Engaging Patients in Precision Oncology: Development and Usability of a Web-Based Patient-Facing Genomic Sequencing Report

Research participants' perspectives about the return of uninformative genomic test results in a clinical research setting

The majority of genomic sequencing and microarray results are clinically uninformative, meaning that they do not suggest a need for any behavioral action or medical intervention. Prior studies have shown that recipients of uninformative genomic testing results ("uninformative results" hereafter) may incorrectly interpret them to imply a lowered risk of disease or false reassurance about future health risks. Few studies have examined how patients understand uninformative results when they are returned in a research setting, where there is wide variation in analytical specifications of testing, interpretation and reporting practices, and resources to support the return of results. We conducted cross-sectional interviews (N = 17) to explore how a subset of research participants in one genomics study at the National Institutes of Health reacted to and understood their uninformative test results, which were returned to them via a patient portal without genetic counseling. We found that most participants did not remember the details of the informed consent process, including the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" findings. Participants had questions about what genes were tested for and, in most cases, requested a list of the genes covered. Several participants incorrectly assumed that autosomal recessive carrier results would have been reported to them if detected. Some participants interpreted their uninformative results to mean that they could forgo prenatal testing, and participants had mixed expectations about whether their results might be reinterpreted in the future. These themes suggest that there are specific challenges to returning uninformative results in research settings. Educational supplements to uninformative test reports may be most useful if they contextualize results in relation to other types of clinical genetic or genomic testing that may be made available to research participants in their lifetimes.

Preparing for the unexpected: Recommendations for returning secondary findings in late-stage cancer care

PURPOSE

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients with cancer and providers to identify gaps in clinical care and highlight care delivery solutions for the return of secondary germline findings.

METHODS

Twelve patients and 19 cancer providers from the United States were interviewed between January 2019 and May 2021. Interviews elicited feedback about patient information needs, emotional responses to secondary findings, and recommendations for improving pre-test education.

RESULTS

Patients' responses ranged from gratitude to regret, depending on how much pre-test counseling they received before tumor testing. Providers cited insufficient clinic time as a major barrier to pretest education, favoring online support tools and standardized pre-test education models. Providers had differing perspectives on how pre-test education should be integrated into clinical workflows but agreed that it should include the differences between somatic and germline testing, the likelihood of medically actionable findings, and the possibility of being referred to a genetics provider.

CONCLUSION

The spectrum of participants' responses to their secondary findings underscores the importance of adequate pre-test discussions before somatic sequencing. Although educational interventions could address patients' information needs and augment traditional pre-test counseling, health care systems, labs, and genetic providers may be called on to play greater roles in pre-test education.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.

A Framework for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Genetics and Genomics Research

IMPORTANCE

Research into the genetic and genomic ("genomics") foundations of disease is central to our understanding of disease prevention, early detection, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic intervention. Inequitable participation in genomics research by historically excluded populations limits the ability to translate genomic knowledge to achieve health equity and ensure that findings are generalizable to diverse populations.

OBSERVATIONS

We propose a novel framework for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in genomics research. Building on principles of community-based participatory research and collective impact frameworks, the framework can guide our understanding of the social, cultural, health system, policy, community, and individual contexts in which engagement and genomics research are being done. Our framework highlights the involvement of a multistakeholder team, including the participants and communities to be engaged, to ensure robust methods for recruitment, retention, return of genomic results, quality of engagement, follow-up, and monitoring of participants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The proposed engagement framework will guide investigators in optimizing equitable representation in research and enhancing the rigor of genomics investigation.

Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative

A clinical hereditary cancer population screening initiative, called Information is Power, began in North Alabama in 2015. After 4 years of the initiative, we were interested in exploring (1) the characteristics and motivations for patients who self-refer to population genetic testing, (2) how patients make decisions on testing, (3) what patients do with results, and (4) patient perceptions of benefits and limitations after undergoing population genetic testing. Patients who consented to research recontact at time of test ordering were sent an electronic survey with the option for a follow-up phone interview. Among the 2,918 eligible patients, 239 responded to the survey and 19 completed an interview. Survey and interview participants were highly educated information seekers motivated by learning more about their health. Those who were previously interested in hereditary cancer testing reported barriers were cost and insurance coverage, access to testing, and uncertainty how results could impact their health. Many participants (77%) communicated with family and friends about their decision to test and communicated about test results. Fewer participants (23%) discussed the decision to test with their healthcare providers; however, 58% of participants discussed their test results with a healthcare provider. Most people (96%) with negative results accurately recalled their results. In contrast, three out of 11 positive results for heterozygous MUTYH, PALB2, and BRCA2 reported receiving negative results. This study contributes to knowledge on population genetic testing and may guide other population genetic testing programs as they develop enrollment materials and educational materials and consider downstream needs of population genetic testing participants.

A Web Portal for Communicating Polygenic Risk Score Results for Health Care Use-The P5 Study

We present a method for communicating personalized genetic risk information to citizens and their physicians using a secure web portal. We apply the method for 3,177 Finnish individuals in the P5 Study where estimates of genetic and absolute risk, based on genetic and clinical risk factors, of future disease are reported to study participants, allowing individuals to participate in managing their own health. Our method facilitates using polygenic risk score as a personalized tool to estimate a person's future disease risk while offering a way for health care professionals to utilize the polygenic risk scores as a preventive tool in patient care.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care

Pediatric oncologists’ perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists’ experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients’ families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients’ reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families’ questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists’ genetics expertise, and navigating families’ emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs’ and geneticists’ support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.