Participant experiences of genome sequencing for rare diseases in the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study.

In this mixed methods study, a survey and in-depth interviews were used to explore whether decision regret and the psychological impact of receiving genome sequencing (GS) results differed between parents and patients, and between those who received a genetic diagnosis and those who did not. Participants (n = 77) completed a survey that included the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) and an adaptation of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) at least 12 months after consenting for GS for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project. Survey participants were invited to take part in an interview and 39 agreed; 12 with a diagnosis, 5 with variants of uncertain significance, and 19 with no pathogenic findings identified. Both survey and interview findings indicated that decision regret was low. DRS scores revealed no differences in levels of regret between parents and patients, or between those with a diagnosis and those without. Though MICRA scores indicated minimal evidence of negative psychological impacts of receiving GS results, subscale analysis revealed greater distress and uncertainty for parents compared to patients. Receiving a diagnosis was found not to influence MICRA scores, supporting interview findings of both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts irrespective of a genetic diagnosis. Our findings have implications for policy and practice as GS is integrated into the UK and worldwide; notably, that expectation-setting is critical when offering GS, and that post-test counselling is important regardless of the GS result received, with parents perhaps needing additional emotional support.

A pragmatic evidence-based approach to post-mortem perinatal imaging.

Post-mortem imaging has a high acceptance rate amongst parents and healthcare professionals as a non-invasive method for investigating perinatal deaths. Previously viewed as a 'niche' subspecialty, it is becoming increasingly requested, with general radiologists now more frequently asked to oversee and advise on appropriate imaging protocols. Much of the current literature to date has focussed on diagnostic accuracy and clinical experiences of individual centres and their imaging techniques (e.g. post-mortem CT, MRI, ultrasound and micro-CT), and pragmatic, evidence-based guidance for how to approach such referrals in real-world practice is lacking. In this review, we summarise the latest research and provide an approach and flowchart to aid decision-making for perinatal post-mortem imaging. We highlight key aspects of the maternal and antenatal history that radiologists should consider when protocolling studies (e.g. antenatal imaging findings and history), and emphasise important factors that could impact the diagnostic quality of post-mortem imaging examinations (e.g. post-mortem weight and time interval). Considerations regarding when ancillary post-mortem image-guided biopsy tests are beneficial are also addressed, and we provide key references for imaging protocols for a variety of cross-sectional imaging modalities.

Mixed-methods evaluation of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service for paediatric rare diseases: study protocol.

Background: A new nationally commissioned NHS England Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was recently established to deliver genomic testing with equity of access for patients affected by rare diseases and cancer. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the GMS during its early years, identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation, and provide recommendations for practice. The focus will be on the use of genomic testing for paediatric rare diseases. Methods: This will be a four-year mixed-methods research programme using clinic observations, interviews and surveys. Study 1 consists of qualitative interviews with designers/implementers of the GMS in Year 1 of the research programme, along with documentary analysis to understand the intended outcomes for the Service. These will be revisited in Year 4 to compare intended outcomes with what happened in practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that were encountered along the way. Study 2 consists of clinic observations (pre-test counselling and results disclosure) to examine the interaction between health professionals and parents, along with follow-up interviews with both after each observation. Study 3 consists of a longitudinal survey with parents at two timepoints (time of testing and 12 months post-results) along with follow-up interviews, to examine parent-reported experiences and outcomes. Study 4 consists of qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey with medical specialists to identify preparedness, facilitators and challenges to mainstreaming genomic testing. The use of theory-based and pre-specified constructs will help generalise the findings and enable integration across the various sub-studies. Dissemination: We will disseminate our results to policymakers as findings emerge, so any suggested changes to service provision can be considered in a timely manner. A workshop with key stakeholders will be held in Year 4 to develop and agree a set of recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genome sequencing (where a person's entire genetic code is mapped) is set to dramatically transform patient care and medical outcomes. Recently, genome sequencing was introduced as part of routine clinical care in the NHS, through the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). The aim of this research is to understand how genome sequencing is being delivered in the first few years of the Service, in particular what the barriers and enablers are to successful delivery. The focus of the study will be the use of genome sequencing for children with undiagnosed conditions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a four-year study in which we will conduct: observations of clinic appointments; interviews with policy makers and health professionals designing and implementing the new service; and surveys/interviews with parents of patients undergoing genomic testing. By the end of this study we will have: - a better understanding of the intended vs actual outcomes of the GMS,- insights into what happens during clinical encounters,- understand what the entire testing process is like for parents from being offered genomic testing to receiving their results and beyond, including the clinical as well as emotional and practical outcomes, and- understand how healthcare professionals feel about delivering the GMS, particularly those that are non-genetic specialists, including how prepared they feel to deliver genomic testing. Patient and public involvement: Parents of children who have been through the testing process have helped us design this study. They have inputted into surveys and topic guides, and will be involved throughout the study as members of the advisory team so that we can ensure the findings are used to improve the quality of care patients and families receive. DISSEMINATION: The findings from this research will be shared with organisations such as NHS England and NHS Improvement so that recommendations can be implemented swiftly.

Parents' motivations, concerns and understanding of genome sequencing: a qualitative interview study.

The 100,000 Genomes Project is a hybrid clinical and research project in which patients and parents are offered genome sequencing for cancer and rare and inherited disease diagnosis; all participants receive their main findings and contribute their data for research, and are offered optional secondary findings. Our aim was to explore participating parents' attitudes towards and understanding of genome sequencing in this hybrid context. We conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 20 parents of children with rare diseases participating in the 100,000 Genomes Project. Parents were positive about contributing to research, although some had needed reassurance about data protections. Although most felt positive about secondary findings, some could not recall or misunderstood key aspects. Some were also concerned about potential emotional impact of results and a few raised concerns about life insurance implications, and the impact of future legal changes. Participants were generally positive about consent appointments, but several raised concerns about 'information overload' because of deciding about secondary findings at the same time as about the main diagnostic genome sequencing and data contribution. Additional information resources, particularly online tools, were highlighted as potentially useful ways of supporting the consent process. We conclude that parents offered genome sequencing as part of a national hybrid clinical and research project report many positive attitudes and experiences, but also concerns and misunderstandings. Further research is needed on how best to support informed consent, particularly about secondary findings. Additional resources such as online tools might usefully support future genome sequencing consent processes.

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project.

OBJECTIVES: Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project. DESIGN: Interview study using thematic analysis. SETTING: Four National Health Service hospitals in London. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 'consenters' from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project. RESULTS: Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues.

Minimally invasive autopsy for fetuses and children based on a combination of post-mortem MRI and endoscopic examination: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy methods, such as imaging alongside targeted endoscopy and organ biopsy, may address declining consent rates for traditional autopsy, but their acceptability and accuracy are not known. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to provide empirical data on the acceptability and likely uptake for different types of autopsy among key stakeholders (study 1); and to analyse existing autopsy data sources to provide estimates of the potential efficacy of less invasive autopsy (LIA) and its projected utility in clinical practice (study 2). REVIEW METHODS: Study 1: this was a mixed-methods study. Parents were involved in research design and interpretation of findings. Substudy 1: a cross-sectional survey of 859 parents who had experienced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly, stillbirth, infant or child death, and interviews with 20 responders. Substudy 2: interviews with 25 health professionals and four coroners. Substudy 3: interviews with 16 religious leaders and eight focus groups, with 76 members of the Muslim and Jewish community. Study 2: a retrospective analysis of national data in addition to detailed information from an existing in-house autopsy database of > 5000 clinical cases that had undergone standard autopsy to determine the proportion of cases by clinical indication group for which tissue sampling of specific internal organs significantly contributed to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Substudy 1: 91% of participants indicated that they would consent to some form of LIA, 54% would consent to standard autopsy, 74% to minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) and 77% to non-invasive autopsy (NIA). Substudy 2: participants viewed LIA as a positive development, but had concerns around the limitations of the technology and de-skilling the workforce. Cost implications, skills and training requirements were identified as implementation challenges. Substudy 3: religious leaders agreed that NIA was religiously permissible, but MIA was considered less acceptable. Community members indicated that they might consent to NIA if the body could be returned for burial within 24 hours. Study 2: in 5-10% of cases of sudden unexplained death in childhood and sudden unexplained death in infants, the final cause of death is determined by routine histological sampling of macroscopically normal organs, predominantly the heart and lungs, and in this group routine histological sampling therefore remains an important aspect of investigation. In contrast, routine histological examination of macroscopically normal organs rarely (< 0.5%) provides the cause of death in fetal cases, making LIA and NIA approaches potentially highly applicable. LIMITATIONS: A key limitation of the empirical research is that it is hypothetical. Further research is required to determine actual uptake. Furthermore, because of the retrospective nature of the autopsy data set, findings regarding the likely contribution of organ sampling to final diagnosis are based on extrapolation of findings from historical autopsies, and prospective data collection is required to validate the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: LIA is viable and acceptable (except for unexplained deaths), and likely to increase uptake. Further health economic, performance and implementation studies are required to determine the optimal service configuration required to offer this as routine clinical care. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Autopsy (post-mortem) examination of babies and children who die is often necessary to help doctors or coroners find out the cause of death. It may also be useful for research. However, many bereaved parents dislike the idea of their child being cut and some religious communities prohibit the procedure. Over the past 30 years, consent rates for autopsies have declined. In order to address parental concerns and declining uptake, a number of less invasive options have been developed. These include X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging, by doing keyhole internal examination and needle organ biopsy. However, it is not known to what extent such methods are acceptable to parents, nor how accurate they are. We surveyed the attitudes of bereaved parents and religious group leaders to such less invasive methods. The less invasive option was considered acceptable and would be chosen by almost 1000 bereaved parents. Such an approach is also acceptable to those religious groups for whom standard autopsy examination is not. We also examined a database of > 5000 standard autopsies to determine the extent to which specific internal organ biopsy contributed to the diagnosis. In > 5000 standard autopsies, traditional organ biopsy rarely contributed to determination of the cause of death or the main diagnosis. Therefore, a more limited and targeted tissue sampling protocol could be introduced without significant reduction in the accuracy of final diagnosis. The specific approaches required will depend on individual circumstances and are likely to include a range, from targeted organ biopsy with an open incision, through incisionless image-guided needle biopsies, to non-invasive imaging-only techniques. Future studies may focus on how the NHS could implement offering less invasive approaches nationally, what the cost­benefit of such an approach could be and what the impact could be on real-world uptake if this were to be offered routinely.

Stakeholder views and attitudes towards prenatal and postnatal transplantation of fetal mesenchymal stem cells to treat Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

The Boost Brittle Bones Before Birth (BOOSTB4) clinical trial is investigating the safety and efficacy of transplanting fetal derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) prenatally and/or in early postnatal life to treat severe Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI). This study aimed to explore stakeholder views to understand perceived benefits or concerns, identify ethical issues and establish protocols for support and counselling. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with three groups; 1. Adults affected with OI, with and without children, and parents of children affected with OI; 2. Health professionals who work with patients with OI; 3. Patient advocates from relevant patient support groups. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Interviews with 56 participants revealed generally positive views towards using fetal MSC transplantation to treat OI. Early treatment was considered advantageous for preventing fractures and reducing severity and could bring psychological benefits for parents. Common concerns were procedure safety, short/long-term side effects and whether transplantation would be effective. Difficulties inherent in decision-making were frequently discussed, as treatment efficacy is unknown and, by necessity, parents will make decisions at a time when they are vulnerable. Support needs may differ where there is a family history of OI compared to an unexpected diagnosis of OI. Explaining fetal MSC transplantation in a way that all parents can understand, clear expectation setting, psychological support and time for reflection during the decision-making process will be crucial to allow parents to make informed decisions about participation in the BOOSTB4 clinical trial.

Stakeholder attitudes and needs regarding cell-free fetal DNA testing.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To explore stakeholder views on cell-free DNA testing and highlight findings important for successful implementation and the provision of best practice in counseling. RECENT FINDINGS: Noninvasive tests based on the analysis of cell-free fetal DNA are now widely available in clinical practice and applications are expanding rapidly. It is essential that stakeholder views are considered in order to identify and address any ethical and social issues. We provide an overview of stakeholder viewpoints and then focus on the key issues of informed decision making, test uptake, service delivery and information sources. SUMMARY: Stakeholders are positive about the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA testing into clinical practice. They describe both practical and psychological benefits arising from tests that are safe and can potentially be performed earlier in pregnancy. Key concerns, which include the potential for these tests to have a negative impact on informed decision making and increased societal pressure to have testing, can be addressed through careful parent-directed counseling. As applications for these tests expand it is increasingly important to develop innovative approaches to facilitate good understanding for parents who are offered noninvasive prenatal testing.

Non-invasive Prenatal Diagnosis for BRCA Mutations - a Qualitative Pilot Study of Health Professionals' Views.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) is a rapidly advancing approach that allows diagnostic testing based on analysis of cell free DNA in maternal plasma. This study aimed to explore the views of health professionals regarding the use of NIPD for BRCA1/2 mutations. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight participants. Whilst participants viewed NIPD in general as a positive step forward in prenatal testing, they were cautious about its use for BRCA testing. Significant ethical concerns emerged regarding testing prenatally for an adult onset condition, that is not fully penetrant, and the possibility of abrogating the rights of the future child to genetic autonomy. Nevertheless, participants did identify some situations whereby the test might be beneficial, such as for individuals with very negative and traumatic personal experiences of cancer desiring reassurance or wanting to prevent passing on the condition. NIPD was also seen as having benefits over invasive testing and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, the only other options currently available to test prenatally for this condition. Exploring the views of a wider range of clinical specialties as well as patients at risk of hereditary breast cancer would be beneficial.

Client views and attitudes to non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for sickle cell disease, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis.

In the near future the availability of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders will change the prenatal diagnosis options available to couples who are carriers of conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disorder and thalassaemia. Client opinions about NIPD are needed to inform the implementation of NIPD for single gene disorders. This qualitative study used two focus groups (n = 12) and one-to-one interviews (n = 16) with carriers and support group representatives of sickle cell disease, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis. Discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Opinions about NIPD were very positive and participants valued the opportunity to have safe and early testing. Uptake of prenatal testing is likely to increase as women who had previously declined invasive testing expressed interest in having NIPD. Participant concerns about NIPD centred on the need for accuracy to be high to be used for subsequent decision making about termination of pregnancy. Participants also raised concerns that less thought may be given to having a blood test compared to an invasive test and that the perceived ease of a blood test may bring increased pressure to have testing. Participants thought NIPD should be offered through existing specialist services to ensure appropriate genetic counseling and support. Maintaining all testing options is important as some people may prefer invasive testing over NIPD if invasive testing was more accurate or if invasive testing could give information about other conditions such as Down syndrome.

What hinders minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services and what may help?

Ethnic disparities in use of cancer genetics services raise concerns about equitable opportunity to benefit from familial cancer risk assessment, improved survival and quality of life. This paper considers available research to explore what may hinder or facilitate minority ethnic access to cancer genetics services. We sought to inform service development for people of South Asian, African or Irish origin at risk of familial breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers in the UK. Relevant studies from the UK, North America and Australasia were identified from six electronic research databases. Current evidence is limited but suggests low awareness and understanding of familial cancer risk among minority ethnic communities studied. Socio-cultural variations in beliefs, notably stigma about cancer or inherited risk of cancer, are identified. These factors may affect seeking of advice from providers and disparities in referral. Achieving effective cross-cultural communication in the complex contexts of both cancer and genetics counselling, whether between individuals and providers, when mediated by third party interpreters, or within families, pose further challenges. Some promising experience of facilitating minority ethnic access has been gained by introduction of culturally sensitive provider and counselling initiatives, and by enabling patient self-referral. However, further research to inform and assess these interventions, and others that address the range of challenges identified for cancer genetics services are needed. This should be based on a more comprehensive understanding of what happens at differing points of access and interaction at community, cancer care and genetic service levels.