Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants

In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.

Fingerstick glycosylated hemoglobin, plasma protein, and albumin

We have developed techniques that permit the affinity-chromatographic determination of glycosylated hemoglobin, plasma protein, and albumin on fingerstick samples of whole blood. The fingerstick glycohemoglobin technique takes advantage of the high sensitivity of measurement of hemoglobin by absorbance at 414 nm. The glycosylated plasma protein is assayed by a highly sensitive method based on binding of Coomassie blue. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is used to measure albumin in the bound and nonbound fractions of an aminophenylboronic acid chromatographic separation. The fingerstick method for assay of glycosylated plasma albumin gives results that are approximately 40% higher than comparable values obtained on the same patient with a 1-ml plasma sample determined with the bromcresol green technique. There is good correlation of fingerstick glycoalbumins with fingerstick glycohemoglobins and glycosylated plasma protein values. These procedures should be useful for children and for large-scale ambulatory screening for diabetes mellitus.

Preventing discrimination based on psychiatric risk biomarkers

Recent studies have identified genomic and nongenomic psychiatric risk biomarkers (PRBs; e.g., genomic variants, blood analytes, gray matter volume). PRBs may soon become a powerful tool for improving psychiatric care and prevention. PRB research and its translation to clinical care, however, may prove to be a double-edged sword. Mental health stigma and discrimination are already widespread, and data caution that biological explanations of psychiatric disorders can exacerbate these stigmatizing attitudes, increasing the desire for social distance and heightening the perceived dangerousness of the patient. As a reaction to the Human Genome Project and historical concerns about eugenics, the international community mobilized to establish legislation to prevent genomic discrimination. But in most countries, these laws are limited to few contexts (e.g., employment, health insurance), and very few countries protect against discrimination based on nongenomic risk biomarkers. Like genomic PRBs, nongenomic PRBs provide information regarding risk for stigmatized psychiatric disorders and have similar-and in some cases greater-predictive value. Numerous large-scale neuroscience and neurogenomics projects are advancing the identification and translation of PRBs. The prospect of PRB-based stigma however, threatens to undermine the potential benefits of this research. Unbridaled by nonexistent or limited PRB anti-discrimination protections, the threat of PRB-based stigma and discrimination may lead many to forego PRB testing, even if shown to have clinical utility. To maximize the clinical and social benefits of PRB-based technologies, educational campaigns should address mental health and PRB stigma, and lawmakers should carefully consider expanding legislation that prohibits PRB-based discrimination.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants

Purpose

Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

Methods

We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of “best practices” for RoR to individual research participants.

Results

While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non–medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results.

Conclusion

There are significant gaps between researchers’ visions for “best” versus “actual” RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.

OS05.4.A Do neurocognitive deficits explain the differences between brain tumour patients and their proxies assessing the patient’s I-ADL?

BACKGROUND

Neurocognitive deficits are common among brain tumour patients, and may impact on patient awareness of deficits in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). This study aimed to examine differences between patient-reported and proxy-reported assessments of the patient’s performance of IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive deficits.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phase III EORTC questionnaire measuring IADL in brain tumour patients (EORTC IADL-BN32) and six neurocognitive test measures were administered as part of a larger multicentre international study designed to develop a brain tumour specific IADL questionnaire. Bland-Altman plots and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to evaluated patient- and proxy-reported IADL on a group level. Subsequently, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare patient-proxy difference scores (patient IADL score - their proxy IADL score) between patients who were considered clearly neurocognitively impaired (≥2 neurocognitive test measures; ≤2.0 SD below healthy controls) and patients who were not. Furthermore, multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examined which sociodemgraphic, clinical, and particularly neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patients and proxies differing in their evaluation of patient’s IADL.

RESULTS

Patients (N=81) and proxies (N=81), on group level, did not significantly differ on either the IADL individual item or scale scores. However, significant differences were found on patient-proxy difference scores between patients who were (N=37) and were not (N=44) considered clearly neurocognitively impaired for 10/32 individual items and one of the scales (i.e. Scale 4: Administrative tasks), all showing that the proxies of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients reported more problems relative to the patients themselves, compared to proxies of patients not clearly neurocognitively impaired. Furthermore, for each scale, a neurocognitive variable, either impaired information processing speed, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency or the number of neurocognitive test measures impaired, was found to be independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. For 4/5 scales, a clinical variable was additionally independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. Only one variable was independently associated with patient reporting more problems, namely being in active treatment was found to be associated with patients reporting more problems on Scale 4: Administrative tasks.

CONCLUSION

Results imply a consistent trend of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients underreporting problems with IADL compared to their proxies. It would therefore be advised to administer both the patient- and proxy-version of the EORTC IADL-BN32, particularly if neurocognitive deficits are presumed.

PL02.4.A International validation study of an EORTC instrument measuring instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in patients with brain tumours: EORTC IADL-BN32

Background

Brain tumour patients often have neurocognitive deficits which can result in problems with activities in daily living that are cognitively complex. Currently, no valid and reliable brain tumour-specific instrument to measure these instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is available, but such an instrument is being developed. This study aimed to validate the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire, comprising five multi-item and two single item scales, in a large set of international brain tumour patients.

Material and Methods

This international study was conducted in 10 countries worldwide. Primary and metastatic brain tumour patients and their proxies were requested to complete the EORTC IADL-BN32 and a subjective cognitive questionnaire (MOS COG-R) at multiple time points. Several psychometric properties were evaluated with baseline data, including the structural validity (bi-factor confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]), reliability (internal consistency), construct validity (known groups comparisons) and patient-proxy congruency (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC], Spearman's correlation).

Results

At baseline, 326 patients ( 30% low-grade glioma, 37% high-grade glioma (HGG) and 33% brain metastases) and 311 proxies completed the EORTC IADL-BN32. The bi-factor CFA was found to have a satisfactory model fit (CFI=0.92 and TLI=0.90), and other parameters indicated a good fit (RMSEA=0.08 and SRMR=0.05), thereby validating the preliminary scale structure, but also an IADL sum score. The multi-item scales showed good (0.9>α≥0.8) to excellent (α≥0.9) internal consistency (range α=0.86-0.97). Known groups comparisons analyses regarding patient’s cognitive status (indications vs. no cognitive impairment), subjective cognitive complaints (MOS COG-R ≤30 vs. >30), basic ADL (Barthel Index <100 vs. 100) and performance status (KPS <70 vs. ≥70) showed significant differences on all IADL outcome measures in line with a priori defined hypotheses. On a group level, patient and proxy ratings had moderate to strong correlations, however, proxies tended to report more problems on all scales. The ICCs showed moderate to good congruency between patients and proxies (range ICC: 0.63-0.81).

Conclusion

The evaluated psychometric properties support the current scale structure of the EORTC IADL-BN32. Additional psychometric properties with longitudinal data are needed, such as test-retest reliability and responsiveness, to further validate the EORTC-IADL BN32 questionnaire.

Instrumental activities of daily living in neuro-oncology: International validation of the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Neurocognitive impairments are common in patients with a brain tumour, and may negatively impact on functioning in daily life, particularly on instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). The EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire was developed to measure IADL in this patient population.

METHODS

In this international validation study, we evaluated the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire on several psychometric properties in a large sample of patients with a primary or metastatic brain tumour. We administered the 32-item questionnaire three times: at 'baseline', after 2 weeks and after 3 months. Procedures were in accordance with EORTC Quality of Life Group module development guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 326 patients participated in the study. A bifactor scale structure showed satisfactory model fit measures, with five multi-item scales and two single items, and an IADL sum score. The internal consistency of the multi-item scales ranged from good to excellent (range Cronbach's α: 0.86-0.97). We found significant differences in scale scores between patients with and without neurocognitive impairments or complaints, supporting the construct validity. Initial cross-cultural validity analyses showed indications of item response biases for certain items. Analyses indicated moderate to good test-retest agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70) between baseline and the 2-week follow-up assessment for all but one scale. Deterioration of EORTC IADL-BN32 scale scores were consistent with clinically relevant deterioration on other functional measures with small to large effect sizes, however, subgroup sample sizes were small.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire exhibited adequate to excellent psychometric properties. Cross-cultural validity and responsiveness should be further explored.