approach.

Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to survey American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics members about secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was mailed to 1,687 members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Exploratory factor analysis identified underlying factors assessed by survey items. Linear regression assessed associations between factor scores and respondent characteristics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 29%. Four factors explained 51% of the survey variance: best practices, patient preferences, guidance, and informed consent. Most agreed with "best practice" items describing seeking and reporting of secondary findings as consistent with medical standards, having sufficient evidence, and, for adults, the benefits generally outweighing potential harms. There was lack of agreement regarding benefits versus harms for children and impact on health-care resources. The majority agreed that patient preferences should be considered, including ability to opt out, and that informed consent was feasible and critical. Characteristics significantly associated with factor scores included country of residence, sequencing experience, and years in practice.

CONCLUSION

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics should update a list of genes to be assessed when clinical genome-scale sequencing is performed. Informed consent is necessary, and reporting of secondary findings should be optional. Research on implementation of secondary findings reporting is needed.