Patient-focused pathogen genetic counselling—has the time come?

Ensuring accordance with principles of healthcare ethics requires improved communication of pathogen genomic data. This could include educating healthcare professionals in communicating pathogen genomic information to individuals, developing ethical frameworks for reporting pathogen genomic results to individuals, responsible media reporting guidelines, and counselling for individuals (‘pathogen genetic counselling’).

Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to patient recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants’ (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

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

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

Information Avoidance, Self-affirmation, and Intentions to Receive Genomic Sequencing Results Among Members of an African Descent Cohort

Background Information avoidance tendencies have been found to be associated with lower intentions to pursue medically actionable genomic sequencing results, but less so among individuals who engage more in spontaneous self-affirmation. Yet these results were obtained with a largely non-Hispanic White, high-SES cohort. Purpose To assess these variables, their magnitude, and their associations in an African-descent cohort as part of the same ClinSeq® exome sequencing program. Methods Participants reported levels of spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance, and intentions to receive three types of results – medically actionable, non-medically actionable, and carrier status as part of a baseline survey. Results Relative to the original, non-Hispanic White cohort, those in the African-descent cohort had higher levels of spontaneous self-affirmation and lower intentions of learning about carrier genomic results; they reported comparable levels of information avoidance and intentions to receive other results. Information avoidance was negatively associated with intention to receive non-actionable results in the African-descent cohort, as found in the initial cohort, with no moderating effect of spontaneous self-affirmation. Information avoidance, spontaneous self-affirmation, and their interaction were not associated with intentions to receive actionable results (contrary to findings in the initial cohort), or carrier results. Conclusions Individuals of African descent may engage in relatively more spontaneous self-affirmation, and do not appear to engage in more information avoidance. Their information avoidance tendencies were associated with pursuit of non-actionable sequencing results, with no moderating effect of self-affirmation, and were not associated with pursuit of actionable results or carrier results.

Patient Knowledge and Expectations About Return of Genomic Results in a Biomarker-Driven Master Protocol Trial (SWOG S1400GEN)

PURPOSE: Biomarker-driven master protocols represent a new paradigm in oncology clinical trials, but their complex designs and wide-ranging genomic results returned can be difficult to communicate to participants. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate patient knowledge and expectations related to return of genomic results in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP). METHODS: Eligible participants with previously treated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer were recruited from patients enrolled in Lung-MAP. Participants completed a 38-item telephone survey ≤ 30 days from Lung-MAP consent. The survey assessed understanding about the benefits and risks of Lung-MAP participation and knowledge of the potential uses of somatic testing results returned. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios for associations between demographic factors and correct responses to survey items were assessed. RESULTS: From August 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, we recruited 207 participants with a median age of 67, 57.3% male, and 94.2% White. Most participants “strongly/somewhat agreed” with statements that they “received enough information to understand” Lung-MAP benefits (82.6%) and risks (69.5%). In items asking about potential uses of Lung-MAP genomic results, 87.0% correctly indicated that the results help to select cancer treatment, but < 20% correctly indicated that the results are not used to confirm cancer diagnosis, would not reveal risk of developing diseases besides cancer, and would not indicate if family members had increased cancer risk. There were no associations between sociodemographic factors and proportions providing correct responses. CONCLUSION: In a large National Clinical Trials Network biomarker-driven master protocol, most participants demonstrated incorrect knowledge and expectations about the uses of genomic results provided in the study despite most indicating that they had enough information to understand benefits and risks.