Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study

A Practical Guide to Genetic Testing for Kidney Disorders of Unknown Etiology

Genetic testing is increasingly used in the workup and diagnosis of kidney disease and kidney-related disorders of undetermined cause. Out-of-pocket costs for clinical genetic testing have become affordable, and logistical hurdles overcome. The interest in genetic testing may stem from the need to make or confirm a diagnosis, guide management, or the patient's desire to have a more informed explanation or prognosis. This poses a challenge for providers who do not have formal training in the selection, interpretation, and limitations of genetic tests. In this manuscript, we provide detailed discussion of relevant cases in which clinical genetic testing using a kidney gene panel was applied. The cases demonstrate identification of pathogenic variants for monogenic diseases-contrasting them from genetic risk alleles-and bring up diagnostic limitations and diagnostic utility of these tests in nephrology. This review aims to guide clinicians in formulating pretest conversations with their patients, interpreting genetic variant nomenclature, and considering follow-up investigations. Although providers are gaining experience, there is still risk of testing causing more anxiety than benefit. However, with provider education and support, clinical genetic testing applied to otherwise unexplained kidney-related disorders will increasingly serve as a valuable diagnostic tool with the potential to reshape how we consider and treat many kidney-related diagnoses.

Communicating Personal Melanoma Polygenic Risk Information: Participants’ Experiences of Genetic Counseling in a Community-Based Study

Personalized polygenic risk information may be used to guide risk-based melanoma prevention and early detection at a population scale, but research on communicating this information is limited. This mixed-methods study aimed to assess the acceptability of a genetic counselor (GC) phone call in communicating polygenic risk information in the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 509) received personalized melanoma polygenic risk information, an educational booklet on melanoma prevention, and a GC phone call, which was audio-recorded. Participants completed the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Survey 1-month after receiving their risk information (n = 346). A subgroup took part in a qualitative interview post-study completion (n = 20). Survey data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, and thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using NVivo 12.0 software. The survey showed a high level of acceptability for the GC phone call (mean satisfaction score overall: 4.3 out of 5, standard deviation (SD): 0.6) with differences according to gender (mean score for women: 4.4, SD: 0.6 vs. men: 4.2, SD: 0.7; p = 0.005), health literacy (lower literacy: 4.1, SD: 0.8; average: 4.3, SD: 0.6; higher: 4.4, SD: 0.6: p = 0.02) and polygenic risk group (low risk: 4.5, SD: 0.5, SD: average: 4.3, SD: 0.7, high: 4.3, SD: 0.7; p = 0.03). During the GC phone calls, the discussion predominately related to the impact of past sun exposure on personal melanoma risk. Together our findings point to the importance of further exploring educational and support needs and preferences for communicating personalized melanoma risk among population subgroups, including diverse literacy levels.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis

Background

The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research.

Objective

This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research.

Methods

Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute–designated academic cancer center.

Results

There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol.

Conclusions

Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

Framing Effects on Decision-Making for Diagnostic Genetic Testing: Results from a Randomized Trial

Genetic testing is increasingly part of routine clinical care. However, testing decisions may be characterized by regret as findings also implicate blood relatives. It is not known if genetic testing decisions are affected by the way information is presented (i.e., framing effects). We employed a randomized factorial design to examine framing effects on hypothetical genetic testing scenarios (common, life-threatening disease and rare, life-altering disease). Participants (n = 1012) received one of six decision frames: choice, default (n = 2; opt-in, opt-out), or enhanced choice (n = 3, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior). We compared testing decision, satisfaction, regret, and decision cognitions across decision frames and between scenarios. Participants randomized to ‘choice’ were least likely to opt for genetic testing compared with default and enhanced choice frames (78% vs. 83–91%, p < 0.05). Neither satisfaction nor regret differed across frames. Perceived autonomy (behavioral control) predicted satisfaction (B = 0.085, p < 0.001) while lack of control predicted regret (B = 0.346, p < 0.001). Opting for genetic testing did not differ between disease scenarios (p = 0.23). Results suggest framing can nudge individuals towards opting for genetic testing. These findings have important implications for individual self-determination in the genomic era. Similarities between scenarios with disparate disease trajectories point to possible modular approaches for web-based decisional support.

A decision aid for additional findings in genomic sequencing: Development and pilot testing

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a web-based, patient-facing decision aid to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing.

METHODS

We developed the decision aid following the multi-step process described in the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. This utilized literature review, focus groups, and alpha testing with research participants undergoing clinical genomic sequencing.

RESULTS

The decision aid, the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA), includes a seven-question "values clarification exercise," illustrative patient quotes, and summative guidance for the user. The decision aid was found to be highly readable, acceptable and relevant in alpha testing.

CONCLUSION

We developed a decision aid to support informed, values-based decision making for patients and research participants considering whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing. ORCA is being implemented in the NHGRI-funded Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study, where we are measuring informed values-choice congruence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ORCA was designed to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing.

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Genetic counseling for patients with positive genomic screening results: Considerations for when the genetic test comes first

Emerging genetic testing delivery models have enabled individuals to receive testing without a medical indication. This article will highlight key considerations for patient care in the setting of adult patients with positive results for monogenic disease identified through genomic screening. Suggestions for how to adapt genetic counseling to a genomic screening population will encompass topics such as phenotyping, risk assessments, and the use of existing guidelines and resources. Case examples will demonstrate principles of genotype-first patient care.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening

Purpose:

Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of healthcare needs.

Methods:

As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, AZ, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments.

Results:

Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation.

Conclusion:

Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings.

"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.

Understanding Taiwanese Women's Decisional Experiences Regarding Prenatal Screening Procedures And Diagnostics: A Phenomenological Study

PURPOSE

This study sought to understand Taiwanese women's decisional experiences regarding prenatal screening procedures and diagnostics.

METHODS

A hermeneutic phenomenological design guided semistructured interviews with 33 women who were 36 weeks pregnant. Data were collected between February and October 2016. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed following hermeneutic circle to cocreate an understanding of Taiwanese women's decision-making in prenatal screening and diagnostics.

RESULTS

Women's existential experiences were derived from their decision-making process on prenatal screening procedures and diagnostics for chromosomal aneuploidy. These decisional experiences were captured by four theme clusters and eight themes, which were inductively derived from 16 meaning units: (1) accessing health information; (2) considering what was best for my baby; (3) considering family finance; and (4) feeling anxiety posttest.

CONCLUSION

Participants made informed choices on several prenatal screening procedures, ostensibly, based on their personal values and considerations. During the decision-making process, often-cited benefits of genetic screenings were emphasized, but test limitations were often unheeded. A fundamental need for supportive information in decision making was further identified with recommended strategies. Hence, a revision of traditional genetic counseling approaches is recommended. As genomics technologies are increasingly available during antenatal services, women should be sufficiently educated about them to support decision making.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail

PURPOSE

As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results.

METHODS

An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Information Women Choose to Receive About Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the choices of women with both high-risk and low-risk pregnancies who are undergoing prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a clinical setting regarding three challenging types of findings: variants of uncertain clinical significance, susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental disorders, and copy number variants associated with risks for adult-onset conditions. We assessed whether women's choices were associated with indications for testing or with one-on-one pretest genetic counseling.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, medical records of women who underwent invasive prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis testing (N=1,070) at Hadassah Medical Center between June 2017 and February 2018 were examined for testing indications, choices regarding chromosomal microarray analysis findings, and type of pretest genetic counseling. Multivariable analyses to assess associations with testing indication and prior genetic counseling were carried out using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 56% of women (n=593) chose to be informed of all three types of findings and 20% (n=218) chose not to be informed of any of the findings beyond high-penetrance childhood-onset pathogenic findings. Variants of uncertain clinical significance as a single choice was the least-selected finding (2.5%, n=27). Low-risk pregnancies (ie, those with normal biochemical screening and fetal ultrasound examinations) were associated with increased interest in receiving genetic information about adult-onset conditions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; 95% CI 1.18-2.33) and susceptibility loci (aOR 1.5; 95% CI 1.08-2.10).

CONCLUSION

Women with both high-risk and low-risk pregnancies were generally more likely to choose to receive additional genetic information, albeit differences in preferences depend on testing indication and type of pretest counseling.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.