Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Establishing the Medical Actionability of Genomic Variants.

Actionability is an important concept in medicine that does not have a well-accepted standard definition, nor is there a general consensus on how to establish it. Medical actionability is often conflated with clinical utility, a related but distinct concept. This lack of clarity contributes to practice variation and inconsistent coverage decisions in genomic medicine, leading to the potential for systematic bias in the use of evidence-based interventions. We clarify how medical actionability and clinical utility are distinct and then discuss the spectrum of actionability, including benefits for the person, the family, and society. We also describe applications across the life course, including prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Current challenges in assessing the medical actionability of identified genomic variants include gaps in the evidence, limited contexts with practice guidelines, and subjective aspects of medical actionability. A standardized and authoritative assessment of medical actionability is critical to implementing genomic medicine in a fashion that improves population health outcomes and reduces health disparities.

Implementing evidence-based assertions of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from the ClinGen Actionability Working Group.

PURPOSE: The ClinGen Actionability Working Group (AWG) developed an evidence-based framework to generate actionability reports and scores of gene-condition pairs in the context of secondary findings from genome sequencing. Here we describe the expansion of the framework to include actionability assertions. METHODS: Initial development of the actionability rubric was based on previously scored adult gene-condition pairs and individual expert evaluation. Rubric refinement was iterative and based on evaluation, feedback, and discussion. The final rubric was pragmatically evaluated via integration into actionability assessments for 27 gene-condition pairs. RESULTS: The resulting rubric has a 4-point scale (limited, moderate, strong, and definitive) and uses the highest-scoring outcome-intervention pair of each gene-condition pair to generate a preliminary assertion. During AWG discussions, predefined criteria and factors guide discussion to produce a consensus assertion for a gene-condition pair, which may differ from the preliminary assertion. The AWG has retrospectively generated assertions for all previously scored gene-condition pairs and are prospectively asserting on gene-condition pairs under assessment, having completed over 170 adult and 188 pediatric gene-condition pairs. CONCLUSION: The AWG expanded its framework to provide actionability assertions to enhance the clinical value of their resources and increase their utility as decision aids regarding return of secondary findings.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

The PrU: Development and validation of a measure to assess personal utility of genomic results.

PURPOSE: People report experiencing value from learning genomic results even in the absence of clinically actionable information. Such personal utility has emerged as a key concept in genomic medicine. The lack of a validated patient-reported outcome measure of personal utility has impeded the ability to assess this concept among those receiving genomic results and evaluate the patient-perceived value of genomics. We aimed to construct and psychometrically evaluate a scale to measure personal utility of genomic results-the Personal Utility (PrU) scale. METHODS: We used an evidence-based, operational definition of personal utility, with data from a systematic literature review and Delphi survey to build a novel scale. After piloting with 24 adults, the PrU was administered to healthy adults in a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium study after receiving results. We investigated the responses using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis (N = 841 participants) resulted in a 3-factor solution, accounting for 74% of the variance in items: (1) self-knowledge (α = 0.92), (2) reproductive planning (α = 0.89), and (3) practical benefits (α = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the 3-factor PrU to assess personal utility of genomic results. Validation of the PrU in other samples will be important for more wide-spread application.

Most people share genetic test results with relatives even if the findings are normal: Family communication in a diverse population.

PURPOSE: With increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings. RESULTS: Most participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication.

Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing enables primary cancer prevention, including through prophylactic surgery. We examined risk-reducing surgeries in unaffected individuals tested for hereditary cancer susceptibly between 2010 and 2018 in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health system. METHODS: We used an internal genetic testing database to create a cohort of individuals who received tests including one or more high-penetrance hereditary cancer susceptibility gene. We then identified, after testing, bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and total hysterectomy procedures in electronic health record and claims data through 2019. We describe surgery utilization by genetic test results and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort included 1020 individuals, 16% with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in one or more of the following genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, APC, MUTYH, ATM, MSH2, PALB2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH6, EPCAM, FLCN, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53. Among individuals with P/LP variants making them candidates for mastectomy, BSO, or hysterectomy per NCCN guidelines, 34% (33/97), 24% (23/94), and 8% (1/12), respectively, underwent surgery during follow-up. Fifty-three percent (18/37) of hysterectomies were among APC, BRCA1, and BRCA2 P/LP variant heterozygotes, typically concurrent with BSO. Three individuals with variants of uncertain significance (only) and 22 with negative results had prophylactic surgery after genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of risk-reducing surgery following usual care genetic testing appears to be lower than in studies that actively recruit high-risk patients and provide testing and follow-up care in specialized settings. Factors in addition to genetic test results and NCCN guidelines motivate prophylactic surgery use and deserve further study.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings.

PURPOSE: Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation. METHODS: We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation. RESULTS: Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%). CONCLUSION: Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

An accessible, relational, inclusive, and actionable (ARIA) model of genetic counseling compared with usual care: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Effective approaches to communicate genomic information are needed to ensure equitable care. In a randomized controlled superiority trial, we tested a novel practice model that aims to make genetic counseling inclusive, by making the communication accessible, relational, and actionable (ARIA). METHODS: In total, 696 English- and Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for individuals from historically underserved backgrounds, were randomized in 1:1 ratio to ARIA or usual care. Primary outcomes were accuracy of recall, communication satisfaction, and perceived understanding. In total, 33 participants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Recall and understanding were high for all participants. ARIA participants scored higher on the relationship scale of communication satisfaction (mean difference = 0.09, 95% CI = <0.01 to 0.17). Moderator analyses of communication satisfaction showed that those with lower health literacy reported less communication difficulty in ARIA and those using medical interpreters reported greater communication ease in ARIA. No significant difference was found on other primary and secondary outcomes. Qualitative data enhanced understanding of how and why ARIA can be effective. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a genetic counseling intervention that focuses on specific communication skills to enhance relationship-building, patient engagement, and comprehension can be effective with all patients and may be especially valuable for patients of lower health literacy and Spanish-speakers who use a medical interpreter.

ClinGen's Pediatric Actionability Working Group: Clinical actionability of secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing in children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: Synthesis and curation of evidence regarding the clinical actionability of secondary findings (SFs) from genome-scale sequencing are needed to support decision-making on reporting of these findings. To assess actionability of SFs in children and adolescents, the Clinical Genome Resource established the Pediatric Actionability Working Group (AWG). METHODS: The Pediatric AWG modified the framework of the existing Adult AWG, which included production of summary reports of actionability for genes and associated conditions and consensus actionability scores for specific outcome-intervention pairs. Modification of the adult framework for the pediatric setting included accounting for special considerations for reporting presymptomatic or predictive genetic findings in the pediatric context, such as maintaining future autonomy by not disclosing conditions not actionable until adulthood. The Pediatric AWG then applied this new framework to genes and associated conditions with putative actionability. RESULTS: As of September 2021, the Pediatric AWG applied the new framework to 70 actionability topics representing 143 genes. Reports and scores are publicly available at www.clinicalgenome.org. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric AWG continues to curate gene-condition topics and build an evidence-based resource, supporting clinical communities and decision-makers with policy development on the return of SFs in pediatric populations.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools. METHODS: Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM5), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively. RESULTS: Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM5 score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM5TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001). CONCLUSION: This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed-methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self-identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in-depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk.

Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome using a universal tumor screening program in an integrated healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) of all individuals diagnosed with CRC and EC is recommended to increase identification of LS. Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) implemented a UTS program for LS among individuals newly diagnosed with CRC in January 2016 and EC in November 2016. UTS at KPNW begins with immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue to determine loss of mismatch repair proteins associated with LS (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2)., IHC showing loss of MLH1 is followed by reflex testing (automatic testing) to detect the presence of the BRAF V600E variant (in cases of CRC) and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation to rule out likely sporadic cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals newly diagnosed with CRC and EC were identified between the initiation of the respective UTS programs and July 2018. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract patient data related to UTS, including IHC and reflex testing results, date of referrals to the genetics department, and results of germline genetic testing for LS. RESULTS: 313 out of 362 individuals diagnosed with CRC and 61 out of 64 individuals diagnosed with EC who were eligible were screened by IHC for LS. Most (47/52 or 90%, including 46/49 CRC and 1/3 EC) individuals that were not screened by IHC only had a biopsy sample available. Fourteen individuals (3.7% overall, including 13/313 CRC and 1/61 EC) received an abnormal result after reflex testing and were referred for genetic counseling. Of these, 10 individuals (71% overall, including 9/13 CRC and 1/1 EC) underwent germline genetic testing for LS. Five individuals diagnosed with CRC were found to have pathogenic variants. in PMS2 (n = 3), MLH1 (n = 1), and MSH6 (n = 1). No pathogenic variants were identified in individuals diagnosed with EC. CONCLUSIONS: UTS identified individuals at risk for LS. Most individuals who screened positive for LS had follow-up germline genetic testing for LS. The consistent use of biopsy samples is an opportunity to improve UTS.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study. METHODS: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool. RESULTS: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history. CONCLUSIONS: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system.

BACKGROUND: A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients. METHODS: We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing. RESULTS: Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population. CONCLUSIONS: Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Preconception Carrier Screening by Genome Sequencing: Results from the Clinical Laboratory.

Advances in sequencing technologies permit the analysis of a larger selection of genes for preconception carrier screening. The study was designed as a sequential carrier screen using genome sequencing to analyze 728 gene-disorder pairs for carrier and medically actionable conditions in 131 women and their partners (n = 71) who were planning a pregnancy. We report here on the clinical laboratory results from this expanded carrier screening program. Variants were filtered and classified using the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline; only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were confirmed by orthologous methods before being reported. Novel missense variants were classified as variants of uncertain significance. We reported 304 variants in 202 participants. Twelve carrier couples (12/71 couples tested) were identified for common conditions; eight were carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis. Although both known and novel variants were reported, 48% of all reported variants were missense. For novel splice-site variants, RNA-splicing assays were performed to aid in classification. We reported ten copy-number variants and five variants in non-coding regions. One novel variant was reported in F8, associated with hemophilia A; prenatal testing showed that the male fetus harbored this variant and the neonate suffered a life-threatening hemorrhage which was anticipated and appropriately managed. Moreover, 3% of participants had variants that were medically actionable. Compared with targeted mutation screening, genome sequencing improves the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant variants. While certain novel variant interpretation remains challenging, the ACMG guidelines are useful to classify variants in a healthy population.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

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.

Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution.

PURPOSE: This study describes challenges faced while incorporating sometimes conflicting stakeholder feedback into study design and development of patient-facing materials for a translational genomics study aiming to reduce health disparities among diverse populations. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic analysis of study documents including summaries of patient advisory committee meetings and interviews, reflective field notes written by study team members, and correspondence with our institutional review board (IRB). Through this analysis, we identified cross-cutting challenges for incorporating stakeholder feedback into development of our recruitment, risk assessment, and informed consent processes and materials. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed three key challenges: (1) balancing precision and simplicity in the design of study materials, (2) providing clinical care within the research context, and (3) emphasizing potential study benefits versus risks and limitations. CONCLUSIONS: While involving patient stakeholders in study design and materials development can increase inclusivity and responsiveness to patient needs, patient feedback may conflict with that of content area experts on the research team and IRBs who are tasked with overseeing the research. Our analysis highlights the need for further empirical research about ethical challenges when incorporating patient feedback into study design, and for dialogue with genomic researchers and IRB representatives about these issues.