What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

An electronic health record (EHR) log analysis shows limited clinician engagement with unsolicited genetic test results

How clinicians utilize medically actionable genomic information, displayed in the electronic health record (EHR), in medical decision-making remains unknown. Participating sites of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network have invested resources into EHR integration efforts to enable the display of genetic testing data across heterogeneous EHR systems. To assess clinicians’ engagement with unsolicited EHR-integrated genetic test results of eMERGE participants within a large tertiary care academic medical center, we analyzed automatically generated EHR access log data. We found that clinicians viewed only 1% of all the eMERGE genetic test results integrated in the EHR. Using a cluster analysis, we also identified different user traits associated with varying degrees of engagement with the EHR-integrated genomic data. These data contribute important empirical knowledge about clinicians limited and brief engagements with unsolicited EHR-integrated genetic test results of eMERGE participants. Appreciation for user-specific roles provide additional context for why certain users were more or less engaged with the unsolicited results. This study highlights opportunities to use EHR log data as a performance metric to more precisely inform ongoing EHR-integration efforts and decisions about the allocation of informatics resources in genomic research.

Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to explore 1) the impact of returning unexpected pharmacogenomic (PGx) results to biobank contributors, and 2) participant views about improving communication.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative focus group study with biobank participants (N = 54) who were notified by mail of an individual research result indicating increased risk for adverse events associated with the common cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We employed a framework approach for analysis.

RESULTS

Our results revealed three themes illustrating participants' questions and uncertainty, especially regarding how to share results with health providers and family members, and remember them over time. Participants valued results for themselves and others, and for the future of medicine. Risk perception was framed by health identity. "Toxicity narratives," or familiarity with another's adverse reaction to chemotherapy, increased the sense of importance participants reported.

CONCLUSION

These focus group results highlight research participant remaining questions and high valuation of PGx results, even when unexpected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We identify PGx research participants' needs for clear clinical translation messaging that attends to health identity, pragmatics of sharing information with family members, and patient perceptions of barriers to transferring research results to a clinical context.

Ethical conflicts in translational genetic research: lessons learned from the eMERGE-III experience

PURPOSE

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium integrated biorepository-based research with electronic health records (EHR) to return results from large-scale genetic tests to participants and uploaded those data into the EHR. This article explores the ethical issues investigators encountered in that process.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with study personnel of the eMERGE-III Consortium sites that returned results.

RESULTS

We discuss major ethical issues that arose while attempting to return research results from the eMERGE Consortium to individual participants. These included difficulties recontacting those participants who had not explicitly consented to such and disclosing results to many participants with insufficient infrastructure and staff. Investigators reported being driven by a supererogatory clinical impulse.

CONCLUSION

All these issues ultimately derive from ethical conflicts inherent to translational work being done at the interface of research and clinical care. A critical rethinking of this divide is important, but infrastructural support for such work is necessary for an ethically sound rollout of large-scale genetic testing.