1
|
Ellard H, Clarke A, Wynn S, Pichini A, Lewis C. Written communication of whole genome sequencing results in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service: a multi-centre service evaluation. Eur J Hum Genet 2024:10.1038/s41431-024-01636-5. [PMID: 38806663 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01636-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Revised: 05/07/2024] [Accepted: 05/13/2024] [Indexed: 05/30/2024] Open
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is being used in diagnostic testing for certain clinical indications within the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) in England. Letter writing is an integral part of delivering results. However, no national guidelines for writing results from WGS exist. This multi-centre service evaluation used mixed methods to understand the content and readability of letters returning diagnostic, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and no-finding results to paediatric rare disease patients. Eight Regional Genetics Services (response rate 47%) in England provided a total of 37 letters returning diagnostic (n = 13), VUS (n = 10), and no-finding (n = 14) results. Diagnostic and VUS results were usually delivered during an appointment; no-finding results were typically delivered by letter only. Letters were diverse in which content topics they covered and level of detail. No-finding letters (14/14) explained the result but were less likely to cover other topics. Diagnostic letters discussed the result (13/13), the condition (13/13), clinical genetics follow-up (13/13), clinical management (10/13), and adapting to the result (9/13). VUS letters explained the result (10/10), diagnostic uncertainty (10/10), and clinical genetics follow-up (10/10). Uncertainty was a common component of letters (33/37), irrespective of the result. Reanalysis or review after one or more years was suggested in 6/13 diagnostic, 7/10 VUS, and 6/14 no-finding letters. The mean reading level of letters corresponded to 15-17 years. Understanding how WGS results are conveyed to families during appointments, as well as how families interpret that information, is needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of results communication and inform best practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly Ellard
- School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
- Population, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
| | - Angus Clarke
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK
| | - Sarah Wynn
- Unique, Rare Chromosome Support Group, Oxted, Surrey, UK
| | | | - Celine Lewis
- School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK
- Population, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
- NHS North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sapp JC, Facio FM, Cooper D, Lewis KL, Modlin E, van der Wees P, Biesecker LG. A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings. Genet Med 2021; 23:2260-2269. [PMID: 34433902 PMCID: PMC9017985 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01295-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2021] [Revised: 07/15/2021] [Accepted: 07/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Secondary findings (SF) are present in 1–4% of individuals undergoing genome/exome sequencing. A review of how SF are disclosed and what outcomes result from their receipt is urgent and timely. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of SF disclosure practices and outcomes after receipt including cascade testing, family and provider communication, and healthcare actions. Of the 1,184 non-duplicate records screened we summarize findings from 27 included research articles describing SF disclosure practices, outcomes after receipt, or both. Results: The included articles reported 709 unique SF index recipients/families. Referrals and/or recommendations were provided 647 SF recipients and outcome data were available for 236. At least one recommended evaluation was reported for 146 SF recipients; 16 reports of treatment or prophylactic surgery were identified. We found substantial variations in how the constructs of interest were defined and described. Conclusion: Variation in how SF disclosure and outcomes were described limited our ability to compare findings. We conclude the literature provided limited insight into how the ACMG guidelines have been translated into precision health outcomes for SF recipients. Robust studies of SF recipients are needed and should be prioritized for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie C Sapp
- Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. .,Translational Health Sciences, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
| | - Flavia M Facio
- Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Diane Cooper
- National Institutes of Health Library, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Katie L Lewis
- Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Emily Modlin
- Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Philip van der Wees
- Translational Health Sciences, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.,Radboud University Medical Center, IQ Healthcare and Rehabilitation, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Leslie G Biesecker
- Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mascalzoni D, Biasiotto R, Borsche M, Brüggemann N, De Grandi A, Goegele M, Frygner-Holm S, Klein C, Kösters M, Staunton C, Pramstaller PP, Krawczak M, Hicks AA. Balancing scientific interests and the rights of participants in designing a recall by genotype study. Eur J Hum Genet 2021; 29:1146-1157. [PMID: 33981014 PMCID: PMC8298596 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00860-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2020] [Revised: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Recall by genotype (RbG) studies aim to better understand the phenotypes that correspond to genetic variants of interest, by recruiting carriers of such variants for further phenotyping. RbG approaches pose major ethical and legal challenges related to the disclosure of possibly unwanted genetic information. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study is a longitudinal cohort study based in South Tyrol, Italy. Demand has grown for CHRIS study participants to be enrolled in RbG studies, thus making the design of a suitable ethical framework a pressing need. We here report upon the design of a pilot RbG study conducted with CHRIS study participants. By reviewing the literature and by consulting relevant stakeholders (CHRIS participants, clinical geneticists, ethics board, GPs), we identified key ethical issues in RbG approaches (e.g. complexity of the context, communication of genetic results, measures to further protect participants). The design of the pilot was based on a feasibility assessment, the selection of a suitable test case within the ProtectMove Research Unit on reduced penetrance of hereditary movement disorders, and the development of appropriate recruitment and communication strategies. An empirical study was embedded in the pilot study with the aim of understanding participants' views on RbG. Our experience with the pilot study in CHRIS allowed us to contribute to the development of best practices and policies for RbG studies by drawing recommendations: addressing the possibility of RbG in the original consent, implementing tailored communication strategies, engaging stakeholders, designing embedded empirical studies, and sharing research experiences and methodology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deborah Mascalzoni
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Roberta Biasiotto
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Max Borsche
- Institute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Norbert Brüggemann
- Institute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Alessandro De Grandi
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Martin Goegele
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | | | - Christine Klein
- Institute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Maria Kösters
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Ciara Staunton
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
- School of Law, Middlesex University, London, UK
| | - Peter P Pramstaller
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Michael Krawczak
- Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
| | - Andrew A Hicks
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liang NSY, Adam S, Elliott AM, Siemens A, du Souich C, Friedman JM, Birch P. After genomic testing results: Parents' long-term views. J Genet Couns 2021; 31:82-95. [PMID: 34165210 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2020] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Many parents are motivated to pursue genome-wide (exome or genome) sequencing to find a diagnosis for their child with a suspected but undiagnosed genetic condition. However, the impact of the genomic test extends beyond the provision of results and the so-called 'diagnostic odyssey'. Our goal was to quantify post-test decisional regret and characterize long-term, post-test experiences and unmet needs of the parents of children with suspected genetic diseases after they had received the results of genome-wide sequencing. Study participants were parents of children who underwent trio genome-wide sequencing as part of the CAUSES research study at Children's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia. About half of the participants received a definite or likely genetic diagnosis after clinical interpretation of the genome-wide sequencing results. Parents who participated in the current study (n = 121) completed the Decisional Regret Scale four weeks after receiving results. A subset of these parents (n = 32) had semi-structured interviews a median of 7 months (range 3-20 months) after results disclosure and post-test genetic counseling. Most parents expressed either no regret or mild regret about having undergone genome-wide sequencing on both the Decisional Regret Scale and in the interviews. Parents whose children did not receive a genetic diagnosis were slightly more likely to have decisional regret on this quantitative scale. Analysis of transcribed interviews revealed the following major themes: (a) a lack of decisional conflict around having the testing; (b) a lack of decisional regret post-testing; (c) expressions of both relief and continued uncertainty around the meaning of a genetic diagnosis; (d) expression of initial disappointment and evolving interpretation surrounding a result yielding no genetic diagnosis; and (e) needing time to absorb the test results. Our results suggest that parents need time to absorb the testing results and that long-term post-test counseling, including acknowledging feelings of relief, loss, and disappointment, may help parents adapt to the genomic test results and assist families to anticipate and plan for the next steps in their child's medical trajectory, whether or not a diagnosis is found.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Si Yan Liang
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Shelin Adam
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Alison M Elliott
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Angela Siemens
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Christèle du Souich
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | | | - Jan M Friedman
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Patricia Birch
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Donohue KE, Gooch C, Katz A, Wakelee J, Slavotinek A, Korf BR. Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results. Clin Genet 2021; 99:638-649. [PMID: 33818754 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine E Donohue
- Institute for Genomic Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Catherine Gooch
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.,Pediatrics, Division of Genetics and Genomic Medicine, Washington University at St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Alexander Katz
- Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Jessica Wakelee
- Center for the Study of Community Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Anne Slavotinek
- Division of Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Bruce R Korf
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Genomic Sequencing Results Disclosure in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations: Themes, Challenges, and Strategies from the CSER Consortium. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11030202. [PMID: 33805616 PMCID: PMC7998798 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11030202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2021] [Revised: 03/05/2021] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Genomic sequencing results need to be effectively communicated across all populations and practice settings. Projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium enroll diverse racial/ethnic and medically underserved participants across various clinical contexts. This article explores a set of CSER results disclosure cases to expand the evidence base on experiences returning genomic results. Case details were collected using a structured set of questions. We identified common themes in the case set, and assessed challenges and strategies in achieving six relevant results disclosure objectives. CSER-affiliated patient/community stakeholder impressions of the findings were solicited via video conference calls. Seventeen cases across six CSER projects were included. Case themes sorted into four categories: (1) factors influencing participant understanding, (2) participant emotional response, (3) disease burden, and (4) logistical challenges. Challenges meeting results disclosure objectives included a lack of dialogue, health literacy level, unexpected findings, and complex concepts. Strategies were consistent with traditional genetic counseling practice, but also highlighted approaches being evaluated in CSER projects. Patient/community stakeholders supported the identified themes and provided additional suggestions to improve patient understanding and engagement. These experiences add valuable insights into adapting genomic results disclosure practices to best serve all patient populations.
Collapse
|
7
|
Yadav RM, Gupta M, Dalvi A, Bargir UA, Hule G, Shabrish S, Aluri J, Kulkarni M, Kambli P, Uppuluri R, Seshadri S, Jagadeesh S, Suresh B, Raja J, Taur P, Malaischamy S, Ghosh P, Mahalingam S, Kadam P, Lashkari HP, Tamhankar P, Tamhankar V, Mithbawkar S, Bhattad S, Jhawar P, Makam A, Bansal V, Prasad M, Govindaraj G, Guhan B, Bharadwaj Tallapaka K, Desai M, Raj R, Madkaikar MR. Prenatal Diagnosis for Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders-An Overview of the Indian Scenario. Front Immunol 2020; 11:612316. [PMID: 33365035 PMCID: PMC7750517 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.612316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Prenatal Diagnosis (PND) forms an important part of primary preventive management for families having a child affected with primary immunodeficiency. Although individually sparse, collectively this group of genetic disorders represents a significant burden of disease. This paper discusses the prenatal services available for affected families at various centers across the country and the challenges and ethical considerations associated with genetic counseling. Mutation detection in the index case and analysis of chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis remain the preferred procedures for PND and phenotypic analysis of cordocentesis sample is reserved for families with well-characterized index case seeking PND in the latter part of the second trimester of pregnancy. A total of 112 families were provided PND services in the last decade and the presence of an affected fetus was confirmed in 32 families. Post-test genetic counseling enabled the affected families to make an informed decision about the current pregnancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reetika Malik Yadav
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Maya Gupta
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Aparna Dalvi
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Umair Ahmed Bargir
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Gouri Hule
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Snehal Shabrish
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Jahnavi Aluri
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Manasi Kulkarni
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Priyanka Kambli
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| | - Ramya Uppuluri
- Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Blood Marrow Transplantation, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India
| | - Suresh Seshadri
- Department of Clinical Genetics & Genetic Counseling, Mediscan Systems, Chennai, India
| | - Sujatha Jagadeesh
- Department of Clinical Genetics & Genetic Counseling, Mediscan Systems, Chennai, India
| | - Beena Suresh
- Department of Clinical Genetics & Genetic Counseling, Mediscan Systems, Chennai, India
| | - Jayarekha Raja
- Department of Clinical Genetics & Genetic Counseling, Mediscan Systems, Chennai, India
| | - Prasad Taur
- Department of Immunology and Department of Pediatric Hemato-Oncology, Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, India
| | | | | | | | - Priya Kadam
- MedGenome Labs Private Limited, Bangalore, India
| | - Harsha Prasada Lashkari
- Department of Pediatrics, Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Mangalore, India
| | | | | | | | - Sagar Bhattad
- Division of Pediatric Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Aster CMI Hospital, Bangalore, India
| | - Prerna Jhawar
- Department of Fetal Medicine, Motherhood Hospital, Bangalore, India
| | - Adinarayan Makam
- Department of Fetal Medicine, Adi Advanced Centre for Fetal Care, Bangalore, India
| | - Vandana Bansal
- Fetal Medicine Department Surya Hospitals, Mumbai, India
| | | | - Geeta Govindaraj
- Department of Pediatrics, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Calicut, India
| | - Beena Guhan
- Department of Pediatrics, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Calicut, India
| | | | - Mukesh Desai
- Department of Immunology and Department of Pediatric Hemato-Oncology, Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, India
| | - Revathi Raj
- Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Blood Marrow Transplantation, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India
| | - Manisha Rajan Madkaikar
- Center of Excellence for PIDs, Department of Pediatric Immunology and Leucocyte Biology, ICMR-National Institute of Immunohaematology, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Waltz M, Prince AER, O’Daniel JM, Foreman AKM, Powell BC, Berg JS. Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty. J Genet Couns 2020; 29:949-959. [PMID: 31967382 PMCID: PMC7374021 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2019] [Revised: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margaret Waltz
- Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Julianne M. O’Daniel
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Ann Katherine M. Foreman
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Bradford C. Powell
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jonathan S. Berg
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mollison L, O'Daniel JM, Henderson GE, Berg JS, Skinner D. Parents' perceptions of personal utility of exome sequencing results. Genet Med 2020; 22:752-757. [PMID: 31857707 PMCID: PMC7192542 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0730-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2019] [Accepted: 12/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical genome or exome sequencing (GS/ES) provides a diagnosis for many individuals with suspected genetic disorders, but also yields negative or uncertain results for the majority. This study examines how parents of a child with an undiagnosed condition attribute personal utility to all types of ES results. METHODS Return of 31 exome sequencing results was observed during clinic sessions, followed by semistructured interviews with parents one month later. Observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data display matrices were used for content analysis and systematic comparisons of parents' perceptions of utility. RESULTS ES results could not provide all the answers to parents' questions, especially in cases of clinically uninformative results, but parents nonetheless attributed utility to the knowledge gained. Parents across all results categories used the genomic information to rule out possible causes, end or postpone the diagnostic odyssey, and shift focus to treatment and management of symptoms. CONCLUSION This study suggests that parents value even uninformative ES results while expressing hope for future discoveries. As pediatric genetics moves toward GS/ES as a first-tier test, how parents perceive the personal utility of negative or uncertain results is an important topic for genetic counseling and further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lonna Mollison
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
| | - Julianne M O'Daniel
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Gail E Henderson
- Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Jonathan S Berg
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Debra Skinner
- FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hernan R, Cho MT, Wilson AL, Ahimaz P, Au C, Berger SM, Guzman E, Primiano M, Shaw JE, Ross M, Tabanfar L, Chilton I, Griffin E, Ratner C, Anyane-Yeboa K, Iglesias A, Pisani L, Roohi J, Duong J, Martinez J, Appelbaum P, Klitzman R, Ottman R, Chung WK, Wynn J. Impact of patient education videos on genetic counseling outcomes after exome sequencing. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2020; 103:127-135. [PMID: 31521424 PMCID: PMC9667716 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Revised: 08/05/2019] [Accepted: 08/16/2019] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Growing use of clinical exome sequencing (CES) has led to an increased burden of genomic education. Self-guided educational tools can minimize the educational burden for genetic counselors (GCs). The effectiveness of these tools must be evaluated. METHODS Parents of patients offered CES were randomized to watch educational videos before their visit or to receive routine care. Parents and GCs were surveyed about their experiences following the sessions. The responses of the video (n = 102) and no-video (n = 105) groups were compared. RESULTS GCs reported no significant differences between parents in the video and no-video groups on genetics knowledge or CES knowledge. In contrast, parents' scores on genetics knowledge questions were lower in the video than no-video group (p = 0.007). Most parents reported the videos were informative, and the groups did not differ in satisfaction with GCs or decisions to have CES. CONCLUSION GCs and parents perceived the videos to be beneficial. However, lower scores on genetics knowledge questions highlight the need for careful development of educational tools. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Educational tools should be developed and assessed for effectiveness with the input of all stakeholders before widespread implementation. Better measures of the effectiveness of these educational tools are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Hernan
- Sarah Lawrence College, Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Bronxville, NY, USA; Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Megan T Cho
- Sarah Lawrence College, Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Bronxville, NY, USA; GeneDx, 207 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
| | - Ashley L Wilson
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Priyanka Ahimaz
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Catherine Au
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sara M Berger
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Edwin Guzman
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michelle Primiano
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jessica E Shaw
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Meredith Ross
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Leyla Tabanfar
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ilana Chilton
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emily Griffin
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Chana Ratner
- Long Island University, LIU Post Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, Brookville, NY, USA
| | - Kwame Anyane-Yeboa
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alejandro Iglesias
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Laura Pisani
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jasmin Roohi
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jimmy Duong
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Josue Martinez
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Paul Appelbaum
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert Klitzman
- G.H. Sergievsky Center and Departments of Epidemiology and Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ruth Ottman
- G.H. Sergievsky Center and Departments of Epidemiology and Neurology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Julia Wynn
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Savatt J, Pisieczko CJ, Zhang Y, Lee MTM, Faucett WA, Williams JL. Biobanks in the Era of Genomic Data. CURRENT GENETIC MEDICINE REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s40142-019-00171-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
12
|
Clowes Candadai SV, Sikes MC, Thies JM, Freed AS, Bennett JT. Rapid clinical exome sequencing in a pediatric ICU: Genetic counselor impacts and challenges. J Genet Couns 2019; 28:283-291. [PMID: 30964580 PMCID: PMC6481675 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2018] [Revised: 02/17/2019] [Accepted: 02/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized molecular diagnosis in children with genetic disease over the past decade. However, exome sequencing in the inpatient setting has traditionally been discouraged, in part due to an increased risk of providers failing to retrieve and act upon results, as many patients are discharged before results return. The development of rapid turn-around-times (TATs) for genomic testing has begun to shift this paradigm. Rapid exome sequencing (rES) is increasingly being used as a diagnostic tool for critically ill infants with likely genetic disease and presents significant challenges to execute. We implemented a program, entitled the Rapid Inpatient Genomic Testing (RIGhT) project, to identify critically ill children for whom a molecular diagnosis is likely to change inpatient management. Two important goals of the RIGhT project were to provide appropriate genetic counseling, and to develop protocols to ensure efficient test coordination- both of which relied heavily on laboratory and clinic-based genetic counselors (GCs). Here, rES was performed on 27 inpatient trios from October 2016 to August 2018; laboratory and clinical GCs encountered significant challenges in the coordination of this testing. The GCs involved retrospectively reviewed these cases and identified three common challenges encountered during pretest counseling and coordination. The aim of this paper is to define these challenges using illustrative case examples that highlight the importance of including GCs to support rES programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah V Clowes Candadai
- Department of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
- Patient-Centered Laboratory Utilization Guidance Services (PLUGS), Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
| | - Megan C Sikes
- Division of Genetic Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jenny M Thies
- Division of Genetic Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
| | - Amanda S Freed
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Genetic Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - James T Bennett
- Department of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
- Division of Genetic Medicine, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Genetic Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
- Center for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bertsch N, Agre K, Ewing S, Gunderson L, Kemppainen J, Murphree M. Perspectives on facilitating whole exome sequencing for international patients at Mayo Clinic. J Genet Couns 2019; 28:398-406. [PMID: 30762915 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2018] [Revised: 01/12/2019] [Accepted: 01/14/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Whole exome sequencing (WES) has become a fundamental component of genetic evaluation and diagnosing rare genetic diseases. This test is now offered to patients from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and in various clinical and research settings. This commentary is a reflection of one group of clinical genetic counselors' experiences in facilitating WES for patients who come from outside the United States for genetic evaluation and pursue WES. This patient population in our clinic primarily consists of individuals from the Middle East and presents recurrent logistical and counseling challenges. We aim to describe our international patient population, illuminate the challenges we have faced and illustrate how we have addressed these challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Bertsch
- Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Genetic Counseling, Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana
| | - Katherine Agre
- Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sarah Ewing
- Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Lauren Gunderson
- Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Marine Murphree
- Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Zech M, Wagner M, Schormair B, Oexle K, Winkelmann J. [Exome diagnostics in neurology]. DER NERVENARZT 2019; 90:131-137. [PMID: 30645660 DOI: 10.1007/s00115-018-0667-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
After an impressively successful application as a research instrument, whole-exome sequencing (WES) now enters the clinical practice due to its high diagnostic, time, and economic efficiency. WES is the diagnostic method of choice for symptoms that may be due to many different monogenic causes. Neurological indications include movement disorders, especially in cases of early symptom onset, familial clustering and complex manifestation. Starting from a blood sample, enrichment and sequencing of the exome enable the examination of all coding DNA regions for point mutations and small insertions/deletions. The identification of variants as the cause of a disease requires a professional evaluation pipeline, variant prioritization schemes and variant classification databases. Whereas many variants can be reliably classified as pathogenic or benign, variants of unclear significance (VUS) remain a challenge for the clinical evaluation and necessitate a periodic reanalysis of WES data. As a genetic examination WES requires adequate patient informed consent which in particular should address possible secondary findings as well as data security. A positive molecular result ends diagnostic odysseys, enables accurate genetic counseling and can point to targeted preventive measures and treatment. A WES significantly contributes to the understanding of the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of neurological diseases, enriching and enabling precision medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Zech
- Institut für Neurogenomik, Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Deutschland. .,Institut für Humangenetik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland.
| | - Matias Wagner
- Institut für Neurogenomik, Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Deutschland.,Institut für Humangenetik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland
| | - Barbara Schormair
- Institut für Neurogenomik, Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Deutschland
| | - Konrad Oexle
- Institut für Neurogenomik, Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Deutschland
| | - Juliane Winkelmann
- Institut für Neurogenomik, Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Deutschland.,Institut für Humangenetik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Esteban I, Lopez-Fernandez A, Balmaña J. A narrative overview of the patients' outcomes after multigene cancer panel testing, and a thorough evaluation of its implications for genetic counselling. Eur J Med Genet 2018; 62:342-349. [PMID: 30476626 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.11.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2018] [Revised: 11/08/2018] [Accepted: 11/22/2018] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing is being implemented in clinical practice through the use of multigene panel testing, whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing. In this manuscript we explore how the use of massively parallel sequencing, and in particular multigene cancer panel testing, is potentially changing the process of genetic counselling and how patients cope with pre-test genetic counselling and results. We found that the main challenges are around uncertainty, hopes and expectations and the amount and complexity of information that needs to be discussed. This may impact the process of genetic counselling, although genetic counsellors can still use their core skills and enhance some of them in order to evolve and meet patients' needs in the genomics era. Available data suggests that patients can cope with multigene cancer panels although more research is needed to fully understand the psychosocial implications of multigene cancer panels for patients, especially for those who have variants of unknown significance or moderate penetrance variants. Research is also needed to explore and develop communication models that maximize patients' understanding and empower them to make informed decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Esteban
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
| | - A Lopez-Fernandez
- High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit, Vall D'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Balmaña
- High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit, Vall D'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Medical Oncology Department, Vall D'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Harris S, Gilmore K, Hardisty E, Lyerly AD, Vora NL. Ethical and counseling challenges in prenatal exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38:897-903. [PMID: 30171820 DOI: 10.1002/pd.5353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2018] [Revised: 08/18/2018] [Accepted: 08/25/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Ethical and counseling challenges are expected with the introduction of prenatal whole exome sequencing. In this study, we describe specific challenges identified through the UNC-Chapel Hill Prenatal Exome Sequencing Study. METHODS Participants were a subset of women participating in the fetal exome study, which has enrolled 73 mother-father-fetus trios in pregnancies diagnosed with structural anomalies and normal standard genetic testing results. In this descriptive study, cases were reviewed by members of the research team, including a bioethicist, to identify counseling challenges. Illustrative cases were chosen by group consensus. RESULTS Four illustrative cases were identified for further analysis. Challenges included need for adequate counseling and informed consent, challenges in prenatal variant interpretation, performing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies, inability to identify a genetic etiology, and identifying parental secondary findings. CONCLUSION Our study illustrates several challenges identified in an ongoing prenatal exome study. While genomic medicine is a powerful tool for prenatal diagnosis, it is important that clinicians understand the ethical implications and parental perceptions of this testing modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Harris
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Kelly Gilmore
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Emily Hardisty
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Anne Drapkin Lyerly
- Department of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Neeta L Vora
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Amendola LM, Berg JS, Horowitz CR, Angelo F, Bensen JT, Biesecker BB, Biesecker LG, Cooper GM, East K, Filipski K, Fullerton SM, Gelb BD, Goddard KA, Hailu B, Hart R, Hassmiller-Lich K, Joseph G, Kenny EE, Koenig BA, Knight S, Kwok PY, Lewis KL, McGuire AL, Norton ME, Ou J, Parsons DW, Powell BC, Risch N, Robinson M, Rini C, Scollon S, Slavotinek AM, Veenstra DL, Wasserstein MP, Wilfond BS, Hindorff LA, Plon SE, Jarvik GP, Jarvik GP. The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations. Am J Hum Genet 2018; 103:319-327. [PMID: 30193136 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.08.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 113] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2018] [Accepted: 08/15/2018] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, now in its second funding cycle, is investigating the effectiveness of integrating genomic (exome or genome) sequencing into the clinical care of diverse and medically underserved individuals in a variety of healthcare settings and disease states. The consortium comprises a coordinating center, six funded extramural clinical projects, and an ongoing National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project. Collectively, these projects aim to enroll and sequence over 6,100 participants in four years. At least 60% of participants will be of non-European ancestry or from underserved settings, with the goal of diversifying the populations that are providing an evidence base for genomic medicine. Five of the six clinical projects are enrolling pediatric patients with various phenotypes. One of these five projects is also enrolling couples whose fetus has a structural anomaly, and the sixth project is enrolling adults at risk for hereditary cancer. The ongoing NHGRI intramural project has enrolled primarily healthy adults. Goals of the consortium include assessing the clinical utility of genomic sequencing, exploring medical follow up and cascade testing of relatives, and evaluating patient-provider-laboratory level interactions that influence the use of this technology. The findings from the CSER consortium will offer patients, healthcare systems, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges of providing genomic medicine in diverse populations and settings, and contribute evidence toward developing best practices for the delivery of clinically useful and cost-effective genomic sequencing in diverse healthcare settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Gail P Jarvik
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Scherr CL, Aufox S, Ross AA, Ramesh S, Wicklund CA, Smith M. What People Want to Know About Their Genes: A Critical Review of the Literature on Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Studies. Healthcare (Basel) 2018; 6:healthcare6030096. [PMID: 30096823 PMCID: PMC6165341 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare6030096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2018] [Revised: 07/28/2018] [Accepted: 07/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
From a public health perspective, the “All of Us” study provides an opportunity to isolate targeted and cost-effective prevention and early-detection strategies. Identifying motivations for participation in large-scale genomic sequencing (LSGS) studies, and motivations and preferences to receive results will help determine effective strategies for “All of Us” study implementation. This paper offers a critical review of the literature regarding LSGS for adult onset hereditary conditions where results could indicate an increased risk to develop disease. The purpose of this review is to synthesize studies which explored peoples’ motivations for participating in LSGS studies, and their desire to receive different types of genetic results. Participants were primarily motivated by altruism, desire to know more about their health, and curiosity. When asked about hypothetically receiving results, most participants in hypothetical studies wanted all results except those which were uncertain (i.e., a variant of uncertain significance (VUS)). However, participants in studies where results were returned preferred to receive only results for which an intervention was available, but also wanted VUS. Concerns about peoples’ understanding of results and possible psychosocial implications are noted. Most studies examined populations classified as “early adopters,” therefore, additional research on motivations and expectations among the general public, minority, and underserved populations is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney L Scherr
- Center for Communication and Health, Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, 710 North Lake Shore Drive, 15th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611; USA.
| | - Sharon Aufox
- Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 645 N Michigan Ave, Suite 630, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
| | - Amy A Ross
- Center for Communication and Health, Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, 710 North Lake Shore Drive, 15th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611; USA.
| | - Sanjana Ramesh
- Center for Communication and Health, Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, 710 North Lake Shore Drive, 15th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611; USA.
| | - Catherine A Wicklund
- Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 645 N Michigan Ave, Suite 630, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
| | - Maureen Smith
- Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 645 N Michigan Ave, Suite 630, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Wynn J, Martinez J, Bulafka J, Duong J, Zhang Y, Chiuzan C, Preti J, Cremona ML, Jobanputra V, Fyer AJ, Klitzman RL, Appelbaum PS, Chung WK. Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study. J Genet Couns 2018; 27:709-722. [PMID: 29168042 PMCID: PMC5945295 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0172-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2017] [Accepted: 11/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
The impact of returning secondary results from exome sequencing (ES) on patients/participants is important to understand as ES is increasingly utilized in clinical care and research. Participants were recruited from studies using ES and were separated into two arms: 107 who had ES and were offered the choice to learn secondary results (ES group) and 85 who had not yet had ES (No ES group). Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 1 and 12 months, following results disclosure (ES group) or enrollment (No ES group). While the majority (65%) elected to learn all results following pre-test counseling, it was reduced from the 76% who indicated a desire for all results at baseline. Thirty-seven percent received results associated with an increased personal disease risk. There were no differences in changes in any of the psychological and social measures from baseline to post-results disclosure between the ES and No ES groups. Receiving a wide range of secondary findings appeared to have little measurable impact on most participants. The experience of learning secondary results may be related to participants' previous experiences with genetics, as well as the genetic counseling provided. Future research with a more diverse, genetically naïve group, as well as scalable methods of delivery, is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Wynn
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Josue Martinez
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jessica Bulafka
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jimmy Duong
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yuan Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Codruta Chiuzan
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jain Preti
- Department of Genetic, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | | | | | - Abby J Fyer
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert L Klitzman
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Paul S Appelbaum
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, 1150 St. Nicholas Ave., Russ Berrie Pavilion, 6th Fl, Rm, New York, NY, 620, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic technology can now deliver cost effective, targeted diagnosis and treatment for patients. Genetic counselling is a communication process empowering patients and families to make autonomous decisions and effectively use new genetic information. The skills of genetic counselling and expertise of genetic counsellors are integral to the effective implementation of genomic medicine. SOURCES OF DATA Original papers, reviews, guidelines, policy papers and web-resources. AREAS OF AGREEMENT An international consensus on the definition of genetic counselling. Genetic counselling is necessary for implementation of genomic medicine. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Models of genetic counselling. GROWING POINTS Genomic medicine is a growing and strategic priority for many health care systems. Genetic counselling is part of this. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH An evidence base is necessary, incorporating implementation and outcome research, to enable health care systems, practitioners, patients and families to maximize the utility (medically and psychologically) of the new genomic possibilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine Patch
- Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London
- Genetic Counselling, Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, Dawson Hall, London
- Correspondence address. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA. E-mail:
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
- Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wynn J, Lewis K, Amendola LM, Bernhardt BA, Biswas S, Joshi M, McMullen C, Scollon S. Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study. BMC Med Genomics 2018; 11:45. [PMID: 29739461 PMCID: PMC5941324 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0360-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2017] [Accepted: 04/19/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. Results The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants’ reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. Conclusions These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-018-0360-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Wynn
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Katie Lewis
- Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Laura M Amendola
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Barbara A Bernhardt
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sawona Biswas
- Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Manasi Joshi
- The Center for Health Research, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Carmit McMullen
- Center for Health Research - Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Sarah Scollon
- Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, 1102 Bates St. FC 1200, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Wynn J, Ottman R, Duong J, Wilson AL, Ahimaz P, Martinez J, Rabin R, Rosen E, Webster R, Au C, Cho MT, Egan C, Guzman E, Primiano M, Shaw JE, Sisson R, Klitzman RL, Appelbaum PS, Lichter-Konecki U, Anyane-Yeboa K, Iglesias A, Chung WK. Diagnostic exome sequencing in children: A survey of parental understanding, experience and psychological impact. Clin Genet 2018; 93:1039-1048. [PMID: 29266212 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2017] [Revised: 11/10/2017] [Accepted: 11/13/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is increasingly being used as an effective diagnostic tool in the field of pediatric genetics. We sought to evaluate the parental experience, understanding and psychological impact of CES by conducting a survey study of English-speaking parents of children who had diagnostic CES. Parents of 192 unique patients participated. The parent's interpretation of the child's result agreed with the clinician's interpretation in 79% of cases, with more frequent discordance when the clinician's interpretation was uncertain. The majority (79%) reported no regret with the decision to have CES. Most (65%) reported complete satisfaction with the genetic counseling experience, and satisfaction was positively associated with years of genetic counselor (GC) experience. The psychological impact of CES was greatest for parents of children with positive results and for parents with anxiety or depression. The results of this study are important for helping clinicians to prepare families for the possible results and variable psychological impact of CES. The frequency of parental misinterpretation of test results indicates the need for additional clarity in the communication of results. Finally, while the majority of patients were satisfied with their genetic counseling, satisfaction was lower for new GCs, suggesting a need for targeted GC training for genomic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Wynn
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - R Ottman
- G.H. Sergievsky Center and Departments of Epidemiology and Neurology, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York
| | - J Duong
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - A L Wilson
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - P Ahimaz
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - J Martinez
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - R Rabin
- College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Long Island University - Post Campus, Brookville, New York
| | - E Rosen
- College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Long Island University - Post Campus, Brookville, New York
| | - R Webster
- Columbia University Medical School, New York, New York
| | - C Au
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - M T Cho
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York.,GeneDx, Gaithersburg, Maryland
| | - C Egan
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - E Guzman
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - M Primiano
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - J E Shaw
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - R Sisson
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - R L Klitzman
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York
| | - P S Appelbaum
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and NY State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York
| | - U Lichter-Konecki
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - K Anyane-Yeboa
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - A Iglesias
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - W K Chung
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.,Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Timmermans S, Stivers T. The social utility of clinical exome sequencing. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2018; 101:221-226. [PMID: 28869057 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2017] [Revised: 07/23/2017] [Accepted: 08/18/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Examine the presentation of clinical and social implications of exome sequencing findings during patient-geneticist interactions. METHODS Video-recordings of 34 returns of exome sequencing results with findings in an academic genetics clinic were examined using an inductive thematic analysis to distinguish categories of consequences. We then operationalized these categories for structured observation coding of parent or geneticist/genetic counselor-initiated mention of consequences, complemented with semi-structured interviews with 16 families. This allowed us to provide basic descriptive statistics including frequencies and bivariate analyses. Because variables were generally dichotomous, we used chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS A total of 568 consequences of exome sequencing were discussed during the consultations, which can be grouped in two broad categories: clinical and social consequences. Clinical consequences related to the diagnosis, prognosis or treatment regimen of the test. Social consequences affect the family as a social unit and were not the reason for testing. CONCLUSION Besides clinical consequences, patients and clinicians distinguish distinct and highly salient social consequences of exome findings during return of results consultations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Clinical geneticists have an opportunity to address the social utility of exome findings.
Collapse
|
24
|
Brett GR, Wilkins EJ, Creed ET, West K, Jarmolowicz A, Valente GM, Prawer Y, Lynch E, Macciocca I. Genetic Counseling in the Era of Genomics: What’s all the Fuss about? J Genet Couns 2018; 27:1010-1021. [DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0216-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2017] [Accepted: 01/11/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
25
|
"Possibly positive or certainly uncertain?": participants' responses to uncertain diagnostic results from exome sequencing. Genet Med 2017; 20:313-319. [PMID: 29593351 PMCID: PMC5880300 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2017] [Accepted: 07/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Clinical genome sequencing (GS) produces uncertain diagnostic results, raising concerns about how to communicate the inherent complexities in ways that reduce potential misunderstandings and harms. This study investigates clinicians’ communications and patient/participant responses to uncertain diagnostic results arising from a clinical exome sequencing research study, contributing empirical data to the debate surrounding disclosure of uncertain genomic information. Methods We investigated the communication and impact of uncertain diagnostic results using ethnographic observations of result disclosures with 21 adults and 11 parents of child patients, followed by 2 semi-structured interviews with these same participants. Results Participants understood their uncertain results in ways that were congruent with clinical geneticists’ communications. They followed recommendations for further consultation, although family testing to resolve uncertainty was not always done. Participants were prepared for learning an uncertain result and grasped the key concept that it should not be used to guide health care or other decisions. They did not express regret for having learned the uncertain result; most regarded it as potentially valuable in the future. Conclusion This study suggests that uncertain diagnostic results from GS can be relayed to patients in ways they can understand and consistent with providers’ interpretations, without causing undue harm.
Collapse
|
26
|
Sperber NR, Carpenter JS, Cavallari LH, J. Damschroder L, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Denny JC, Ginsburg GS, Guan Y, Horowitz CR, Levy KD, Levy MA, Madden EB, Matheny ME, Pollin TI, Pratt VM, Rosenman M, Voils CI, W. Weitzel K, Wilke RA, Ryanne Wu R, Orlando LA. Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network. BMC Med Genomics 2017; 10:35. [PMID: 28532511 PMCID: PMC5441047 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-017-0273-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2016] [Accepted: 05/10/2017] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To realize potential public health benefits from genetic and genomic innovations, understanding how best to implement the innovations into clinical care is important. The objective of this study was to synthesize data on challenges identified by six diverse projects that are part of a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded network focused on implementing genomics into practice and strategies to overcome these challenges. METHODS We used a multiple-case study approach with each project considered as a case and qualitative methods to elicit and describe themes related to implementation challenges and strategies. We describe challenges and strategies in an implementation framework and typology to enable consistent definitions and cross-case comparisons. Strategies were linked to challenges based on expert review and shared themes. RESULTS Three challenges were identified by all six projects, and strategies to address these challenges varied across the projects. One common challenge was to increase the relative priority of integrating genomics within the health system electronic health record (EHR). Four projects used data warehousing techniques to accomplish the integration. The second common challenge was to strengthen clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about genomic medicine. To overcome this challenge, all projects developed educational materials and conducted meetings and outreach focused on genomic education for clinicians. The third challenge was engaging patients in the genomic medicine projects. Strategies to overcome this challenge included use of mass media to spread the word, actively involving patients in implementation (e.g., a patient advisory board), and preparing patients to be active participants in their healthcare decisions. CONCLUSIONS This is the first collaborative evaluation focusing on the description of genomic medicine innovations implemented in multiple real-world clinical settings. Findings suggest that strategies to facilitate integration of genomic data within existing EHRs and educate stakeholders about the value of genomic services are considered important for effective implementation. Future work could build on these findings to evaluate which strategies are optimal under what conditions. This information will be useful for guiding translation of discoveries to clinical care, which, in turn, can provide data to inform continual improvement of genomic innovations and their applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nina R. Sperber
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC USA
- Duke Center for Applied Genomics & Precision Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
- VA Health Services Research & Development, Durham VA Health Care System, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC 27701 USA
| | | | - Larisa H. Cavallari
- Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research and Center for Pharmacogenomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA
| | - Laura J. Damschroder
- Implementation Pathways, LLC and VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff
- University of Florida, College of Pharmacy and Medicine and Center for Pharmacogenomics, Gainesville, USA
| | | | - Geoffrey S. Ginsburg
- Duke Center for Applied Genomics & Precision Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
| | - Yue Guan
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | | | | | - Mia A. Levy
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, USA
| | - Ebony B. Madden
- National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Rockville, USA
| | - Michael E. Matheny
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Tennessee Valley HealthCare System VA, Nashville, USA
| | - Toni I. Pollin
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | | | - Marc Rosenman
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN USA
| | - Corrine I. Voils
- William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI USA
- Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA
| | - Kristen W. Weitzel
- University of Florida, College of Pharmacy and Medicine and Center for Pharmacogenomics, Gainesville, USA
| | - Russell A. Wilke
- Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, USA
| | - R. Ryanne Wu
- Duke Center for Applied Genomics & Precision Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
- Duke University, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857 Singapore
| | - Lori A. Orlando
- Duke Center for Applied Genomics & Precision Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
In addition to the need for basic education about genetics/genomics, other approaches are suggested to include awareness campaigns, continuing education courses, policy review, and onsite clinical development. These alternative learning strategies encourage oncology nurses across the continuum of care, from the bedside/seatside to oncology nurse research, to integrate genomics into all levels of practice and research in the specialty of oncology nursing. All nurses are warriors in the fight against cancer. The goal of this article is to identify genomic information that oncology nurses, at all levels of care, need to know and use as tools in the war against cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Eggert
- School of Nursing, College of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; Inherited Cancer Clinic, Bon Secours St. Francis Cancer Center, 104 Innovation Drive, Greenville, SC 29607, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Daniels M, Wathoo C, Brusco L, Lu KH, Shaw K, Dumbrava EEI, Arun B, Strong L, Litton JK, Eterovic K, Aytac U, Mendelsohn J, Mills GB, Chen K, Meric-Bernstam F. Active Disclosure of Secondary Germline Findings to Deceased Research Participants' Personal Representatives: Process and Outcomes. JCO Precis Oncol 2017; 1. [PMID: 31552380 DOI: 10.1200/po.17.00074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Molly Daniels
- Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chetna Wathoo
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren Brusco
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen H Lu
- Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kenna Shaw
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava
- Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Trials Program), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Banu Arun
- Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Louise Strong
- Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jennifer K Litton
- Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karina Eterovic
- Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ugur Aytac
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - John Mendelsohn
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gordon B Mills
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ken Chen
- Bioinformatics & Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Trials Program), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Green RC, Goddard KAB, Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Appelbaum PS, Berg JS, Bernhardt BA, Biesecker LG, Biswas S, Blout CL, Bowling KM, Brothers KB, Burke W, Caga-Anan CF, Chinnaiyan AM, Chung WK, Clayton EW, Cooper GM, East K, Evans JP, Fullerton SM, Garraway LA, Garrett JR, Gray SW, Henderson GE, Hindorff LA, Holm IA, Lewis MH, Hutter CM, Janne PA, Joffe S, Kaufman D, Knoppers BM, Koenig BA, Krantz ID, Manolio TA, McCullough L, McEwen J, McGuire A, Muzny D, Myers RM, Nickerson DA, Ou J, Parsons DW, Petersen GM, Plon SE, Rehm HL, Roberts JS, Robinson D, Salama JS, Scollon S, Sharp RR, Shirts B, Spinner NB, Tabor HK, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Veenstra DL, Wagle N, Weck K, Wilfond BS, Wilhelmsen K, Wolf SM, Wynn J, Yu JH. Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. Am J Hum Genet 2016; 98:1051-1066. [PMID: 27181682 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2015] [Accepted: 04/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert C Green
- Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Partners Personalized Medicine, Boston, MA 02139, USA.
| | - Katrina A B Goddard
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR 97227, USA
| | - Gail P Jarvik
- Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Laura M Amendola
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Paul S Appelbaum
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA
| | - Jonathan S Berg
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Barbara A Bernhardt
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Leslie G Biesecker
- Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Sawona Biswas
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Carrie L Blout
- Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Kevin M Bowling
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Kyle B Brothers
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40202, USA
| | - Wylie Burke
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Bioethics and Humanities, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | | | - Arul M Chinnaiyan
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Departments of Pathology and Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10029, USA; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA
| | - Ellen W Clayton
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA
| | - Gregory M Cooper
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Kelly East
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - James P Evans
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Stephanie M Fullerton
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Levi A Garraway
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Medical Oncology and Center for Cancer Precision Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Jeremy R Garrett
- Children's Mercy Bioethics Center, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA; Departments of Pediatrics and Philosophy, University of Missouri - Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
| | - Stacy W Gray
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Gail E Henderson
- Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Lucia A Hindorff
- Division of Genomic Medicine, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Ingrid A Holm
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Division of Genetics and Genomics and the Manton Center for Orphan Diseases Research, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | | | - Carolyn M Hutter
- Division of Genomic Medicine, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Pasi A Janne
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Steven Joffe
- Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - David Kaufman
- Division of Genomics and Society, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Bartha M Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada
| | - Barbara A Koenig
- Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA
| | - Ian D Krantz
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Teri A Manolio
- Division of Genomic Medicine, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Laurence McCullough
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jean McEwen
- Division of Genomics and Society, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Amy McGuire
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Donna Muzny
- Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Richard M Myers
- HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
| | - Deborah A Nickerson
- Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Jeffrey Ou
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Donald W Parsons
- Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Gloria M Petersen
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Sharon E Plon
- Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Heidi L Rehm
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Partners Personalized Medicine, Boston, MA 02139, USA; Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners HealthCare, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
| | - J Scott Roberts
- Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Dan Robinson
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Joseph S Salama
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Sarah Scollon
- Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Richard R Sharp
- Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Brian Shirts
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Nancy B Spinner
- Division of Translational Medicine and Human Genetics, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Holly K Tabor
- Department of Pediatrics and Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Peter Tarczy-Hornoch
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
| | - David L Veenstra
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Nikhil Wagle
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Medical Oncology and Center for Cancer Precision Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Karen Weck
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Benjamin S Wilfond
- Department of Pediatrics and Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Kirk Wilhelmsen
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Susan M Wolf
- Law School, Medical School, and Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment, & the Life Sciences, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, MN 55455, USA
| | - Julia Wynn
- Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Joon-Ho Yu
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Evans JP, Wilhelmsen KC, Berg J, Schmitt CP, Krishnamurthy A, Fecho K, Ahalt SC. A New Framework and Prototype Solution for Clinical Decision Support and Research in Genomics and Other Data-intensive Fields of Medicine. EGEMS 2016; 4:1198. [PMID: 27195307 PMCID: PMC4862762 DOI: 10.13063/2327-9214.1198] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Introduction: In genomics and other fields, it is now possible to capture and store large amounts of data in electronic medical records (EMRs). However, it is not clear if the routine accumulation of massive amounts of (largely uninterpretable) data will yield any health benefits to patients. Nevertheless, the use of large-scale medical data is likely to grow. To meet emerging challenges and facilitate optimal use of genomic data, our institution initiated a comprehensive planning process that addresses the needs of all stakeholders (e.g., patients, families, healthcare providers, researchers, technical staff, administrators). Our experience with this process and a key genomics research project contributed to the proposed framework. Framework: We propose a two-pronged Genomic Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) that encompasses the concept of the “Clinical Mendeliome” as a patient-centric list of genomic variants that are clinically actionable and introduces the concept of the “Archival Value Criterion” as a decision-making formalism that approximates the cost-effectiveness of capturing, storing, and curating genome-scale sequencing data. We describe a prototype Genomic CDSS that we developed as a first step toward implementation of the framework. Conclusion: The proposed framework and prototype solution are designed to address the perspectives of stakeholders, stimulate effective clinical use of genomic data, drive genomic research, and meet current and future needs. The framework also can be broadly applied to additional fields, including other ‘-omics’ fields. We advocate for the creation of a Task Force on the Clinical Mendeliome, charged with defining Clinical Mendeliomes and drafting clinical guidelines for their use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James P Evans
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Kirk C Wilhelmsen
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Jonathan Berg
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Charles P Schmitt
- Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Ashok Krishnamurthy
- Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Karamarie Fecho
- Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Stanley C Ahalt
- Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne M Mahon
- Department of Internal Medicine and in the School of Nursing at Saint Louis University in Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wynn J. Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor's Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing. J Genet Couns 2015; 25:691-7. [PMID: 26242468 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9868-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2015] [Accepted: 07/15/2015] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor's experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Wynn
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Genetics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|