The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics.

Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.

Genetics as a tool to improve cancer outcomes: ethics and policy.

Genetic research is rapidly increasing the opportunities for the detection of inherited cancer risk. Clinicians and policy makers must ensure the adequate evaluation of the benefits and harms of this new area of practice, address the challenges of family-based detection of individuals at risk and develop practice guidelines and educational strategies that are responsive to rapidly changing knowledge. When the benefits of testing are well established, efforts must also be made to ensure access to genetic services for all who can benefit.

Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

Trust is the basis for effective suicide risk screening and assessment in veterans.

BACKGROUND: To reduce suicides among Veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has designated suicide risk assessments for Veterans who screen positive for depression or post-traumatic stress disorder as a national performance goal. Many VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) are using brief suicidal ideation screens, administered in non-mental health ambulatory care settings, as the first step in the assessment process. OBJECTIVE: To explore Veterans' perceptions of the suicide screening and risk assessment process, the barriers and facilitators to disclosing suicidal thoughts, and perceptions of possible consequences of revealing suicidal thoughts. DESIGN: Investigators recorded one semi-structured interview with each Veteran. Transcripts were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) Veterans who screened positive for suicidal ideation in non-mental health ambulatory care settings in 2009 and 2010. KEY RESULTS: Veterans accepted the need to assess suicide risk. They increasingly experienced attempts to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide as burdensome and exhausting. Despite this, Veterans often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened because: (1) they considered suicidal thoughts as shameful and a sign of weakness; (2) they believed suicidal thoughts were private and not to be divulged to strangers; (3) they worried that disclosure would lead to unwanted hospitalization or medication recommendations; and (4) the templated computer reminder process was perceived as perfunctory and disrespectful. In contrast, admitting and discussing thoughts of suicide with a health provider who focused on building a relationship, demonstrated genuineness and empathy, offered information on the rationale for suicide risk assessment, and used straightforward and understandable language, all promoted trust that resulted in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. CONCLUSION: In ambulatory care settings, both provider behaviors and system modifications may lead to more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts.

Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Full sharing of the electronic health record with patients has been identified as an important opportunity to engage patients in their health and health care. The My HealtheVet Pilot, the initial personal health record of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, allowed patients and their delegates to view and download content in their electronic health record, including clinical notes, laboratory tests, and imaging reports. OBJECTIVE: A qualitative study with purposeful sampling sought to examine patients' views and experiences with reading their health records, including their clinical notes, online. METHODS: Five focus group sessions were conducted with patients and family members who enrolled in the My HealtheVet Pilot at the Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Oregon. A total of 30 patients enrolled in the My HealtheVet Pilot, and 6 family members who had accessed and viewed their electronic health records participated in the sessions. RESULTS: Four themes characterized patient experiences with reading the full complement of their health information. Patients felt that seeing their records positively affected communication with providers and the health system, enhanced knowledge of their health and improved self-care, and allowed for greater participation in the quality of their care such as follow-up of abnormal test results or decision-making on when to seek care. While some patients felt that seeing previously undisclosed information, derogatory language, or inconsistencies in their notes caused challenges, they overwhelmingly felt that having more, rather than less, of their health record information provided benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and their delegates had predominantly positive experiences with health record transparency and the open sharing of notes and test results. Viewing their records appears to empower patients and enhance their contributions to care, calling into question common provider concerns about the effect of full record access on patient well-being. While shared records may or may not impact overall clinic workload, it is likely to change providers' work, necessitating new types of skills to communicate and partner with patients.

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.

Life-sustaining treatment decisions in the ICU for patients with ESLD: a prospective investigation.

We conducted a prospective study in the ICU of life-sustaining treatment and comfort care decisions over time in patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) from the perspectives of patients, family members, and healthcare professionals. Six patients with ESLD, 19 family members, and 122 professionals participated. The overarching theme describing the decision-making process was "on the train." Four sub-themes positioned patients and family members as passengers with limited control, unable to fully understand the decision-making process. Findings suggest that including patients and family members in non-immediate life-saving decisions and verifying early on their understanding may help to improve the decision-making process.

Genetic screening.

Current approaches to genetic screening include newborn screening to identify infants who would benefit from early treatment, reproductive genetic screening to assist reproductive decision making, and family history assessment to identify individuals who would benefit from additional prevention measures. Although the traditional goal of screening is to identify early disease or risk in order to implement preventive therapy, genetic screening has always included an atypical element-information relevant to reproductive decisions. New technologies offer increasingly comprehensive identification of genetic conditions and susceptibilities. Tests based on these technologies are generating a different approach to screening that seeks to inform individuals about all of their genetic traits and susceptibilities for purposes that incorporate rapid diagnosis, family planning, and expediting of research, as well as the traditional screening goal of improving prevention. Use of these tests in population screening will increase the challenges already encountered in genetic screening programs, including false-positive and ambiguous test results, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings. Whether this approach is desirable requires further empiric research, but it also requires careful deliberation on the part of all concerned, including genomic researchers, clinicians, public health officials, health care payers, and especially those who will be the recipients of this novel screening approach.

Personal attributions for melanoma risk in melanoma-affected patients and family members.

Personal attributions for cancer risk involve factors that individuals believe contribute to their risk for developing cancer. Understanding personal risk attributions for melanoma may dictate gene-environment melanoma risk communication strategies. We examined attributions for melanoma risk in a population-based sample of melanoma survivors, first degree family members, and family members who are also parents (N = 939). We conducted qualitative examination of open-ended risk attributions and logistic regression examining predictors (demographics, family member type, perceived risk) of the attributions reported (ultraviolet radiation [UVR] exposure, heredity/genetics, phenotype, personal melanoma history, miscellaneous). We found a predominance of risk attributions to UVR and heredity/genetics (80 and 45% of the sample, respectively). Those reporting higher education levels were more likely to endorse attributions to heredity/genetics, as well as to phenotype, than those of lower education levels. First-degree relatives and parent family members were more likely to endorse heredity/genetic attributions than melanoma survivors; melanoma survivors were more likely to endorse personal history of melanoma attributions compared to first-degree relatives and parent family members. These findings inform the development of risk communication interventions for melanoma families.

Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families.

OBJECTIVE: The family provides an important communication nexus for information and support exchange about family cancer history, and adoption of family-wide cancer risk reduction strategies. The goals of this study were to (1) use the family systems theory to identify characteristics of this sample of families at increased risk of developing melanoma and (2) to relate familial characteristics to the frequency and style of familial risk communication. METHODS: Participants were first-degree relatives (n=313) of melanoma patients, recruited into a family web-based intervention study. We used multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the association between family functioning and family communication. RESULTS: Most participants were female (60%), with an average age of 51 years. Fifty percent of participants reported that they spoke to their relatives about melanoma risk and people were more likely to speak to their female family members. Familial adaptation, cohesion, coping, and health beliefs were strongly associated with an open style of risk communication within families. None were associated with a blocked style of risk communication. Only cohesion and adaptation were associated with the amount of risk communication that occurred within families. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, individuals who came from families that were more highly cohesive, adaptable, and shared strong beliefs about melanoma risk were more likely to communicate openly about melanoma. The fact that this association was not consistent across blocked communication and communication frequency highlights the multifaceted nature of this process. Future research should focus on the interplay between different facets of communication.

Breast cancer risk communication: assessment of primary care physicians by standardized patients.

PURPOSE: To assess primary care providers' communication about breast cancer risk. METHODS: We evaluated 86 primary care providers' communication of risk using unannounced standardized (simulated) patients. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three cases: (1) moderate risk case (n = 25), presenting with a breast lump and mother with postmenopausal breast cancer; (2) high-risk (maternal side) case (n = 28), presenting with concern about breast cancer risk; and (3) high-risk (paternal side) case (n = 33), presenting with an unrelated problem. After the appointment, three qualitative parameters were assessed by standardized patients on a 3-point scale (3 = highest satisfaction, 1 = lowest): whether the physician took adequate time; acknowledged her concerns; and offered reassurance. RESULTS: Mean satisfaction with physician communication was higher for the moderate risk case (2.92) than for the high-risk paternal case (2.25) or high-risk maternal case (2.42) (P < 0.0001). The score was not influenced by session length, medical specialty, or physician gender. CONCLUSION: Physicians more consistently provided a moderate risk standardized patients with reassurance and support compared with the high-risk cases. Primary care physicians may be more unprepared or uneasy addressing the issues raised by more complex scenarios and may benefit from training in the assessment and communication of breast cancer risk.

Genetic assessment of breast cancer risk in primary care practice.

Family history is increasingly important in primary care as a means to detect candidates for genetic testing or tailored prevention programs. We evaluated primary care physicians' skills in assessing family history for breast cancer risk, using unannounced standardized patient (SP) visits to 86 general internists and family medicine practitioners in King County, WA. Transcripts of clinical encounters were coded to determine ascertainment of family history, risk assessment, and clinical follow-up. Physicians in our study collected sufficient family history to assess breast cancer risk in 48% of encounters with an anxious patient at moderate risk, 100% of encounters with a patient who had a strong maternal family history of breast cancer, and 45% of encounters with a patient who had a strong paternal family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Increased risk was usually communicated in terms of recommendations for preventive action. Few physicians referred patients to genetic counseling, few associated ovarian cancer with breast cancer risk, and some incorrectly discounted paternal family history of breast cancer. We conclude that pedigree assessment of breast cancer risk is feasible in primary care, but may occur consistently only when a strong maternal family history is present. Primary care education should focus on the link between inherited breast and ovarian cancer risk and on the significance of paternal family history. Educational efforts may be most successful when they emphasize the value of genetic counseling for individuals at risk for inherited cancer and the connection between genetic risk and specific prevention measures.

Performance of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's Revised Race and Ethnicity Categories in Asian Populations*

OBJECTIVES: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity information recently divided the "Asian or Pacific Islander" category into "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander". The OMB's decision to disaggregate the "Asian or Pacific Islander" category was the first step toward providing these communities with information to better serve their needs. However, whether individuals who formerly made up the combined group categorize themselves as the new guidelines intend is a question analyzed in this report. METHODS: A subset of adults participating in the Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study completed both the OMB-minimum and the expanded race and ethnicity measure used in the National Health Interview Survey. We compared responses on the expanded measure contained within the OMB "Asian" definition (Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Chinese, and/or Other Asian) to "Asian" responses on the OMB-minimum measure. RESULTS: Mixed heritage Asians less often marked "Asian". Among mixed heritage Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos, 27%, 49%, and 52% did not mark "Asian" on the OMB measure, respectively. Eleven percent of single-heritage Filipinos did not mark "Asian." CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals formerly making up the combined "Asian or Pacific Islander" group do not categorize themselves as the revised OMB guidelines intend. This is particularly evident among Filipinos and among Asians of mixed heritage. This research illuminates the reliability and utility of the broad "Asian" category and points to possible consequences of collapsing groups into a single category, i.e., missed information and/or erroneous generalization.

Predictors of belief that genetic test information about hemochromatosis should be shared with family members.

We queried 101,951 white, Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian (i.e., American Indian or Alaska Native in the United States and North American Indian, Metis, or Inuit in Canada) and Pacific Islander (including Native Hawaiian) adults who agreed to be genotypically and phenotypically screened for hemochromatosis as part of the Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening (HEIRS) study about their views on sharing genetic test information with family members. Multiple logistic regression (adjusting for study site, age group, race/ethnicity, preferred language, gender, education group, income group, SF-36 General Health and Mental Health subscales, perceived benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and belief that genetic testing is a good idea) evaluated independent predictors of responding "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" versus "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" to the statement "Information about a person's genetic risk should be shared with family members". Agreement that genetic risk information should be shared with family members was high (93% in the overall sample of 78,952 who answered this question), but differed among racial/ethnic groups. Hispanics were significantly less likely to agree that genetic test information should be shared with family members (i.e., 88% versus 92% or more among all other ethnicities). The relationship of perceived limitations and benefits of testing, gender, and age group to the belief that information should be shared differed among racial/ethnic groups, with Spanish-preferring Hispanics being the most different from other subgroups.

Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk.

The goal of this study was to determine whether genetic counseling or psychosocial group counseling provided to Ashkenazi women can reduce breast cancer worry, cancer risk perception, and interest in having genetic testing. Women (N=211) were randomized to receive individual genetic risk counseling, to receive a group psychosocial group counseling, or to serve as a control group. The authors found that both counseling methods reduced cancer worry, lowered perceptions of breast cancer risk, and decreased interest in having genetic testing. Counseling can help women gain a more accurate perception of their risk, expose them to the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and reduce their worry about cancer.

Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: About 2% of all colorectal cancer occurs in the context of the autosomal dominantly inherited Lynch syndrome, which is due to mutations in mismatch repair genes. Potential risk-reducing interventions are recommended for individuals known to have these mutations. OBJECTIVES: To review cancer risks and data on screening efficacy in the context of Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) and to provide recommendations for clinical management for affected families, based on available evidence and expert opinion. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A systematic literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, reference list review of retrieved articles, manual searches of relevant articles, and direct communication with other researchers in the field. Search terms included hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer, Lynch syndrome, microsatellite instability, mismatch repair genes, and terms related to the biology of Lynch syndrome. Only peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language articles concerning human subjects published between January 1, 1996, and February 2006 were included. The US Preventive Services Task Force's 2-tier system was adapted to describe the quality of evidence and to assign strength to the recommendations for each guideline. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The evidence supports colonoscopic surveillance for individuals with Lynch syndrome, although the optimal age at initiation and frequency of examinations is unresolved. Colonoscopy is recommended every 1 to 2 years starting at ages 20 to 25 years (age 30 years for those with MSH6 mutations), or 10 years younger than the youngest age of the person diagnosed in the family. While fully acknowledging absence of demonstrated efficacy, the following are also recommended annually: endometrial sampling and transvaginal ultrasound of the uterus and ovaries (ages 30-35 years); urinalysis with cytology (ages 25-35 years); history, examination, review of systems, education and genetic counseling regarding Lynch syndrome (age 21 years). Regular colonoscopy was favored for at-risk persons without colorectal neoplasia. For individuals who will undergo surgical resection of a colon cancer, subtotal colectomy is favored. Evidence supports the efficacy of prophylactic hysterectomy and oophorectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The past 10 years have seen major advances in the understanding of Lynch syndrome. Current recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention require careful consultation between clinicians, clinical cancer genetic services, and well-informed patients.

'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy.

While data are accumulating on the efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy as a means to reduce breast cancer risk in high risk women, the effectiveness of the procedure depends on women's interest in undergoing the procedure. We report on women's responses to this surgical option as a prevention tool. Data derive from a multi-method study of women's interest in and understandings about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. The sample comprises 246 women of varying ethnicities and familial breast cancer risk from Seattle, USA. In this paper, quantitative data are presented on the sociodemographic and risk perception correlates of degree of interest in taking a genetic test for breast cancer if prophylactic mastectomy were the only treatment option. In addition, we report results of a content analysis of women's open-ended responses to the question of whether and why they could imagine undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. Our analysis of these data benefits from a central distinction in medical anthropology between the concepts of illness and disease. We suggest that while prophylactic mastectomy may prevent the "disease" of breast cancer, it may be of little interest to women who see this surgery as itself mimicking the "illness" of breast cancer.

Decision making among Veterans with incidental pulmonary nodules: a qualitative analysis.

PURPOSE: Among patients undergoing lung cancer evaluation for newly diagnosed, incidental pulmonary nodules, it is important to evaluate the shared power and responsibility domain of patient-centered communication. We explored Veterans' perceptions of decision making with regards to an incidentally-detected pulmonary nodule. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews of 19 Veterans from one medical center with incidentally-detected pulmonary nodules that were judged as having a low risk for malignancy. We used qualitative description for the analysis, focusing on patients' perceptions of shared decision making with their primary care provider (PCP). Interviews were conducted in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: Patients almost always played a passive role in deciding how and when to evaluate their pulmonary nodule for the possibility of malignancy. Some patients felt comfortable with this role, expressing trust that their clinician would provide the appropriate care. Other patients were not satisfied with how these decisions were made with some expressing concern that no decisions had actually occurred. Regardless of how satisfied they were with the decision, patients did not report discussing how they liked to make decisions with their PCP. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans in our study did not engage in shared decision making with their clinician. Some were satisfied with this approach although many would have preferred a shared approach. In order to reduce patient distress and improve satisfaction, clinicians may want to consider adopting a shared approach when making decisions about pulmonary nodule evaluation.

Achieving utility with family history: colorectal cancer risk.

Family history of chronic disease is rapidly becoming a research tool for targeting participants at increased risk. Its current usefulness in clinical practice remains unknown. This paper details the possible utility and complications in using family history in a primary care setting, using colorectal cancer risk as the health issue. Where available, we cite data to support the issues that could arise. Where there are no studies, we invite further research. The potential of family history as a health improvement tool is still under review.

Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening (HEIRS) study design for an evaluation of 100,000 primary care-based adults.

BACKGROUND: The HEIRS Study will evaluate the prevalence, genetic and environmental determinants, and potential clinical, personal, and societal impact of hemochromatosis and iron overload in a multiethnic, primary care-based sample of 100,000 adults over a 5-year period. Participants are recruited from 5 Field Centers. Laboratory testing and data management and analysis are performed in a Central Laboratory and Coordinating Center, respectively. METHODS: Participants undergo testing for serum iron measures and common mutations of the hemochromatosis gene ( ) on chromosome 6p and answer questions on demographics, health, and genetic testing attitudes. Participants with elevated values of transferrin saturation and serum ferritin and/or C282Y homozygosity are invited to undergo a comprehensive clinical examination (CCE), as are frequency-matched control subjects. These examinations provide data on personal and family medical history, lifestyle characteristics, physical examination, genetic counseling, and assessment of ethical, legal, and social implications. Primary and secondary causes of iron overload will be distinguished by clinical criteria. Iron overload will be confirmed by quantification of iron stores. Recruiting family members of cases will permit DNA analysis for additional genetic factors that affect iron overload. RESULTS: Of the first 50,520 screened, 51% are white, 24% are African American, 11% are Asian, 11% are Hispanic, and 3% are of other, mixed, or unidentified race; 63% are female and 37% are male. CONCLUSIONS: Information from the HEIRS Study will inform policy regarding the feasibility, optimal approach, and potential individual and public health benefits and risks of primary care-based screening for iron overload and hemochromatosis.