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.

Genomic Sequencing for Newborn Screening: Results of the NC NEXUS Project.

Newborn screening (NBS) was established as a public health program in the 1960s and is crucial for facilitating detection of certain medical conditions in which early intervention can prevent serious, life-threatening health problems. Genomic sequencing can potentially expand the screening for rare hereditary disorders, but many questions surround its possible use for this purpose. We examined the use of exome sequencing (ES) for NBS in the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening (NC NEXUS) project, comparing the yield from ES used in a screening versus a diagnostic context. We enrolled healthy newborns and children with metabolic diseases or hearing loss (106 participants total). ES confirmed the participant's underlying diagnosis in 15 out of 17 (88%) children with metabolic disorders and in 5 out of 28 (∼18%) children with hearing loss. We discovered actionable findings in four participants that would not have been detected by standard NBS. A subset of parents was eligible to receive additional information for their child about childhood-onset conditions with low or no clinical actionability, clinically actionable adult-onset conditions, and carrier status for autosomal-recessive conditions. We found pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer in two children, a likely pathogenic variant in the gene associated with Lowe syndrome in one child, and an average of 1.8 reportable variants per child for carrier results. These results highlight the benefits and limitations of using genomic sequencing for NBS and the challenges of using such technology in future precision medicine approaches.

The Burden of COVID-19 on Caregivers of Children with Suspected Genetic Conditions: A Therapeutic Odyssey.

AIMS: Children with disabilities and rare or undiagnosed conditions and their families have faced numerous hardships of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. For those with undiagnosed conditions, the diagnostic odyssey can be long, expensive, and marked by uncertainty. We, therefore, sought to understand whether and how COVID-19 impacted the trajectory of children's care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 caregivers who, prior to the pandemic, were on a diagnostic odyssey for their children. RESULTS: Most caregivers did not report any interruptions to their child's diagnostic odyssey. The greatest impact was access to therapy services, including the suspension or loss of their child's in-person therapeutic care and difficulties with virtual therapies. This therapy gap caused caregivers to fear that their children were not making progress. CONCLUSION: Although much has been written about the challenges of diagnostic odysseys for children and their families, this study illustrates the importance of expanding the focus of these studies to include therapeutic odysseys. Because therapeutic odysseys continue regardless of whether diagnoses are made, future research should investigate how to support caregivers through children's therapies within and outside of the COVID-19 context.

Integration of stakeholder engagement from development to dissemination in genomic medicine research: Approaches and outcomes from the CSER Consortium.

PURPOSE: There is a critical need for genomic medicine research that reflects and benefits socioeconomically and ancestrally diverse populations. However, disparities in research populations persist, highlighting that traditional study designs and materials may be insufficient or inaccessible to all groups. New approaches can be gained through collaborations with patient/community stakeholders. Although some benefits of stakeholder engagement are recognized, routine incorporation into the design and implementation of genomics research has yet to be realized. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium required stakeholder engagement as a dedicated project component. Each CSER project planned and carried out stakeholder engagement activities with differing goals and expected outcomes. Examples were curated from each project to highlight engagement strategies and outcomes throughout the research lifecycle from development through dissemination. RESULTS: Projects tailored strategies to individual study needs, logistical constraints, and other challenges. Lessons learned include starting early with engagement efforts across project stakeholder groups and planned flexibility to enable adaptations throughout the project lifecycle. CONCLUSION: Each CSER project used more than 1 approach to engage with relevant stakeholders, resulting in numerous adaptations and tremendous value added throughout the full research lifecycle. Incorporation of community stakeholder insight improves the outcomes and relevance of genomic medicine research.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource.

With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: "Definitive," "Strong," "Moderate," "Limited," "No Reported Evidence," or "Conflicting Evidence." Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

Parents' perceptions of personal utility of exome sequencing results.

PURPOSE: Clinical genome or exome sequencing (GS/ES) provides a diagnosis for many individuals with suspected genetic disorders, but also yields negative or uncertain results for the majority. This study examines how parents of a child with an undiagnosed condition attribute personal utility to all types of ES results. METHODS: Return of 31 exome sequencing results was observed during clinic sessions, followed by semistructured interviews with parents one month later. Observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data display matrices were used for content analysis and systematic comparisons of parents' perceptions of utility. RESULTS: ES results could not provide all the answers to parents' questions, especially in cases of clinically uninformative results, but parents nonetheless attributed utility to the knowledge gained. Parents across all results categories used the genomic information to rule out possible causes, end or postpone the diagnostic odyssey, and shift focus to treatment and management of symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that parents value even uninformative ES results while expressing hope for future discoveries. As pediatric genetics moves toward GS/ES as a first-tier test, how parents perceive the personal utility of negative or uncertain results is an important topic for genetic counseling and further research.

Variant interpretation is a component of clinical practice among genetic counselors in multiple specialties.

PURPOSE: Genomic testing is routinely utilized across clinical settings and can have significant variant interpretation challenges. The extent of genetic counselor (GC) engagement in variant interpretation in clinical practice is unknown. This study aimed to explore clinical GCs' variant interpretation practice across specialties, understand outcomes of this practice, and identify resource and educational needs. METHODS: An online survey was administered to National Society of Genetic Counselors members providing clinical counseling. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 239) represented all major clinical specialties. The majority (68%) reported reviewing evidence documented by the laboratory for most (>60%) variants reported; 45.5% report seeking additional evidence. Prenatal GCs were less likely to independently assess reported evidence. Most respondents (67%) report having reached a different conclusion about a variant's classification than the testing laboratory, though infrequently. Time was the most commonly reported barrier (72%) to performing variant interpretation, though the majority (97%) indicated that this practice had an important impact on patient care. When presented with three hypothetical scenarios, evidence typically used for variant interpretation was generally applied correctly. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to document variant interpretation practice broadly across clinical GC specialties. Our results suggest that variant interpretation should be considered a practice-based competency for GCs.

Genomic knowledge in the context of diagnostic exome sequencing: changes over time, persistent subgroup differences, and associations with psychological sequencing outcomes.

PURPOSE: People undergoing diagnostic genome-scale sequencing are expected to have better psychological outcomes when they can incorporate and act on accurate, relevant knowledge that supports informed decision making. METHODS: This longitudinal study used data from the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing Study (NCGENES) of diagnostic exome sequencing to evaluate associations between factual genomic knowledge (measured with the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale at three assessments from baseline to after return of results) and sequencing outcomes that reflected participants' perceived understanding of the study and sequencing, regret for joining the study, and responses to learning sequencing results. It also investigated differences in genomic knowledge associated with subgroups differing in race/ethnicity, income, education, health literacy, English proficiency, and prior genetic testing. RESULTS: Multivariate models revealed higher genomic knowledge at baseline for non-Hispanic Whites and those with higher income, education, and health literacy (p values < 0.001). These subgroup differences persisted across study assessments despite a general increase in knowledge among all groups. Greater baseline genomic knowledge was associated with lower test-related distress (p = 0.047) and greater perceived understanding of diagnostic genomic sequencing (p values 0.04 to <0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings extend understanding of the role of genomic knowledge in psychological outcomes of diagnostic exome sequencing, providing guidance for additional research and interventions.

Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.

Correction: Genomic knowledge in the context of diagnostic exome sequencing: changes over time, persistent subgroup differences, and associations with psychological sequencing outcomes.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Factors influencing NCGENES research participants' requests for non-medically actionable secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can reveal variants with limited to no medical actionability. Previous research has assessed individuals' intentions to learn this information, but few report the decisions they made and why. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) project evaluated adult patients randomized to learn up to six types of non-medically actionable secondary findings (NMASF). We previously found that most participants intended to request NMASF and intentions were strongly predicted by anticipated regret. Here we examine discrepancies between intentions and decisions to request NMASF, hypothesizing that anticipated regret would predict requests but that this association would be mediated by participants' intentions. RESULTS: Of the 76% who expressed intentions to learn results, only 42% made one or more requests. Overall, only 32% of the 155 eligible participants requested NMASF. Analyses support a plausible causal link between anticipated regret, intentions, and requests. CONCLUSIONS: The discordance between participants' expressed intentions and their actions provides insight into factors that influence patients' preferences for genomic information that has little to no actionability. These findings have implications for the timing and methods of eliciting preferences for NMASF and suggest that decisions to learn this information have cognitive and emotional components.

An Age-Based Framework for Evaluating Genome-Scale Sequencing Results in Newborn Screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a standardized, age-based metric for scoring clinical actionability to evaluate conditions for inclusion in newborn screening and compare it with the results from other contemporary methods. STUDY DESIGN: The North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study developed an age-based, semiquantitative metric to assess the clinical actionability of gene-disease pairs and classify them with respect to age of onset or timing of interventions. This categorization was compared with the gold standard Recommended Uniform Screening Panel and other methods to evaluate gene-disease pairs for newborn genomic sequencing. RESULTS: We assessed 822 gene-disease pairs, enriched for pediatric onset of disease and suspected actionability. Of these, 466 were classified as having childhood onset and high actionability, analogous to conditions selected for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel core panel. Another 245 were classified as having childhood onset and low to no actionability, 25 were classified as having adult onset and high actionability, 19 were classified as having adult onset and low to no actionability, and 67 were excluded due to controversial evidence and/or prenatal onset. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a novel method to facilitate decisions about the potential use of genomic sequencing for newborn screening. These categories may assist parents and physicians in making informed decisions about the disclosure of results from voluntary genomic sequencing in children.

Secondary findings: How did we get here, and where are we going?

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommendations for reporting of incidental (now "secondary") findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing (Green et al., Genet Med 15:565, 2013) is an often cited and sometimes misapplied professional guideline. To best approach the current state of secondary findings (SFs) in genomic medicine, and consider their impact, it is helpful to understand how and why the guideline was created. Of particular importance is the context - the state of the science and clinical practice during 2011-2012 when the guideline were initially developed. This paper will review the setting before the guidelines were published, and empiric research and discussion that has occurred since.

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

The who, what, and why of research participants' intentions to request a broad range of secondary findings in a diagnostic genomic sequencing study.

PURPOSE: In a diagnostic exome sequencing study (the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-Generation Exome Sequencing project, NCGENES), we investigated adult patients' intentions to request six categories of secondary findings (SFs) with low or no medical actionability and correlates of their intentions. METHODS: At enrollment, eligible participants (n = 152) completed measures assessing their sociodemographic, clinical, and literacy-related characteristics. Prior to and during an in-person diagnostic result disclosure visit, they received education about categories of SFs they could request. Immediately after receiving education at the visit, participants completed measures of intention to learn SFs, interest in each category, and anticipated regret for learning and not learning each category. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of participants intended to learn at least some SFs. Logistic regressions examined their intention to learn any or all of these findings (versus none) and interest in each of the six individual categories (yes/no). Results revealed little association between intentions and sociodemographic, clinical, or literacy-related factors. Across outcomes, participants who anticipated regret for learning SFs reported weaker intention to learn them (odds ratios (ORs) from 0.47 to 0.71), and participants who anticipated regret for not learning these findings reported stronger intention to learn them (OR 1.61-2.22). CONCLUSION: Intentions to request SFs with low or no medical actionability may be strongly influenced by participants' desire to avoid regret.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing.

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences.

PURPOSE: There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients. METHODS: Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe the desired attributes of such a term and then asked to formulate the best term to represent this concept. RESULTS: The term additional findings had the most first-choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also gave reasons why other terms were not optimal. CONCLUSION: Additional findings was preferred because it was more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology used by healthcare providers. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.Genet Med 19 2, 176-181.

A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratories.

PURPOSE: While the diagnostic success of genomic sequencing expands, the complexity of this testing should not be overlooked. Numerous laboratory processes are required to support the identification, interpretation, and reporting of clinically significant variants. This study aimed to examine the workflow and reporting procedures among US laboratories to highlight shared practices and identify areas in need of standardization. METHODS: Surveys and follow-up interviews were conducted with laboratories offering exome and/or genome sequencing to support a research program or for routine clinical services. The 73-item survey elicited multiple choice and free-text responses that were later clarified with phone interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-one laboratories participated. Practices highly concordant across all groups included consent documentation, multiperson case review, and enabling patient opt-out of incidental or secondary findings analysis. Noted divergence included use of phenotypic data to inform case analysis and interpretation and reporting of case-specific quality metrics and methods. Few laboratory policies detailed procedures for data reanalysis, data sharing, or patient access to data. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of practices and policies of experienced exome and genome sequencing laboratories. The results enable broader consideration of which practices are becoming standard approaches, where divergence remains, and areas of development in best practice guidelines that may be helpful.Genet Med advance online publication 03 Novemeber 2016.