Scaling Genetic Counseling in the Genomics Era.

The development of massively parallel sequencing-based genomic sequencing tests has increased genetic test availability and access. The field and practice of genetic counseling have adapted in response to this paradigm-shifting technology and the subsequent transition to practicing genomic medicine. While the key elements defining genetic counseling remain relevant, genetic counseling service delivery models and practice settings have evolved. Genetic counselors are addressing the challenges of direct-to-consumer and consumer-driven genetic testing, and genetic counseling training programs are responding to the ongoing increased demand for genetic counseling services across a broadening range of contexts. The need to diversify both the patient and participant groups with access to genetic information, as well as the field of genetic counseling, is at the forefront of research and training program initiatives. Genetic counselors are key stakeholders in the genomics era, and their contributions are essential to effectively and equitably deliver precision medicine.

Satisfaction with Mode of Delivery of Genomic Sequencing Results in a Diverse National Sample of Research Participants through the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Research that includes diverse patient populations is necessary to optimize implementation of telehealth. METHODS: As part of a Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium cross-site study, we assessed satisfaction with mode of return of results (RoR) delivery across a diverse sample of participants receiving genetic testing results in-person (IP) versus telemedicine (TM) RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of participants were satisfied with their mode of results delivery. Participants receiving results by TM were more likely to report a preference for receiving results in a different way and challenges with providers noticing difficulties with understanding. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction across all items measuring support and interaction during sessions. Participants self-reporting Hispanic/Latino or Black/African American race/ethnicity compared to White/European American, fewer years of education, and having lower health literacy were more likely to report challenges with understanding the information or asking questions. Participants who were White/European American, had more years of education, and higher health literacy reported higher communication scores reflecting more positive evaluations of the communication experience. CONCLUSION: TM is an acceptable mode of RoR delivery across diverse settings and populations. Research optimizing approaches for underrepresented populations, populations with lower levels of education and health literacy, and multilingual populations is necessary.

Variant Classification Concordance using the ACMG-AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines across Nine Genomic Implementation Research Studies.

Harmonization of variant pathogenicity classification across laboratories is important for advancing clinical genomics. The two CLIA-accredited Electronic Medical Record and Genomics Network sequencing centers and the six CLIA-accredited laboratories and one research laboratory performing genome or exome sequencing in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium collaborated to explore current sources of discordance in classification. Eight laboratories each submitted 20 classified variants in the ACMG secondary finding v.2.0 genes. After removing duplicates, each of the 158 variants was annotated and independently classified by two additional laboratories using the ACMG-AMP guidelines. Overall concordance across three laboratories was assessed and discordant variants were reviewed via teleconference and email. The submitted variant set included 28 P/LP variants, 96 VUS, and 34 LB/B variants, mostly in cancer (40%) and cardiac (27%) risk genes. Eighty-six (54%) variants reached complete five-category (i.e., P, LP, VUS, LB, B) concordance, and 17 (11%) had a discordance that could affect clinical recommendations (P/LP versus VUS/LB/B). 21% and 63% of variants submitted as P and LP, respectively, were discordant with VUS. Of the 54 originally discordant variants that underwent further review, 32 reached agreement, for a post-review concordance rate of 84% (118/140 variants). This project provides an updated estimate of variant concordance, identifies considerations for LP classified variants, and highlights ongoing sources of discordance. Continued and increased sharing of variant classifications and evidence across laboratories, and the ongoing work of ClinGen to provide general as well as gene- and disease-specific guidance, will lead to continued increases in concordance.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited. METHODS: An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed. RESULTS: Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time. CONCLUSION: Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

Most people share genetic test results with relatives even if the findings are normal: Family communication in a diverse population.

PURPOSE: With increasing utilization of genetic testing, sharing genetic information can become part of general family health communication while providing biological relatives with important information about their own genetic risk. Importantly, little is known about motivations for and barriers to family communication of genetic information in historically underserved populations. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we explored patient experiences with family communication in a study population of English- and Spanish-speaking adults aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for participants from historically underserved backgrounds. Risk screening for hereditary cancer guided genetic testing for cancer risk genes and other medically actionable findings. RESULTS: Most participants overall (91%), including most with normal findings (89%), shared or planned to share their results with relatives. Common motivations for sharing results were to give relatives information about their genetic risk and because the participant thought the results were interesting. Reasons for not sharing were limited contact with relatives, perceptions of limited clinical utility for relatives, and concern that discussion of genetic information was stigmatized or taboo. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate high rates of sharing genetic information, indicate motivations for sharing go beyond facilitating genetic testing for relatives, and suggest general willingness to share genetic information as part of family health communication.

Rates of Actionable Genetic Findings in Individuals with Colorectal Cancer or Polyps Ascertained from a Community Medical Setting.

As clinical testing for Mendelian causes of colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely driven by recognition of family history and early age of onset, the rates of such findings among individuals with prevalent CRC not recognized to have these features is largely unknown. We evaluated actionable genomic findings in community-based participants ascertained by three phenotypes: (1) CRC, (2) one or more adenomatous colon polyps, and (3) control participants over age 59 years without CRC or colon polyps. These participants underwent sequencing for a panel of genes that included colorectal cancer/polyp (CRC/P)-associated and actionable incidental findings genes. Those with CRC had a 3.8% rate of positive results (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) for a CRC-associated gene variant, despite generally being older at CRC onset (mean 72 years). Those ascertained for polyps had a 0.8% positive rate and those with no CRC/P had a positive rate of 0.2%. Though incidental finding rates unrelated to colon cancer were similar for all groups, our positive rate for cardiovascular findings exceeds disease prevalence, suggesting that variant interpretation challenges or low penetrance in these genes. The rate of HFE c.845G>A (p.Cys282Tyr) homozygotes in the CRC group reinforces a previously reported, but relatively unexplored, association between hemochromatosis and CRC. These results in a general clinical population suggest that current testing strategies could be improved in order to better detect Mendelian CRC-associated conditions. These data also underscore the need for additional functional and familial evidence to clarify the pathogenicity and penetrance of variants deemed pathogenic or likely pathogenic, particularly among the actionable genes associated with cardiovascular disease.

ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Individuals having genomic sequencing can choose to be notified about pathogenic variants in genes unrelated to the testing indication. A decision aid can facilitate weighing one's values before making a choice about these additional results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial (N = 231) comparing informed values-choice congruence among adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome who viewed either the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA) or web-based additional findings information alone. ORCA is values-focused with a low-literacy design. RESULTS: Individuals in both arms had informed values-choice congruence (75% and 73% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.58-2.08). Most participants had adequate knowledge (79% and 76% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.61-2.34), with no significant difference between groups. Most had information-seeking values (97% and 98% in the decision aid and web-based groups, respectively; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.10-3.61) and chose to receive additional findings. CONCLUSION: The ORCA decision aid did not significantly improve informed values-choice congruence over web-based information in this cohort of adults deciding about genomic results. Both web-based approaches may be effective for adults to decide about receiving medically actionable additional results.

Laboratory-related outcomes from integrating an accessible delivery model for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in populations with barriers to access.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the laboratory-related outcomes of participants who were offered genomic testing based on cancer family history risk assessment tools. METHODS: Patients from clinics that serve populations with access barriers, who are screened at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome based on adapted family history collection tools (the Breast Cancer Genetics Referral Screening Tool and PREMM5), were offered exome-based panel testing for cancer risk and medically actionable secondary findings. We used descriptive statistics, electronic health record review, and inferential statistics to explore participant characteristics and results, consultations and actions related to pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified, and variables predicting category of findings, respectively. RESULTS: Of all the participants, 87% successfully returned a saliva kit. Overall, 5% had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic cancer risk variant and 1% had a secondary finding. Almost all (14/15, 93%) participants completed recommended consultations with nongenetics providers after an average of 17 months. The recommended actions (eg, breast magnetic resonance imaging) were completed by 17 of 25 participants. Participant personal history of cancer and PREMM5 score were each associated with the category of findings (history and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .02; history and breast cancer finding, Fisher's exact P = .01; PREMM5TM score; and colon cancer finding, Fisher's exact P < .001). CONCLUSION: This accessible model of hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing yielded results that were often acted upon by patients and physicians.

An accessible, relational, inclusive, and actionable (ARIA) model of genetic counseling compared with usual care: Results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Effective approaches to communicate genomic information are needed to ensure equitable care. In a randomized controlled superiority trial, we tested a novel practice model that aims to make genetic counseling inclusive, by making the communication accessible, relational, and actionable (ARIA). METHODS: In total, 696 English- and Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 years, enriched for individuals from historically underserved backgrounds, were randomized in 1:1 ratio to ARIA or usual care. Primary outcomes were accuracy of recall, communication satisfaction, and perceived understanding. In total, 33 participants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Recall and understanding were high for all participants. ARIA participants scored higher on the relationship scale of communication satisfaction (mean difference = 0.09, 95% CI = <0.01 to 0.17). Moderator analyses of communication satisfaction showed that those with lower health literacy reported less communication difficulty in ARIA and those using medical interpreters reported greater communication ease in ARIA. No significant difference was found on other primary and secondary outcomes. Qualitative data enhanced understanding of how and why ARIA can be effective. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a genetic counseling intervention that focuses on specific communication skills to enhance relationship-building, patient engagement, and comprehension can be effective with all patients and may be especially valuable for patients of lower health literacy and Spanish-speakers who use a medical interpreter.

Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed-methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self-identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in-depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk.

Preconception Carrier Screening by Genome Sequencing: Results from the Clinical Laboratory.

Advances in sequencing technologies permit the analysis of a larger selection of genes for preconception carrier screening. The study was designed as a sequential carrier screen using genome sequencing to analyze 728 gene-disorder pairs for carrier and medically actionable conditions in 131 women and their partners (n = 71) who were planning a pregnancy. We report here on the clinical laboratory results from this expanded carrier screening program. Variants were filtered and classified using the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline; only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were confirmed by orthologous methods before being reported. Novel missense variants were classified as variants of uncertain significance. We reported 304 variants in 202 participants. Twelve carrier couples (12/71 couples tested) were identified for common conditions; eight were carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis. Although both known and novel variants were reported, 48% of all reported variants were missense. For novel splice-site variants, RNA-splicing assays were performed to aid in classification. We reported ten copy-number variants and five variants in non-coding regions. One novel variant was reported in F8, associated with hemophilia A; prenatal testing showed that the male fetus harbored this variant and the neonate suffered a life-threatening hemorrhage which was anticipated and appropriately managed. Moreover, 3% of participants had variants that were medically actionable. Compared with targeted mutation screening, genome sequencing improves the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant variants. While certain novel variant interpretation remains challenging, the ACMG guidelines are useful to classify variants in a healthy population.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, now in its second funding cycle, is investigating the effectiveness of integrating genomic (exome or genome) sequencing into the clinical care of diverse and medically underserved individuals in a variety of healthcare settings and disease states. The consortium comprises a coordinating center, six funded extramural clinical projects, and an ongoing National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project. Collectively, these projects aim to enroll and sequence over 6,100 participants in four years. At least 60% of participants will be of non-European ancestry or from underserved settings, with the goal of diversifying the populations that are providing an evidence base for genomic medicine. Five of the six clinical projects are enrolling pediatric patients with various phenotypes. One of these five projects is also enrolling couples whose fetus has a structural anomaly, and the sixth project is enrolling adults at risk for hereditary cancer. The ongoing NHGRI intramural project has enrolled primarily healthy adults. Goals of the consortium include assessing the clinical utility of genomic sequencing, exploring medical follow up and cascade testing of relatives, and evaluating patient-provider-laboratory level interactions that influence the use of this technology. The findings from the CSER consortium will offer patients, healthcare systems, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges of providing genomic medicine in diverse populations and settings, and contribute evidence toward developing best practices for the delivery of clinically useful and cost-effective genomic sequencing in diverse healthcare settings.

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.

Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Evaluating the pathogenicity of a variant is challenging given the plethora of types of genetic evidence that laboratories consider. Deciding how to weigh each type of evidence is difficult, and standards have been needed. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for the assessment of variants in genes associated with Mendelian diseases. Nine molecular diagnostic laboratories involved in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium piloted these guidelines on 99 variants spanning all categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign). Nine variants were distributed to all laboratories, and the remaining 90 were evaluated by three laboratories. The laboratories classified each variant by using both the laboratory's own method and the ACMG-AMP criteria. The agreement between the two methods used within laboratories was high (K-alpha = 0.91) with 79% concordance. However, there was only 34% concordance for either classification system across laboratories. After consensus discussions and detailed review of the ACMG-AMP criteria, concordance increased to 71%. Causes of initial discordance in ACMG-AMP classifications were identified, and recommendations on clarification and increased specification of the ACMG-AMP criteria were made. In summary, although an initial pilot of the ACMG-AMP guidelines did not lead to increased concordance in variant interpretation, comparing variant interpretations to identify differences and having a common framework to facilitate resolution of those differences were beneficial for improving agreement, allowing iterative movement toward increased reporting consistency for variants in genes associated with monogenic disease.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

PURPOSE: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs). METHODS: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. RESULTS: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Correction: Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

The originally published version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 2. The numbers below the black arrowheads were incorrect; please see incorrect Figure in associated Correction. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Insurance coverage does not predict outcomes of genetic testing: The search for meaning in payer decisions for germline cancer tests.

In this work, we explore the results of germline cancer genetic tests in individuals whose insurance would not cover this testing. We enrolled 31 patients with a personal history of cancer whose health insurer denied coverage for a clinical germline cancer panel genetic test recommended by a medical genetics provider into a study providing exome sequencing and return of cancer-related results. Five participants (16%) had a pathogenic variant identified related to increased cancer risk. Three participants (10%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene related to their cancer history. These rates are not significantly different than the 12% rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and VUS in 1,462 patients approved by insurance to have a similar clinical germline cancer test (p = .59 for P/LP variants; p = .87 for VUS; Shirts et al., Genet Med, 18:974, 2016). Health insurance guidelines may not meaningfully differentiate between patients with cancer who are likely to benefit from germline cancer genetic testing and those who will not. Failure to identify pathogenic variants in this research cohort would have led to suboptimal care. Strategic evaluation of current germline cancer genetic testing coverage policies is needed to appropriately deliver precision medicine.