A one-page summary report of genome sequencing for the healthy adult

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

A personalized genomic results e-booklet, co-designed and pilot-tested by families

Objective

To develop and evaluate a personalizable genomic results e-booklet that helps families understand their genomic testing results and navigate available resources.

Methods

The need for the Genomics Results e-Booklet was identified by families, after which this tool was developed by a team of clinical researchers and three parent-advisors. We customized the genomic results e-booklet for 50 families participating in a genomic sequencing research study. We conducted an assessment using a 19-question survey and semi-structured interviews to elicit feedback and iteratively improve the tool.

Results

25 users provided feedback via questionnaires and seven respondents were interviewed. Genomic Results e-Booklet recipients responded favorably: 96% of participants stated that it helped them remember information shared during their results appointment, 80% said it had or would help them communicate their results with other healthcare providers, 68% felt that it helped to identify and guide their next steps, and 72% anticipated that the e-booklet would have future utility.

Conclusion

The Genomic Results e-Booklet is a patient and family-oriented resource that complements post-test genetic counselling.

Innovation

Compared to traditional laboratory reports and clinical letters, the Genomics Results e-Booklet is patient-conceived and patient-centered, and allows clinicians to efficiently personalize content and prioritize patient understanding and support.

Investigating the presentation of uncertainty in an icon array: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are often advised to use pictographs to communicate risk, but whether they offer benefits when communicating risk imprecision (e.g., 65%-79%) is unknown.

PURPOSE

To test whether any of three approaches to visualizing imprecision would more effectively communicate breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers.

METHODS

1,300 UK residents were presented with a genetic report with information about BRCA1-related risks, with random assignment to one of four formats: no visualization (text alone), or a pictograph using shaded icons, a gradient, or arrows marking range endpoints. We also tested pictographs in two layouts. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression was employed.

RESULTS

There was no effect of format. Participants shown pictographs vs. text alone had better uptake of breast cancer risk messages (p < .05, η ² = 0.003). Pictographs facilitated memory for the specific amount of risk (p < 0.001, η ² = 0.019), as did the tabular layout. Individuals not having completed upper secondary education may benefit most.

CONCLUSIONS

We found weak evidence in favor of using simple pictographs with ranges to communicate BRCA risk (versus text alone), and of the tabular layout.

INNOVATION

Testing different ways of communicating imprecision within pictographs is a novel and promising line of research.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).

Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project

PURPOSE

With few trained genetics professionals, the Military Health System is ill-equipped to manage the rapid expansion of genomic medicine. The MilSeq Project introduces an alternative service delivery model (ASDM) in which primary health-care providers (HCPs) provide post-test counseling (PTC) to healthy Airmen who have undergone exome sequencing. We describe HCP performance after a prerequisite educational intervention (EI).

METHODS

After a brief EI and pre-/posteducation surveys, HCPs were eligible to provide PTC with a genetic counselor available for consult. PTC was recorded, transcribed, and reviewed. Opportunities for improvement were organized into four error adjustment categories: (1) knowledge limitation, (2) minor, (3) moderate, and (4) critical. Thematic analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Pre-/posteducation survey responses revealed statistically significant improvements in all domains. Minor error adjustments were most represented (n = 93), followed by knowledge limitation (n = 39) and moderate (n = 19). No critical errors were identified, and 17 transcripts required no adjustment. Thematic analysis revealed four themes that would benefit from more focused education: (1) family-centered care, (2) conveying risk, (3) disease knowledge, and (4) assay knowledge.

CONCLUSION

HCPs demonstrated competence in basic PTC after a brief EI. This ASDM may be a viable interim response to the shortage of genetics professionals in some systems.

The Clinical Genome and Ancestry Report: An interactive web application for prioritizing clinically implicated variants from genome sequencing data with ancestry composition

Genome sequencing is positioned as a routine clinical work-up for diverse clinical conditions. A commonly used approach to highlight candidate variants with potential clinical implication is to search over locus- and gene-centric knowledge databases. Most web-based applications allow a federated query across diverse databases for a single variant; however, sifting through a large number of genomic variants with combination of filtering criteria is a substantial challenge. Here we describe the Clinical Genome and Ancestry Report (CGAR), an interactive web application developed to follow clinical interpretation workflows by organizing variants into seven categories: (1) reported disease-associated variants, (2) rare- and high-impact variants in putative disease-associated genes, (3) secondary findings that the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommends reporting back to patients, (4) actionable pharmacogenomic variants, (5) focused reports for candidate genes, (6) de novo variant candidates for trio analysis, and (7) germline and somatic variants implicated in cancer risk, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. For each variant, a comprehensive list of external links to variant-centric and phenotype databases are provided. Furthermore, genotype-derived ancestral composition is used to highlight allele frequencies from a matched population since some disease-associated variants show a wide variation between populations. CGAR is an open-source software and is available at https://tom.tch.harvard.edu/apps/cgar/.

Clinical application of genomic high-throughput data: Infrastructural, ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects

Genomic high-throughput technologies (GHTT) such as next-generation sequencing represent a fast and cost-effective tool toward a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular background of complex diseases. However, technological advances contrast with insufficient application in clinical practice. Thus, patients, physicians, and other professionals are faced with tough challenges that forestall the efficient and effective implementation. With the increasing application of genetic testing, it is of paramount importance that physicians and other professionals in healthcare recognize the restrictions and potential of GHTT, in order to understand and interpret the complex data in the context of health and disease. At the same time, the growing volume and complexity of data is forever increasing the need for sustainable infrastructure and state-of-the-art tools for efficient data management, including their analysis and integration. The large pool of sensitive information remains difficult to interpret and fundamental questions spanning from billing to legal, social, and ethical issues have still not been resolved. Here we summarize and discuss these obstacles in an interdisciplinary context and suggest ways to overcome them. Continuous discussion with clinicians, data managers, biostatisticians, systems medicine experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and patients illuminates the strengths, weakness, and current practices in the pipeline from biomaterial to sequencing and data management. This discussion also highlights the new, cross-disciplinary working collaborations to realize the wide-ranging challenges in clinical genomics including the exceptional demands placed on the staff preparing and presenting the data, as well as the question as to how to report the data and results to patients.

Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend that genetic reports should be clear to nonspecialists, including patients. We investigated the feasibility of creating reports for cystic fibrosis carrier testing through a rapid user-centered design process that built on a previously developed generic template. We evaluated the new reports' communication efficacy and effects on comprehension against comparable reports used in current clinical practice.

METHODS

Thirty participants took part in three rounds of interviews. Usability problems were identified and rectified in each round. One hundred ninety-three participants took part in an evaluation of the resulting reports measuring subjective comprehension, risk probability comprehension, perceived communication efficacy, and other factors, as compared with standard reports.

RESULTS

Participants viewing the user-centered reports rated them as clearer, easier to understand, and more effective at communicating key information than standard reports. Both groups ended up with equivalent knowledge of risk probabilities, although we observed differences in how those probabilities were perceived.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that by starting with a patient-friendly generic report template and modifying it for specific scenarios with a rapid user-centered design process, reports can be produced that are more effective at communicating key information. The resulting reports are now being implemented into clinical care.

Implementation of genomics in medical practice to deliver precision medicine for an Asian population

Whilst the underlying principles of precision medicine are comparable across the globe, genomic references, health practices, costs and discrimination policies differ in Asian settings compared to the reported initiatives involving European-derived populations. We have addressed these variables by developing an evolving reference base of genomic and phenotypic data and a framework to return medically significant variants to consenting research participants applicable for the Asian context. Targeting 10,000 participants, over 2000 Singaporeans, with no known pre-existing health conditions, have consented to an extensive clinical health screen, family health history collection, genome sequencing and ongoing follow-up. Genomic variants in a subset of genes associated with Mendelian disorders and drug responses are analysed using an in-house bioinformatics pipeline. A multidisciplinary team reviews the classification of variants and a research report is generated. Medically significant variants are returned to consenting participants through a bespoke return-of-result genomics clinic. Variant validation and subsequent clinical referral are advised as appropriate. The design and implementation of this flexible learning framework enables a cohort of detailed phenotyping and genotyping of healthy Singaporeans to be established and the frequency of disease-causing variants in this population to be determined. Our findings will contribute to international precision medicine initiatives, bridging gaps with ethnic-specific data and insights from this understudied population.

A comparison of genomic laboratory reports and observations that may enhance their clinical utility for providers and patients

Purpose

To assess clinical chromosomal microarray (CMA) genomic testing reports for the following: (a) usage of reporting elements consistent with 2011 ACMG guidelines and other elements identified in the primary literature, (b) information quality, and (c) readability.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed genomic testing reports from 2011 to 2016 provided to, or by our laboratory to aid in clinical detection and interpretation of copy number variants. Analysis was restricted to the following sections: interpretation, recommendations, limitations, and citations. Analysis included descriptive characteristics, reporting elements, reading difficulty using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and quality ratings using a subset of questions adapted from the DISCERN‐Genetics questionnaire.

Results

The analysis included 44 unique reports from 26 laboratories comprising four groups: specialty laboratories (SL; N = 9), reference laboratories (RL; N = 12), hospital laboratories (HL; N = 10), and university‐based laboratories (UL; N = 13). There were 23 abnormal/pathogenic reports and 21 of uncertain/unknown significance. Nine laboratories did not include one or more pieces of information based on ACMG guidelines; only one of ten laboratories reported condition‐specific management/treatment information when available and relevant. Average quality ratings and readability scores were not significantly different between laboratory types or result classification.

Conclusions

Reporting practices for most report elements varied widely; however, readability and quality did not differ significantly between laboratory types. Management and treatment information, even for well‐known conditions, are rarely included. Effectively communicating test results may be improved if certain reporting elements are incorporated. Recommendations to improve laboratory reports are provided.

Advancing Personalized Medicine Through the Application of Whole Exome Sequencing and Big Data Analytics

There is a growing attention toward personalized medicine. This is led by a fundamental shift from the ‘one size fits all’ paradigm for treatment of patients with conditions or predisposition to diseases, to one that embraces novel approaches, such as tailored target therapies, to achieve the best possible outcomes. Driven by these, several national and international genome projects have been initiated to reap the benefits of personalized medicine. Exome and targeted sequencing provide a balance between cost and benefit, in contrast to whole genome sequencing (WGS). Whole exome sequencing (WES) targets approximately 3% of the whole genome, which is the basis for protein-coding genes. Nonetheless, it has the characteristics of big data in large deployment. Herein, the application of WES and its relevance in advancing personalized medicine is reviewed. WES is mapped to Big Data “10 Vs” and the resulting challenges discussed. Application of existing biological databases and bioinformatics tools to address the bottleneck in data processing and analysis are presented, including the need for new generation big data analytics for the multi-omics challenges of personalized medicine. This includes the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the clinical utility landscape of genomic information, and future consideration to create a new frontier toward advancing the field of personalized medicine.

Eye-Tracking Study to Enhance Usability of Molecular Diagnostics Reports in Cancer Precision Medicine

PURPOSE

We conducted usability studies on commercially available molecular diagnostic (MDX) test reports to identify strengths and weaknesses in content and form that drive clinical decision making. Given routine genomic testing in cancer medicine, oncologists must interpret MDX reports as well as evidence concerning clinical utility of biomarkers accurately for treatment or trial selection. This work aims to evaluate effectiveness of MDX reports in facilitating cancer treatment planning.

METHODS

Fourteen clinicians at an academic tertiary care medical facility, with a wide range of experience in oncology and in the use of molecular testing, participated in this study. Three commercially available, widely used, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified, College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited test reports (labeled Laboratories A, B, and C) were used. Eye tracking, surveys, and think-aloud protocols were used to collect usability data for these MDX reports focusing on ease of comprehension and actionability.

RESULTS

Clinicians found two primary areas in molecular diagnostic reports most useful for patient care: therapy options with benefit or lack of benefit to patients, including enrolling clinical trials; and pathogenic tumor molecular anomalies detected. Therapeutic implications and therapy classes such as US Food and Drug Administration-approved off-label, on-label, clinical trials were critical for decision making. However, all reports had usability and comprehension issues in these areas and could be improved.

CONCLUSION

Focused usability studies can help drive our understanding of the clinical workflow for use of molecular diagnostic tests in cancer care. This in turn can have major effects on quality of care, outcomes, costs, and patient satisfaction. This study demonstrates the use of specific usability techniques (eye tracking and think-aloud protocols) to help clinical laboratories improve MDX report design in a precision oncology treatment setting.

Cost Analyses of Genomic Sequencing: Lessons Learned from the MedSeq Project

OBJECTIVE

To summarize lessons learned while analyzing the costs of integrating whole genome sequencing into the care of cardiology and primary care patients in the MedSeq Project by conducting the first randomized controlled trial of whole genome sequencing in general and specialty medicine.

METHODS

Case study that describes key methodological and data challenges that were encountered or are likely to emerge in future work, describes the pros and cons of approaches considered by the study team, and summarizes the solutions that were implemented.

RESULTS

Major methodological challenges included defining whole genome sequencing, structuring an appropriate comparator, measuring downstream costs, and examining clinical outcomes. Discussions about solutions addressed conceptual and practical issues that arose because of definitions and analyses around the cost of genomic sequencing in trial-based studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The MedSeq Project provides an instructive example of how to conduct a cost analysis of whole genome sequencing that feasibly incorporates best practices while being sensitive to the varied applications and diversity of results it may produce. Findings provide guidance for researchers to consider when conducting or analyzing economic analyses of whole genome sequencing and other next-generation sequencing tests, particularly regarding costs.

Reporting of Clinical Genome Sequencing Results

High-throughput sequencing and high-performance computing technologies have become powerful tools in clinical genetic diagnosis of hereditary disorders and genetic screening of healthy individuals to provide information for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases or impairment and assessment of health. For patients with undiagnosed disorders, including many rare disorders, the whole-genome sequencing (WGS) test may end the diagnostic odyssey, ultimately guiding clinical care for them and their families. A clinical WGS test relies on high-quality genome-sequencing data as well as sophisticated data-interpretation approaches. Results are returned to the ordering physician in a concise report featuring an overall test result and in-depth phenotype-driven interpretation of the known or plausible genetic explanation of test indications. Patients have the option to decide whether the report should include secondary and incidental findings. Protocols and templates for reporting clinical WGS results and supplementary information are described in this article. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Automated typing of red blood cell and platelet antigens: a whole-genome sequencing study

BACKGROUND

There are more than 300 known red blood cell (RBC) antigens and 33 platelet antigens that differ between individuals. Sensitisation to antigens is a serious complication that can occur in prenatal medicine and after blood transfusion, particularly for patients who require multiple transfusions. Although pre-transfusion compatibility testing largely relies on serological methods, reagents are not available for many antigens. Methods based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays have been used, but typing for ABO and Rh-the most important blood groups-cannot be done with SNP typing alone. We aimed to develop a novel method based on whole-genome sequencing to identify RBC and platelet antigens.

METHODS

This whole-genome sequencing study is a subanalysis of data from patients in the whole-genome sequencing arm of the MedSeq Project randomised controlled trial (NCT01736566) with no measured patient outcomes. We created a database of molecular changes in RBC and platelet antigens and developed an automated antigen-typing algorithm based on whole-genome sequencing (bloodTyper). This algorithm was iteratively improved to address cis-trans haplotype ambiguities and homologous gene alignments. Whole-genome sequencing data from 110 MedSeq participants (30 × depth) were used to initially validate bloodTyper through comparison with conventional serology and SNP methods for typing of 38 RBC antigens in 12 blood-group systems and 22 human platelet antigens. bloodTyper was further validated with whole-genome sequencing data from 200 INTERVAL trial participants (15 × depth) with serological comparisons.

FINDINGS

We iteratively improved bloodTyper by comparing its typing results with conventional serological and SNP typing in three rounds of testing. The initial whole-genome sequencing typing algorithm was 99·5% concordant across the first 20 MedSeq genomes. Addressing discordances led to development of an improved algorithm that was 99·8% concordant for the remaining 90 MedSeq genomes. Additional modifications led to the final algorithm, which was 99·2% concordant across 200 INTERVAL genomes (or 99·9% after adjustment for the lower depth of coverage).

INTERPRETATION

By enabling more precise antigen-matching of patients with blood donors, antigen typing based on whole-genome sequencing provides a novel approach to improve transfusion outcomes with the potential to transform the practice of transfusion medicine.

FUNDING

National Human Genome Research Institute, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Health Service Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust.

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

Genomics will play an increasingly prominent role in clinical medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and make clinical recommendations about genome sequencing results.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs and their generally healthy patients undergoing genome sequencing.

APPROACH

Patients received clinical genome reports that included four categories of results: monogenic disease risk variants (if present), carrier status, five pharmacogenetics results, and polygenic risk estimates for eight cardiometabolic traits. Patients' office visits with their PCPs were audio-recorded, and summative content analysis was used to describe how PCPs discussed genomic results.

KEY RESULTS

For each genomic result discussed in 48 PCP-patient visits, we identified a "take-home" message (recommendation), categorized as continuing current management, further treatment, further evaluation, behavior change, remembering for future care, or sharing with family members. We analyzed how PCPs came to each recommendation by identifying 1) how they described the risk or importance of the given result and 2) the rationale they gave for translating that risk into a specific recommendation. Quantitative analysis showed that continuing current management was the most commonly coded recommendation across results overall (492/749, 66%) and for each individual result type except monogenic disease risk results. Pharmacogenetics was the most common result type to prompt a recommendation to remember for future care (94/119, 79%); carrier status was the most common type prompting a recommendation to share with family members (45/54, 83%); and polygenic results were the most common type prompting a behavior change recommendation (55/58, 95%). One-fifth of recommendation codes associated with monogenic results were for further evaluation (6/24, 25%). Rationales for these recommendations included patient context, family context, and scientific/clinical limitations of sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs distinguish substantive differences among categories of genome sequencing results and use clinical judgment to justify continuing current management in generally healthy patients with genomic results.

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients

BACKGROUND

As DNA sequencing costs decline, genetic testing options have expanded. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are entering clinical use, posing questions about their incremental value compared with disease-specific multigene panels that have been the cornerstone of genetic testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-one patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had undergone targeted hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic testing (either multigene panel or familial variant test) were recruited into the MedSeq Project, a clinical trial of WGS. Results from panel genetic testing and WGS were compared. In 20 of 41 participants, panel genetic testing identified variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or uncertain significance. WGS identified 19 of these 20 variants, but the variant detection algorithm missed a pathogenic 18 bp duplication in myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) because of low coverage. In 3 individuals, WGS identified variants in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy but not included in prior panel testing: a pathogenic protein tyrosine phosphatase, non-receptor type 11 (PTPN11) variant and variants of uncertain significance in integrin-linked kinase (ILK) and filamin-C (FLNC). WGS also identified 84 secondary findings (mean=2 per person, range=0-6), which mostly defined carrier status for recessive conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

WGS detected nearly all variants identified on panel testing, provided 1 new diagnostic finding, and allowed interrogation of posited disease genes. Several variants of uncertain clinical use and numerous secondary genetic findings were also identified. Whereas panel testing and WGS provided similar diagnostic yield, WGS offers the advantage of reanalysis over time to incorporate advances in knowledge, but requires expertise in genomic interpretation to appropriately incorporate WGS into clinical care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01736566.

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial

Purpose

Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole genome sequencing (WGS).

Methods

One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses, and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.

Results

The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared to family history alone. Mean six month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = −$1,560, 95%CI −$7,558 to $3,866, p=0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95%CI −$884 to $2,171, p=0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.

Conclusion

Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream healthcare. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Assessing the readiness of precision medicine interoperabilty: An exploratory study of the National Institutes of Health genetic testing registry

BACKGROUND

  Precision medicine involves three major innovations currently taking place in healthcare:  electronic health records, genomics, and big data.  A major challenge for healthcare providers, however, is understanding the readiness for practical application of initiatives like precision medicine.

OBJECTIVE

  To better understand the current state and challenges of precision medicine interoperability using a national genetic testing registry as a starting point, placed in the context of established interoperability formats.

METHODS

  We performed an exploratory analysis of the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry.  Relevant standards included Health Level Seven International Version 3 Implementation Guide for Family History, the Human Genome Organization Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) database, and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT).  We analyzed the distribution of genetic testing laboratories, genetic test characteristics, and standardized genome/clinical code mappings, stratified by laboratory setting.

RESULTS

There were a total of 25472 genetic tests from 240 laboratories testing for approximately 3632 distinct genes.  Most tests focused on diagnosis, mutation confirmation, and/or risk assessment of germline mutations that could be passed to offspring.  Genes were successfully mapped to all HGNC identifiers, but less than half of tests mapped to SNOMED CT codes, highlighting significant gaps when linking genetic tests to standardized clinical codes that explain the medical motivations behind test ordering.  Conclusion:  While precision medicine could potentially transform healthcare, successful practical and clinical application will first require the comprehensive and responsible adoption of interoperable standards, terminologies, and formats across all aspects of the precision medicine pipeline.

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients

BACKGROUND

As DNA sequencing costs decline, genetic testing options have expanded. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are entering clinical use, posing questions about their incremental value compared with disease-specific multigene panels that have been the cornerstone of genetic testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-one patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had undergone targeted hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic testing (either multigene panel or familial variant test) were recruited into the MedSeq Project, a clinical trial of WGS. Results from panel genetic testing and WGS were compared. In 20 of 41 participants, panel genetic testing identified variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or uncertain significance. WGS identified 19 of these 20 variants, but the variant detection algorithm missed a pathogenic 18 bp duplication in myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) because of low coverage. In 3 individuals, WGS identified variants in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy but not included in prior panel testing: a pathogenic protein tyrosine phosphatase, non-receptor type 11 (PTPN11) variant and variants of uncertain significance in integrin-linked kinase (ILK) and filamin-C (FLNC). WGS also identified 84 secondary findings (mean=2 per person, range=0-6), which mostly defined carrier status for recessive conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

WGS detected nearly all variants identified on panel testing, provided 1 new diagnostic finding, and allowed interrogation of posited disease genes. Several variants of uncertain clinical use and numerous secondary genetic findings were also identified. Whereas panel testing and WGS provided similar diagnostic yield, WGS offers the advantage of reanalysis over time to incorporate advances in knowledge, but requires expertise in genomic interpretation to appropriately incorporate WGS into clinical care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01736566.

Communication challenges for nongeneticist physicians relaying clinical genomic results

Aim

Identify the behavioral challenges to the use of genome sequencing (GS) in a clinical setting.

Materials & methods

We observed how general internists and nongenetic specialists delivered GS results to patients enrolled in the MedSeq Project. Using transcripts of such disclosure interactions, we made qualitative observations of communication behaviors that could limit the usefulness of GS results until reaching the point of thematic saturation.

Results

Findings included confusion regarding genomic terminology, difficulty with the volume or complexity of information and difficulties communicating complex risk information to patients. We observed a broad dismissal of clinical value of GS by some physicians and sometimes ineffective communication regarding health behavior change.

Conclusion

Overcoming these behavioral challenges is necessary to make full use of clinical GS results.

How do providers discuss the results of pediatric exome sequencing with families?

AIM

This study provides preliminary data on the process and content of returning results from exome sequencing offered to children through one of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) projects.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We recorded 25 sessions where providers returned diagnostic and secondary sequencing results to families. Data interpretation utilized inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Typically, providers followed a results report and discussed diagnostic findings using technical genomic and sequencing concepts. We identified four provider processes for returning results: teaching genetic concepts; assessing family response; personalizing findings; and strengthening patient-provider relationships.

CONCLUSION

Sessions should reflect family interest in medical management and next steps, and minimize detailed genomic concepts. As the scope and complexity of sequencing increase, the traditional information-laden counseling model requires revision.

The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial

Background

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in asymptomatic adults might prevent disease but increase health care use without clinical value.

Objective

To describe the effect on clinical care and outcomes of adding WGS to standardized family history assessment in primary care.

Design

Pilot randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01736566).

Setting

Academic primary care practices.

Participants

9 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 100 generally healthy patients recruited at ages 40 to 65 years.

Intervention

Patients were randomly assigned to receive a family history report alone (FH group) or in combination with an interpreted WGS report (FH + WGS group), which included monogenic disease risk (MDR) results (associated with Mendelian disorders), carrier variants, pharmacogenomic associations, and polygenic risk estimates for cardiometabolic traits. Each patient met with his or her PCP to discuss the report.

Measurements

Clinical outcomes and health care use through 6 months were obtained from medical records and audio-recorded discussions between PCPs and patients. Patients' health behavior changes were surveyed 6 months after receiving results. A panel of clinician-geneticists rated the appropriateness of how PCPs managed MDR results.

Results

Mean age was 55 years; 58% of patients were female. Eleven FH + WGS patients (22% [95% CI, 12% to 36%]) had new MDR results. Only 2 (4% [CI, 0.01% to 15%]) had evidence of the phenotypes predicted by an MDR result (fundus albipunctatus due to RDH5 and variegate porphyria due to PPOX). Primary care physicians recommended new clinical actions for 16% (CI, 8% to 30%) of FH patients and 34% (CI, 22% to 49%) of FH + WGS patients. Thirty percent (CI, 17% to 45%) and 41% (CI, 27% to 56%) of FH and FH + WGS patients, respectively, reported making a health behavior change after 6 months. Geneticists rated PCP management of 8 MDR results (73% [CI, 39% to 99%]) as appropriate and 2 results (18% [CI, 3% to 52%]) as inappropriate.

Limitation

Limited sample size and ancestral and socioeconomic diversity.

Conclusion

Adding WGS to primary care reveals new molecular findings of uncertain clinical utility. Nongeneticist providers may be able to manage WGS results appropriately, but WGS may prompt additional clinical actions of unclear value.

Primary Funding Source

National Institutes of Health.

Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions

Aim

Identify solutions to the most important policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing.

Materials & methods

Four-round modified policy Delphi with a multistakeholder panel of 48 experts. The panel deliberated policy solutions to (previously reported) challenges deemed most important to address.

Results

The group advocated using consensus panels to promote consistency in payer policies and to standardize test reporting, and favored making genomic data-sharing a condition of regulatory clearance, certification, or accreditation processes. They were split on the role of US FDA.

Conclusion

Panelists found common ground on solutions for health plan coverage policy consistency, data-sharing, and standardizing reporting, but were sharply divided on the role of the FDA in mitigating risks to patients.

Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study

Genomic applications raise multiple challenges including the optimization of genomic counseling (GC) services as part of the results delivery process. More information on patients' motivations, preferences, and informational needs are essential to guide the development of new, more efficient practice delivery models that capitalize on the existing strengths of a limited genetic counseling workforce. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of counselees from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative following online receipt of multiple personalized genomic test reports. Participants previously had either in-person GC (chronic disease cohort, n = 20; mean age 60 years) or telephone GC (community cohort, n = 31; mean age 46.8 years). Transcripts were analyzed using a Grounded Theory framework. Major themes that emerged from the interviews include 1) primary reasons for seeking GC were to clarify results, put results into perspective relative to other health-related concerns, and to receive personalized recommendations; 2) there is need for a more participant driven approach in terms of mode of GC communication (in-person, phone, video), and refining the counseling agenda pre-session; and 3) there was strong interest in the option of follow up GC. By clarifying counselees' expectations, views and desired outcomes, we have uncovered a need for a more participant-driven GC model when potentially actionable genomic results are received online.

User-centered design of multi-gene sequencing panel reports for clinicians

The objective of this study was to develop a high-fidelity prototype for delivering multi-gene sequencing panel (GS) reports to clinicians that simulates the user experience of a final application. The delivery and use of GS reports can occur within complex and high-paced healthcare environments. We employ a user-centered software design approach in a focus group setting in order to facilitate gathering rich contextual information from a diverse group of stakeholders potentially impacted by the delivery of GS reports relevant to two precision medicine programs at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Responses from focus group sessions were transcribed, coded and analyzed by two team members. Notification mechanisms and information resources preferred by participants from our first phase of focus groups were incorporated into scenarios and the design of a software prototype for delivering GS reports. The goal of our second phase of focus group, to gain input on the prototype software design, was accomplished through conducting task walkthroughs with GS reporting scenarios. Preferences for notification, content and consultation from genetics specialists appeared to depend upon familiarity with scenarios for ordering and delivering GS reports. Despite familiarity with some aspects of the scenarios we proposed, many of our participants agreed that they would likely seek consultation from a genetics specialist after viewing the test reports. In addition, participants offered design and content recommendations. Findings illustrated a need to support customized notification approaches, user-specific information, and access to genetics specialists with GS reports. These design principles can be incorporated into software applications that deliver GS reports. Our user-centered approach to conduct this assessment and the specific input we received from clinicians may also be relevant to others working on similar projects.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Personal Genome Sequencing in Ostensibly Healthy Individuals and the PeopleSeq Consortium

Thousands of ostensibly healthy individuals have had their exome or genome sequenced, but a much smaller number of these individuals have received any personal genomic results from that sequencing. We term those projects in which ostensibly healthy participants can receive sequencing-derived genetic findings and may also have access to their genomic data as participatory predispositional personal genome sequencing (PPGS). Here we are focused on genome sequencing applied in a pre-symptomatic context and so define PPGS to exclude diagnostic genome sequencing intended to identify the molecular cause of suspected or diagnosed genetic disease. In this report we describe the design of completed and underway PPGS projects, briefly summarize the results reported to date and introduce the PeopleSeq Consortium, a newly formed collaboration of PPGS projects designed to collect much-needed longitudinal outcome data.

Enhancing genomic laboratory reports: A qualitative analysis of provider review

This study reports on the responses of physicians who reviewed provider and patient versions of a genomic laboratory report designed to communicate results of whole genome sequencing. Semi‐structured interviews addressed concept communication, elements, and format of example genome reports. Analysis of the coded transcripts resulted in recognition of three constructs around communication of genome sequencing results: (1) Providers agreed that whole genomic sequencing results are complex and they welcomed a report that provided supportive interpretation information to accompany sequencing results; (2) Providers strongly endorsed a report that included active clinical guidance, such as reference to practice guidelines, if available; and (3) Providers valued the genomic report as a resource that would serve as the basis to facilitate communication of genome sequencing results with their patients and families. Providers valued both versions of the report, though they affirmed the need for a provider‐oriented report. Critical elements of the report included clear language to explain the result, as well as consolidated yet comprehensive prognostic information with clear guidance over time for the clinical care of the patient. Most importantly, it appears a report with this design has the potential not only to return results but also serves as a communication tool to help providers and patients discuss and coordinate care over time. © 2016 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

An eMERGE Clinical Center at Partners Personalized Medicine

The integration of electronic medical records (EMRs) and genomic research has become a major component of efforts to advance personalized and precision medicine. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network, initiated in 2007, is an NIH-funded consortium devoted to genomic discovery and implementation research by leveraging biorepositories linked to EMRs. In its most recent phase, eMERGE III, the network is focused on facilitating implementation of genomic medicine by detecting and disclosing rare pathogenic variants in clinically relevant genes. Partners Personalized Medicine (PPM) is a center dedicated to translating personalized medicine into clinical practice within Partners HealthCare. One component of the PPM is the Partners Healthcare Biobank, a biorepository comprising broadly consented DNA samples linked to the Partners longitudinal EMR. In 2015, PPM joined the eMERGE Phase III network. Here we describe the elements of the eMERGE clinical center at PPM, including plans for genomic discovery using EMR phenotypes, evaluation of rare variant penetrance and pleiotropy, and a novel randomized trial of the impact of returning genetic results to patients and clinicians.