Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result

Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience

DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases holds promise for advancing personalized medicine and improving public health. Yet as most individuals pursuing such screening receive negative results, the return of results process must ensure that negative results and their implications are clearly understood. We explored the experiences of adults who received negative results from such screening as part of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics consortium Phase 3 project (eMERGE-3) at Columbia University. In addition to a laboratory report and a standard counseling letter explaining the negative results, participants were randomized to receive (or not) a vignette explaining the results. A diverse cohort of 437 adult participants completed both baseline and post-result surveys. Many participants reported motivations that did not match the screening goals and included hope for diagnosis and family disease risk. A quarter of participants reported not feeling confident explaining their results to others (n = 105, 24%), and those who did not receive the vignette were less confident than those who did (29% versus 19% respectively; p-value = 0.02). Open-text responses about personal and family members' reactions to the results suggested that some perceived an exaggerated benefit from the negative result and might forgo more appropriate genetic testing. Our findings highlight the complexity of returning negative results and raise concerns that participants might forgo more suitable genetic testing. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy of different forms of ancillary materials on individuals' comprehension of negative results.

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

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

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.

Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients

Few studies have examined comprehension and miscomprehension of genetic risk feedback for moderate-risk genes in the general population. We examined the prevalence and nature of accurate and inaccurate genetic risk feedback comprehension among those who received genetic testing for melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) gene variants that confer moderate melanoma risk. Participants (N = 145 Albuquerque, NM) were tested as part of a randomized controlled trial. Two weeks after receiving MC1R genetic risk feedback, participants answered open-ended questions regarding their reactions to the MC1R feedback report. Participants' comprehension of their feedback (average-risk or higher-risk for melanoma) was evaluated through qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. Most participants demonstrated comprehension of their feedback results (i.e., 63% of average-risk participants [ARPs]; 51% of higher-risk participants [HRPs]). Miscomprehension was evident in fewer participants (i.e., 16% of ARPs, 11% of HRPs). A few ARPs misunderstood the purpose of testing, whereas a few HRPs reported confusion about the meaning of their risk feedback. Some participants' responses to the open-ended questions were too ambiguous to ascertain comprehension or miscomprehension (i.e., 21% of ARPs, 38% of HRPs). Taken together, these findings suggest that genetic testing feedback for MC1R risk variants is largely comprehensible to general population participants. This study adds to the work examining comprehension and usage of common, moderate risk genetic information in public health contexts. However, to maximize the utility of genetic risk information in the general population, further research is needed to investigate and address areas where common genetic risk feedback misunderstandings occur.

A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants

Rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing recently became feasible for infants in intensive care units (ICUs). However, research regarding parents' perceived utility, adequacy of consent, and potential harms and benefits is lacking. Herein we report results of parental surveys of these domains from the second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health (NSIGHT2) study, a randomized, controlled trial of rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing of infants in regional ICUs. More than 90% of parents reported feeling adequately informed to consent to diagnostic genomic sequencing. Despite only 23% (27) of 117 infants receiving genomic diagnoses, 97% (156) of 161 parents reported that testing was at least somewhat useful and 50.3% (88/161) reported no decisional regret (median 0, mean 10, range 0-100). Five of 117 families (4.3%) reported harm. Upon follow-up, one (1%) confirmed harm to child and parent related to negative results/no diagnosis, two (2%) reported stress or confusion, and two (2%) denied harm. In 81% (89) of 111 infants, families and clinicians agreed that genomic results were useful. Of the families for whom clinicians perceived harm from genomic testing, no parents reported harm. Positive tests/genomic diagnosis were more frequently perceived to be useful by parents, to benefit their infant, and to help manage potential symptoms (p < .05). In summary, the large majority of parents felt that first-tier, rapid, diagnostic genomic sequencing was beneficial for infants lacking etiologic diagnoses in ICUs. Most parents in this study perceived being adequately informed to consent, understood their child's results, and denied regret or harm from undergoing sequencing.