Voluntary workplace genomic testing: wellness benefit or Pandora's box?

Consumer interest in genetic and genomic testing is growing rapidly, with more than 26 million Americans having purchased direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Capitalizing on the increasing comfort of consumers with genetic testing outside the clinical environment, commercial vendors are expanding their customer base by marketing genetic and genomic testing services, including testing for pharmacogenomic and pathogenic variants, to employers for inclusion in workplace wellness programs. We describe the appeal of voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) to employers and employees, how the ethical, legal, and social implications literature has approached the issue of genetic testing in the workplace in the past, and outline the relevant legal landscape. Given that we are in the early stages of development of the wGT market, now is the time to identify the critical interests and concerns of employees and employers, so that governance can develop and evolve along with the wGT market, rather than behind it, and be based on data, rather than speculative hopes and fears.

The National Academies' Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health: Where we have been and where we are heading.

The clinical application of genetics and genomics to advance precision health is one of the most dynamic and promising areas of medicine. In 2020, building on nearly 15 years of work, the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine undertook a strategic planning process to assess its strengths, consider the current challenges facing the field, and set out new goals for its future work. As a result, the Roundtable has updated its vision and mission and prioritized four major areas of inquiry-innovation, dialogue, equity, and adoption-while keeping true to its founding goal of providing a neutral convening space for the diversity of stakeholders in genomics and precision health. The Roundtable is unique for its breadth of membership and is committed to fostering a new era for precision health built on decades of expanding knowledge and the emergence of new technologies. To achieve its goals, the Roundtable seeks to broaden its membership's diversity and to engage with new audiences. Roundtable members explore how evidence-based discoveries in genomics could be adopted and used in innovative ways to better serve human health, how equitable access to genomic and precision health technologies can be ensured, and how the Roundtable and broader genomics and precision health community can communicate more effectively to inform the public regarding genomics and precision health. As a first principle, the Roundtable is working to support the overall goal that all people benefit from genomics for precision health.

Employees' Views and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Assessment of Voluntary Workplace Genomic Testing.

Employers have begun to offer voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) as part of employee wellness benefit programs, but few empirical studies have examined the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of wGT. To better understand employee perspectives on wGT, employees were surveyed at a large biomedical research institution. Survey respondents were presented with three hypothetical scenarios for accessing health-related genomic testing: via (1) their doctor; (2) their workplace; and 3) a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company. Overall, 594 employees (28%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated a preference for genomic testing in the workplace setting (70%; 95% CI 66-74%), followed by doctor's office (54%; 95% CI 50-58%), and DTC testing (20%; 95% CI 17-24%). Prior to participating in wGT, respondents wanted to know about confidentiality of test results (79%), existence of relevant laws and policies (70%), and privacy protection (64%). Across scenarios, 92% of respondents preferred to view the test results with a genetic counselor. These preliminary results suggest that many employees are interested and even prefer genetic testing in the workplace and would prefer testing with support from genetic health professionals. Confirmation in more diverse employer settings will be needed to generalize such findings.

Correction: A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002631.].

A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

In a Policy Forum, Muin Khoury and colleagues discuss research on the clinical application of genome sequencing data.

Association of patient navigation with care coordination in an Lynch syndrome screening program.

Lynch syndrome (LS) identification leads to improved health outcomes. Universal tumor screening (UTS) facilitates LS identification among colorectal cancer (CRC) and uterine cancer (UC) cases; institutional management affects screening program implementation and outcomes. There has been limited study of institutional UTS program care coordination needs, including patient navigation of genetic counseling referrals. We examined the influence of patient navigators on access to cancer genetic services among LS UTS screen-positive cases within a single institution. Electronic health record review of screen-positive CRC and UC cases for a 12-month period assessed the relationship between patient navigation and follow-through to genetic services. Among 451 newly diagnosed CRC (n = 175) and UC (n = 276) cases, 96 (21%; 28 CRC/68 UC cases) had abnormal UTS results. Among these, 66 (69%) showed MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (i.e., screen-negative). Of 30 screen-positive cases, 16 (53%) received navigation services. Among these, 14/16 (88%) and 13/14 (81%) underwent genetic counseling and testing, respectively; 7/13 (54%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants detected. Among non-navigated screen-positive patients, 2/14 (14%) were excluded due to incomplete UTS results. Five of the remaining 12 cases (42%) sought genetic counseling, 4/12 (33%) underwent genetic testing; 1/4 (25%) tested positive for a pathogenic variant. The difference in navigated (88%) versus non-navigated cases (42%) undergoing genetic counseling was statistically significant (p = .02). Patient navigation was associated with follow-through to genetic counseling and testing services among LS screen-positive cases. This model deserves additional prospective investigation to confirm these findings and to assess their generalizability.

Implementation science, genomic precision medicine, and improved health: A new path forward?

Implementation of genomic discoveries into health care optimally includes evaluation of outcomes for recipients of care, providers, payers, and health care systems. However, the influence of specific aspects of the implementation process on observed outcomes may be missed if assessment of implementation success is not built into the implementation design. The intersection of implementation science with genomics may provide new insights on how to maximize the benefits of emerging genomic technologies in health care. In this summary, members of the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, formerly the Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the American Academy of Nursing explore challenges and opportunities for nurses to participate in implementing genomic discoveries into their practice informed by the principles of implementation science. Implementation requires collaboration across disciplines. Nurses can take leadership roles in engaging key stakeholders in health care organizations, assuring that communications regarding implementation are consistent with genomic literacy for each group of stakeholders, and planning for evaluation of data to assess how each component of the implementation process affected the overall outcome for health care.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable.

Genomic research has generated much new knowledge into mechanisms of human disease, with the potential to catalyze novel drug discovery and development, prenatal and neonatal screening, clinical pharmacogenomics, more sensitive risk prediction, and enhanced diagnostics. Genomic medicine, however, has been limited by critical evidence gaps, especially those related to clinical utility and applicability to diverse populations. Genomic medicine may have the greatest impact on health care if it is integrated into primary care, where most health care is received and where evidence supports the value of personalized medicine grounded in continuous healing relationships. Redesigned primary care is the most relevant setting for clinically useful genomic medicine research. Taking insights gained from the activities of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, we apply lessons learned from the patient-centered medical home national experience to implement genomic medicine in a patient-centered, learning health care system.