Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations.

Advances in the application of genomic technologies in clinical care have the potential to increase existing healthcare disparities. Studies have consistently shown that only a fraction of eligible patients with a family history of cancer receive recommended cancer genetic counseling and subsequent genetic testing. Care delivery models using pre-test and post-test counseling are not scalable, which contributes to barriers in accessing genetics services. These barriers are even more pronounced for patients in historically underserved populations. We have designed a multimodal intervention to improve subsequent cancer surveillance, by improving the identification of patients at risk for familial cancer syndromes, reducing barriers to genetic counseling/testing, and increasing patient understanding of complex genetic results. We are evaluating this intervention in two large, integrated healthcare systems that serve diverse patient populations (NCT03426878). The primary outcome is the number of diagnostic (hereditary cancer syndrome) findings. We are examining the clinical and personal utility of streamlined pathways to genetic testing using electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. We will assess downstream care utilization of individuals receiving usual clinical care vs. genetic testing through the study. We will evaluate the impacts of a literacy-focused genetic counseling approach versus usual care genetic counseling on care utilization and participant understanding, satisfaction, and family communication. By recruiting participants belonging to historically underserved populations, this study is uniquely positioned to evaluate the potential of a novel genetics care delivery program to reduce care disparities.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network.

Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program. Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time. Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable). METHODS: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model. CURRICULUM: The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps. CONCLUSION: With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

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.

Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES. PURPOSE: To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year. RESULTS: Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.

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.

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.

The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation.

The purpose of this study was to develop a brief instrument, the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR), to measure the psychosocial impact of returning genomic findings to patients in research and clinical practice. To create the FACToR, we modified and augmented the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire based on findings from a literature review, two focus groups (N = 12), and cognitive interviews (N = 6). We evaluated data from 122 participants referred for evaluation for inherited colorectal cancer or polyposis from the New EXome Technology in (NEXT) Medicine Study, an RCT of exome sequencing versus usual care. We assessed floor and ceiling effects of each item, conducted principal component analysis to identify subscales, and evaluated each subscale's internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. After excluding items that were ambiguous or demonstrated floor or ceiling effects, 12 items forming four distinct subscales were retained for further analysis: negative emotions, positive feelings, uncertainty, and privacy concerns. All four showed good internal consistency (0.66-0.78) and test-retest reliability (0.65-0.91). The positive feelings and the uncertainty subscales demonstrated known-group validity. The 12-item FACToR with four subscales shows promising psychometric properties on preliminary evaluation in a limited sample and needs to be evaluated in other populations.

Rare loss of function variants in candidate genes and risk of colorectal cancer.

Although ~ 25% of colorectal cancer or polyp (CRC/P) cases show familial aggregation, current germline genetic testing identifies a causal genotype in the 16 major genes associated with high penetrance CRC/P in only 20% of these cases. As there are likely other genes underlying heritable CRC/P, we evaluated the association of variation at novel loci with CRC/P. We evaluated 158 a priori selected candidate genes by comparing the number of rare potentially disruptive variants (PDVs) found in 84 CRC/P cases without an identified CRC/P risk-associated variant and 2440 controls. We repeated this analysis using an additional 73 CRC/P cases. We also compared the frequency of PDVs in select genes among CRC/P cases with two publicly available data sets. We found a significant enrichment of PDVs in cases vs. controls: 20% of cases vs. 11.5% of controls with ≥ 1 PDV (OR = 1.9, p = 0.01) in the original set of cases. Among the second cohort of CRC/P cases, 18% had a PDV, significantly different from 11.5% (p = 0.02). Logistic regression, adjusting for ancestry and multiple testing, indicated association between CRC/P and PDVs in NTHL1 (p = 0.0001), BRCA2 (p = 0.01) and BRIP1 (p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference in the frequency of PDVs at each of these genes between all 157 CRC/P cases and two publicly available data sets. These results suggest an increased presence of PDVs in CRC/P cases and support further investigation of the association of NTHL1, BRCA2 and BRIP1 variation with CRC/P.

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.

Family Studies for Classification of Variants of Uncertain Classification: Current Laboratory Clinical Practice and a New Web-Based Educational Tool.

Multi-gene cancer panels often identify variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) that pose a challenge to health care providers in managing a patient's cancer risk. Family segregation analysis can yield powerful data to re-classify a VUS (as either benign or pathogenic). However, financial and personnel resources to coordinate these studies are limited. In an informal assessment we found that family studies for variant classification are done by most clinical genetics laboratories that offer hereditary cancer panel testing. The process for family studies differs substantially across laboratories. One near universal limitation is that families usually have too few individuals for an informative co-segregation analysis. A unique and potential resource-saving approach is to engage patients and their families in expanding their own pedigrees for segregation analysis of their VUS. We describe a novel public educational tool ( FindMyVariant.org ) designed to inform patients and genetic counselors about strategies to improve the probability of variant classification using familial segregation. While the web tool is designed to be useful for any gene, the project was primarily focused on VUS's returned in cancer risk genes. FindMyVariant.org is a resource for genetic providers to offer motivated families who are willing to gather information about their family relationships and history. Working alongside clinical or research genetic laboratories, the information they collect may help reclassify their VUS using segregation analysis.

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.