Attitudes, Knowledge, and Risk Perceptions of Patients who Received Elective Genomic Testing as a Clinical Service.

BACKGROUND: Elective genomic testing (EGT) is increasingly available clinically. Limited real world evidence exists about attitudes and knowledge of EGT recipients. METHODS: After web-based education, patients who enrolled in an EGT program at a rural nonprofit healthcare system completed a survey that assessed attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions. RESULTS: From August 2020 to April 2022, 5,920 patients completed the survey and received testing. Patients most frequently cited interest in learning their personal disease risks as their primary motivation. Patients most often expected results to guide medication management (74.0%), prevent future disease (70.4%), and provide information about risks to offspring (65.4%). Patients were "very concerned" most frequently about the privacy of genetic information (19.8%) and how well testing predicted disease risks (18.0%). On average, patients answered 6.7 of 11 knowledge items correctly (61.3%). They more often rated their risks for colon and breast cancers as lower rather than higher than the average person, but more often rated their risk for a heart attack as higher rather than lower than the average person (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients pursued EGT because of the utility expectations, but often misunderstood the test's capabilities.

Familial communication and cascade testing following elective genomic testing.

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

The Potential of Genetics in Identifying Women at Lower Risk of Breast Cancer.

Importance: Genetic information is not being used to identify women at lower risk of breast cancer or other diseases in clinical practice. With the new US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines lowering the age for mammogram screening for all, there is a potential benefit in identifying women at lower risk of disease who may defer the start of mammographic screening. This genetic risk-based approach would help mitigate overscreening, associated costs, and anxiety. Objective: To assess breast cancer incidence and age of onset among women at low genetic risk compared with women at average risk and evaluate the potential to delay mammography on the basis of genetic risk stratification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case-control study included 25 591 women from the Healthy Nevada Project sequenced by Helix between 2018 and 2022. Data extracted from electronic health records at the end of 2022 (mean length of electronic health record available was 12 years) were used for the analysis in 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast cancer diagnosis was identified from electronic health records. Classification to the low-risk genetic group required (1) the absence of pathogenic variants or a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, or CHEK2, and (2) a low polygenic risk score (bottom 10%) using a 313-single-nucleotide variant model. Results: Of 25 591 women in the study (mean [SD] age was 53.8 [16.9] years), 2338 women (9.1%) were classified as having low risk for breast cancer; 410 women (1.6%) were classified as high risk; and 22 843 women (89.3%) as average risk. There was a significant reduction in breast cancer diagnosis among the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52; P < .001). By 45 years of age, 0.69% of women in the average-risk group were diagnosed with breast cancer, whereas women in the low-risk group reached this rate at 51 years. By 50 years of age, 1.41% of those in the average-risk group were diagnosed with breast cancer, whereas those in the low-risk group reached this rate at age 58 years. These findings suggest that deferring mammogram screening by 5 to 10 years for women at low risk of breast cancer aligns with new draft recommendations. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this retrospective case-control study underscore the value of genetics in individualizing the onset of breast cancer screening. Improving breast cancer risk stratification by implementing both high-risk and low-risk strategies in screening can refine preventive measures and optimize health care resource allocation.

Clinical impact of preemptive pharmacogenomic testing on antiplatelet therapy in a real-world setting.

CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy after patients develop acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or require percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) reduces the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Evidence about the impact of preemptive testing, where genotyping occurs while patients are healthy, is lacking. In patients initiating antiplatelet therapy for ACS or PCI, we compared medical records data from 67 patients who received CYP2C19 genotyping preemptively (results >7 days before need), against medical records data from 67 propensity score-matched patients who received early genotyping (results within 7 days of need). We also examined data from 140 patients who received late genotyping (results >7 days after need). We compared the impact of genotyping approaches on medication selections, specialty visits, MACE and bleeding events over 1 year. Patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles were less likely to be initiated on clopidogrel if they received preemptive rather than early or late genotyping (18.2%, 66.7%, and 73.2% respectively, p = 0.001). No differences were observed by genotyping approach in the number of specialty visits or likelihood of MACE or bleeding events (all p > 0.21). Preemptive genotyping had a strong impact on initial antiplatelet selection and a comparable impact on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, compared to genotyping ordered after a need for antiplatelet therapy had been identified.

Primary Care Providers' Experiences With an Active Elective Genetic Testing Program.

Elective genetic testing (EGT) programs that provide pharmacogenomic information to guide medication management and screen for medically actionable disease predispositions are emerging in a number of health systems. Primary care providers (PCPs) are at the forefront of test initiation, patient education, and management of EGT results. However, little research has examined the experiences of PCPs in health systems offering clinical EGT. We conducted semi-structured interviews, a sub-study of the larger mixed-methods Imagenetics Initiative, with 16 PCPs at a health system in the Midwest with a clinical EGT program supported by provider education, automated clinical decision support, and enhanced access to genetic specialists. The purpose of these interviews was to understand perceptions about the benefits and barriers of implementing EGT in clinical practice. Thematic analysis indicated that EGT is conceptualized similar to traditional diagnostic services. PCPs were generally favorable toward EGT; however, targeted education did not dispel misconceptions about the goals, results, and limitations of EGT. Most PCPs endorsed the potential utility of EGT. Pharmacogenomic profiling was seen as having more immediate impact for patients than screening for monogenic disease risks. PCPs reported that they weighed discussions about EGT against time limitations and the need to prioritize patients' existing health concerns. Regardless of their education levels and familiarity with genetics, PCPs desired additional educational resources and greater access to genetic specialists. Our study provides unique insight into PCPs' experiences with clinical EGT in health systems that have adopted EGT and highlights the practical challenges and potential opportunities of EGT integration.