Physician services and costs after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results in the NYCKidSeq program.

PURPOSE: To better understand the effects of returning diagnostic sequencing results on clinical actions and economic outcomes for pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders. METHODS: Longitudinal physician claims data after diagnostic sequencing were obtained for patients aged 0 to 21 years with neurologic, cardiac, and immunologic disorders with suspected genetic etiology. We assessed specialist consultation rates prompted by primary diagnostic results, as well as marginal effects on overall 18-month physician services and costs. RESULTS: We included data on 857 patients (median age: 9.6 years) with a median follow-up of 17.3 months after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results. The likelihood of having ≥1 recommendation for specialist consultation in 155 patients with positive findings was high (72%) vs 23% in 443 patients with uncertain findings and 21% in 259 patients with negative findings (P < .001). Follow-through consultation occurred in 30%. Increases in 18-month physician services and costs following a positive finding diminished after multivariable adjustment. Also, no significant differences between those with uncertain and negative findings were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Our study did not provide evidence for significant increases in downstream physician services and costs after returning positive or uncertain diagnostic sequencing findings. More large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Experiences of genetic counselors in referring young and metastatic breast cancer patients to support services: A needs assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct a needs assessment to explore the experiences, barriers, and needs of genetic counselors (GCs), who counsel and refer young and metastatic breast cancer (BC) patients to support services, in order to develop resources to address any noticeable gaps. METHODS: GCs providing care to BC patients were eligible to complete the survey. Support services were defined as resources to address patient-centered healthcare, emotional, and quality-of-life needs. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 117) reported familiarity with cancer prevention services (93%); fewer were familiar with services secondary to a BC diagnosis (e.g., fatigue=16% and sexual health=24%). The volume of GCs indicating familiarity with support services increased significantly as work experience increased for seven services. Many (>50%) never referred patients to most (9/12) support services, excluding cancer prevention, mental health, and financial issues. Open-ended responses highlighted that GCs considered referrals to be outside their scope of practice or that healthcare systems prevent GCs from making referrals. CONCLUSION: GCs may benefit from curated resources and materials, especially for support services secondary to a BC diagnosis, to better support their patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Collaboration of GCs with other health professionals through integrative care programs may decrease burdens to accessing support services.

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

PURPOSE: As polygenic risk scores (PRS) emerge as promising tools to inform clinical care, there is a pressing need for patient-centered evidence to guide their implementation, particularly in diverse populations. Here, we conducted in-depth interviews of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients to explore their perspectives on clinical PRS. METHODS: We enrolled 30 biobank participants aged 35-50 years through a purposive sampling strategy, ensuring that >75% self-reported as African/African American or Hispanic/Latinx and half were Spanish-speaking. Semistructured interviews in Spanish or English explored attitudes toward PRS, barriers to adoption, and communication preferences. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Perceived utility of clinical PRS focused on the potential for personal health benefits, and most participants stated that high-risk results would prompt physician consultations and health behavior changes. There was little concern among participants about the limited predictive power of PRS for non-European populations. Barriers to uptake of PRS testing and adoption of PRS-related recommendations included socioeconomic factors, insurance status, race, ethnicity, language, and inadequate understanding of PRS. Participants favored in-person PRS result disclosure by their physician. CONCLUSION: Findings provide valuable insight into diverse patients' attitudes and potential barriers related to clinical PRS, guiding future research and patient-centered clinical implementation.