Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again.

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

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.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

PURPOSE: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

PURPOSE: In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed that de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. The National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect in 2015, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes toward biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Science, EthxWeb, and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR. RESULTS: The final 48 studies included surveys (n = 23), focus groups (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 14), interviews (n = 1), and consent form analyses (n = 2). Study quality was characterized as good (n = 19), fair (n = 27), and poor (n = 2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but it was lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and when pharmaceutical companies had access to data. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.Genet Med 18 7, 663-671.

Privacy in the Genomic Era.

Genome sequencing technology has advanced at a rapid pace and it is now possible to generate highly-detailed genotypes inexpensively. The collection and analysis of such data has the potential to support various applications, including personalized medical services. While the benefits of the genomics revolution are trumpeted by the biomedical community, the increased availability of such data has major implications for personal privacy; notably because the genome has certain essential features, which include (but are not limited to) (i) an association with traits and certain diseases, (ii) identification capability (e.g., forensics), and (iii) revelation of family relationships. Moreover, direct-to-consumer DNA testing increases the likelihood that genome data will be made available in less regulated environments, such as the Internet and for-profit companies. The problem of genome data privacy thus resides at the crossroads of computer science, medicine, and public policy. While the computer scientists have addressed data privacy for various data types, there has been less attention dedicated to genomic data. Thus, the goal of this paper is to provide a systematization of knowledge for the computer science community. In doing so, we address some of the (sometimes erroneous) beliefs of this field and we report on a survey we conducted about genome data privacy with biomedical specialists. Then, after characterizing the genome privacy problem, we review the state-of-the-art regarding privacy attacks on genomic data and strategies for mitigating such attacks, as well as contextualizing these attacks from the perspective of medicine and public policy. This paper concludes with an enumeration of the challenges for genome data privacy and presents a framework to systematize the analysis of threats and the design of countermeasures as the field moves forward.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU.

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records.

The inclusion of genomic data in the electronic health record raises important ethical, legal, and social issues. In this article, we highlight these challenges and discuss potential solutions. We provide a brief background on the current state of electronic health records in the context of genomic medicine, discuss the importance of equitable access to genome-enabled electronic health records, and consider the potential use of electronic health records for improving genomic literacy in patients and providers. We highlight the importance of privacy, access, and security, and of determining which genomic information is included in the electronic health record. Finally, we discuss the challenges of reporting incidental findings, storing and reinterpreting genomic data, and nondocumentation and duty to warn family members at potential genetic risk.

Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank.

Although US research regulations allow for de-identified biorepositories to be developed without formal informed consent from the patients whose samples are included, it is unknown whether this model will be well-received by community members. Based on early evidence that such a biobank could be successful if patients who object have the opportunity to opt-out, Vanderbilt University developed a biorepository named BioVU that follows this model. This study reports the findings from two large-scale surveys among communities important to this biorepository. In the first, a population-based phone survey of Nashville residents, we found that approval for BioVU is high (93.9%) and that this approval is similar among all population groups. A hypothetical biobank that does not obtain some form of written permission is much less well received. In the second, an online survey of Vanderbilt University faculty and staff, we found a higher level of support for BioVU (94.5%) among faculty and staff working throughout the university. In this survey, employees least likely to approve of BioVU are those employees who prefer not to receive medical care at Vanderbilt University. These surveys demonstrate the highest level of approval for a genomic biobank ever reported in the literature, even among groups traditionally cautious about such research. This high level of approval may reflect increasing comfort with genomic research over time combined with the effect that trust in a specific institution can have on approval for an operating biobank compared with approval of a hypothetical biobank.

Attitudes and beliefs of sports medicine providers to sickle cell trait screening of student athletes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes of members of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) toward the new National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) policy to require all Division I student athletes be screened for sickle cell trait (SCT), have prior evidence of testing, or sign a waiver. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of members of the AMSSM electronic mailing list was conducted. Descriptive, McNemar, and χ2 statistics were performed. SETTING: Internet survey. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 1765 AMSSM e-mail list members, 370 returned partial or completed surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent variables included familiarity with the NCAA policy, support of universal or targeted screening programs, preferences regarding screening methodologies, and athletic restrictions or modifications for student athletes identified with SCT. Respondents' gender, race/ethnicity, and involvement as an NCAA team physician were independent variables. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 76% were men, 85% were whites, and 53% served as NCAA Division I team physicians. Ninety percent were aware of the policy. There was greater support for targeted (76%, 267 of 353) compared with universal (39%, 137 of 353; P < 0.01) screening, with targeting based on race/ethnicity and sport. Respondents supported targeted screening of varsity and freshman athletes in all NCAA divisions, but most (88%) also supported waivers. Respondents favored using existing medical records (73%) or Sickledex screening (71%) methodologies despite concerns about inaccuracies (16% for each methodology). Most respondents agreed that there is discrimination in athletic participation and obtaining insurance. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of consensus within the AMSSM regarding the current NCAA SCT screening policy. Implementation must take into consideration potential discrimination.

A Survey of Overlapping Surgery Policies at U.S. Hospitals.

The authors surveyed hospitals across the country on their policies regarding overlapping surgery, and found large variation between hospitals in how this practice is regulated. Specifically, institutions chose to define "critical portions" in a variety of ways, ultimately affecting not only surgical efficiency but also the autonomy of surgical trainees and patient experiences at these different hospitals.

Health and kinship matter: Learning about direct-to-consumer genetic testing user experiences via online discussions.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), but little is known about individuals' motivations and experiences (e.g., discussion topics and emotions after obtaining the test results) in engaging with DTC-GT services. Previous studies either involved only a small number of DTC-GT consumers or were based on hypothetical scenarios. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating online discussions about DTC-GT that developed naturally among tens of thousands of social media users. METHODS: We focused on the posts that were published in the r/23andme and r/AncestryDNA subreddits, which correspond to the two companies with the largest number of consumers in the DTC-GT market. We applied computational methods to infer and examine the topics discussed, temporal trends in posting rates and themes (e.g., aggregation of related topics), and emotions expressed in these online forums. RESULTS: We collected 157,000 posts published by 16,500 Reddit users between 2013 and 2019. We found that the posting rates increased sharply after popular promotional events (e.g., each Amazon Prime Day and Black Friday) and most posts were inquiries into, or status updates about, testing progress. The inferred themes of Ancestral Origin and Kinship/Feelings were the two most frequently discussed, while discussions about the Health Risks theme focused primarily on submitting DTC-GT raw data to third parties for interpretation. The Kinship/Feelings theme exhibited the largest range of emotional response. A qualitative review of the posts with extreme emotions showed that some people became excited because they found their biological parents or other kin, while others became upset because they unexpectedly found that their parents or other kin were not biologically related to them. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that online social media platforms can serve as a rich resource for characterizing actual DTC-GT experiences. The findings suggest that DTC-GT consumers' purchasing behaviors are associated with societal events and that future investigations should consider how DTC-GT challenges our understanding of kinship structure and function, genomic privacy, and the interpretation of health risks.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years. RESULTS: Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.