Patient understanding of, satisfaction with, and perceived utility of whole-genome sequencing: findings from the MedSeq Project.

PURPOSE: To examine patients' experiences with clinical use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: A randomized trial compared primary care and cardiology patients receiving WGS and family health history (FH) information or FH information alone. 202 patients were surveyed before (BL) and up to 6 months after disclosure of results (6M). RESULTS: Patients (mean age = 55 years; 50% female; 81% college graduates) reported low levels of decisional regret (mean: 7.1/100) and high satisfaction with physicians' disclosure of results (median: 29/30). Compared with the FH-only arm, patients receiving WGS results were more likely to report learning accurate disease risk information (odds ratio = 7.45) and findings influential for medical treatment (odds ratio = 2.39). Sessions where WGS results were disclosed took longer (30 vs. 15 minutes), particularly for primary care patients. Patients' expected utility of sequencing at BL was higher than perceived utility at 6M in several domains, including impacting medical decision making (87% vs. 54%) and influencing medication choice (73% vs. 32%). CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with their physicians' communication of WGS results and perceived them as medically useful. Discrepancies in expected versus perceived utility of WGS results suggest a need to temper patients' expectations about its potential benefits.

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months. RESULTS: The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95% confidence interval -$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Maintenance therapy for CTCL: importance for prevention of disease progression.

There are no established maintenance protocols for cutaneous lymphomas. We aim to determine patient treatments and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to uncover the most effective maintenance protocols for cutaneous lymphomas and impact of treatment interruption. Data was collected retrospectively from nine international institutions, including 149 patients. Younger patients had earlier stages of disease and were most frequently treated with skin-directed therapies including topical steroids, mechlorethamine gel, and phototherapy. Treatment interruption varied by treatment type and stage, with patients on topical therapies and earlier stages of disease being least likely to experience interruption. Treatment interruption was significantly associated with progression of disease and worse outcomes, with twice as many patients progressing who had interruption compared to those without interruption. This study may demonstrate the significance of continuous maintenance therapies, even in younger patients with early stages of disease.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients.

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

Validation of a multisubstance online Timeline Followback assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The Timeline Followback (TLFB) was originally developed to assess alcohol consumption patterns (American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1996, 966) and has been increasingly modified for Web-based use. Additionally, new modes of substance use administration have emerged, creating a need for an adaptable TLFB tool than can capture data such as cannabis product potency or prescription drug use. Our goal was to validate an online TLFB that reliably assesses a wide range of substances in greater detail. METHODS: Using a within-subjects counterbalanced design, daily substance use data were collected from 50 college students over a 14-day retrospective period using both the traditional in-person TLFB and online TLFB (O-TLFB). RESULTS: All substance use variables, including detailed measures of cannabis metrics, correlated significantly (r's ranged from .653 to .944, p < .001) between TLFB versions. Further, results demonstrated that both the online TLFB and in-person TLFB demonstrated concurrent validity with both the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Marijuana Dependence Scale (MDS). CONCLUSION: Overall, the data suggest that this new O-TLFB demonstrates strong reliability and delivers a versatile and secure tool for substance use assessment that is relevant to a variety of biomedical and psychological research contexts.