The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

Actionability of unanticipated monogenic disease risks in newborn genomic screening: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

Newborn genomic sequencing (NBSeq) to screen for medically important genetic information is of considerable interest but data characterizing the actionability of such findings, and the downstream medical efforts in response to discovery of unanticipated genetic risk variants, are lacking. From a clinical trial of comprehensive exome sequencing in 127 apparently healthy infants and 32 infants in intensive care, we previously identified 17 infants (10.7%) with unanticipated monogenic disease risks (uMDRs). In this analysis, we assessed actionability for each of these uMDRs with a modified ClinGen actionability semiquantitative metric (CASQM) and created radar plots representing degrees of penetrance of the condition, severity of the condition, effectiveness of intervention, and tolerability of intervention. In addition, we followed each of these infants for 3-5 years after disclosure and tracked the medical actions prompted by these findings. All 17 uMDR findings were scored as moderately or highly actionable on the CASQM (mean 9, range: 7-11 on a 0-12 scale) and several distinctive visual patterns emerged on the radar plots. In three infants, uMDRs revealed unsuspected genetic etiologies for existing phenotypes, and in the remaining 14 infants, uMDRs provided risk stratification for future medical surveillance. In 13 infants, uMDRs prompted screening for at-risk family members, three of whom underwent cancer-risk-reducing surgeries. Although assessments of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness will require larger datasets, these findings suggest that large-scale comprehensive sequencing of newborns will reveal numerous actionable uMDRs and precipitate substantial, and in some cases lifesaving, downstream medical care in newborns and their family members.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

Design and Pilot Results from Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Genetic Results (MVP-ROAR) Study.

BACKGROUND: As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition. METHODS: The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months. RESULTS: The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; p=0.03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome. CONCLUSION: While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes.

Attitudes, Knowledge, and Risk Perceptions of Patients who Received Elective Genomic Testing as a Clinical Service.

BACKGROUND: Elective genomic testing (EGT) is increasingly available clinically. Limited real world evidence exists about attitudes and knowledge of EGT recipients. METHODS: After web-based education, patients who enrolled in an EGT program at a rural nonprofit healthcare system completed a survey that assessed attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions. RESULTS: From August 2020 to April 2022, 5,920 patients completed the survey and received testing. Patients most frequently cited interest in learning their personal disease risks as their primary motivation. Patients most often expected results to guide medication management (74.0%), prevent future disease (70.4%), and provide information about risks to offspring (65.4%). Patients were "very concerned" most frequently about the privacy of genetic information (19.8%) and how well testing predicted disease risks (18.0%). On average, patients answered 6.7 of 11 knowledge items correctly (61.3%). They more often rated their risks for colon and breast cancers as lower rather than higher than the average person, but more often rated their risk for a heart attack as higher rather than lower than the average person (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients pursued EGT because of the utility expectations, but often misunderstood the test's capabilities.

Familial communication and cascade testing following elective genomic testing.

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

Benefits, harms, and costs of newborn genetic screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Estimates from the PreEMPT model.

PURPOSE: Population newborn genetic screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is feasible, however its benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness are uncertain. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to simulate a US birth cohort of 3.7 million newborns. Those identified with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of HCM underwent surveillance and recommended treatment, whereas in usual care, individuals with family histories of HCM underwent surveillance. RESULTS: In a cohort of 3.7 million newborns, newborn genetic screening would reduce HCM-related deaths through age 20 years by 44 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 10-103) however increase the numbers of children undergoing surveillance by 8127 (95% UI = 6308-9664). Compared with usual care, newborn genetic screening costs $267,000 per life year saved (95% UI, $106,000 to $919,000 per life year saved). CONCLUSION: Newborn genetic screening for HCM could prevent deaths but at a high cost and would require many healthy children to undergo surveillance. This study shows how modeling can provide insights into the tradeoffs between benefits and costs that will need to be considered as newborn genetic screening is more widely adopted.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing. METHODS: We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision. RESULTS: Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision. CONCLUSION: Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Public perspective on medications to delay Alzheimer's disease symptoms.

Disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease are emerging. Our research examined how personal risk for AD may influence intentions to ask for medications to delay symptoms of AD, and how the availability of such medications impacts interest in AD-related genetic testing. Invitations to a web-based survey were posted on social media sites. Respondents were sequentially assigned to imagine that they had a 5%, 15%, or 35% chance of developing AD. They were then provided a hypothetical scenario describing a medication that delayed AD symptoms. After reporting intentions to ask for the medication, respondents were asked about their interest in genetic testing to predict AD risk. Data from 310 individuals were analyzed. Intentions to ask for a preventative medication were greater for respondents presented AD risks of 35% compared to risks of 15% and 5% (86% vs. 66% vs. 62%, respectively, p < 0.001). The proportion who would ask for genetic susceptibility testing increased from 58% to 79% when respondents were told to imagine that a medication that delayed AD symptoms existed (p < 0.001). Findings suggest that individuals who know they have an increased risk for AD are more likely pursue medications to delay onset of disease symptoms, and the availability of AD-delaying treatments will increase interest in associated genetic testing. Findings provide insight about who will pursue emerging preventative medications, including individuals for whom the medications may be inappropriate, and the impact on genetic test utilization.

Improved provider preparedness through an 8-part genetics and genomic education program.

PURPOSE: Large-scale genetics education appropriate for general practice providers is a growing priority. We describe the content and impact of a mandatory system-wide program implemented at Sanford Health. METHODS: The Imagenetics Initiative at Sanford Health developed a 2-year genetics education program with quarterly web-based modules that were mandatory for all physicians and advanced practice providers. Scores of 0 to 5 were calculated for each module on the basis of the number of objectives that the participants reported as fulfilled. In addition, the participants completed surveys before starting and after finishing the education program, which included a 7-item measure scored 7 to 28 on the perceived preparedness to practice genetics. RESULTS: Between 2252 and 2822 Sanford Health employees completed each of the 8 quarterly education modules. The ratings were highest for the module about using genomics to improve patient management (mean score = 4.3) and lowest for the module about different types of genetic tests and specialists. The mean perceived preparedness scores increased from 15.7 at pre-education to 19.1 at post-education (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Web-based genetics education was highly effective in increasing health care providers' confidence about using genetics. Both comfort with personal knowledge and confidence regarding access to the system's genomic medicine experts increased significantly. The results demonstrate how scalable approaches can improve provider preparedness.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression.

Much emphasis has been placed on participant's psychological safety within genomic research studies; however, few studies have addressed parental psychological health effects associated with their child's participation in genomic studies, particularly when parents meet the threshold for clinical concern for depression. We aimed to determine if parents' depressive symptoms were associated with their child's participation in a randomized-controlled trial of newborn exome sequencing. Parents completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at baseline, immediately post-disclosure, and 3 months post-disclosure. Mothers and fathers scoring at or above thresholds for clinical concern on the EPDS, 12 and 10, respectively, indicating possible Major Depressive Disorder with Peripartum Onset, were contacted by study staff for mental health screening. Parental concerns identified in follow-up conversations were coded for themes. Forty-five parents had EPDS scores above the clinical threshold at baseline, which decreased by an average of 2.9 points immediately post-disclosure and another 1.1 points 3 months post-disclosure (both p ≤ .014). For 28 parents, EPDS scores were below the threshold for clinical concern at baseline, increased by an average of 4.7 points into the elevated range immediately post-disclosure, and decreased by 3.8 points at 3 months post-disclosure (both p < .001). Nine parents scored above thresholds only at 3 months post-disclosure after increasing an average of 5.7 points from immediately post-disclosure (p < .001). Of the 82 parents who scored above the threshold at any time point, 43 (52.4%) were reached and 30 (69.7%) of these 43 parents attributed their elevated scores to parenting stress, balancing work and family responsibilities, and/or child health concerns. Only three parents (7.0%) raised concerns about their participation in the trial, particularly their randomization to the control arm. Elevated scores on the EPDS were typically transient and parents attributed their symptomatology to life stressors in the postpartum period rather than participation in a trial of newborn exome sequencing.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance.

PURPOSE: How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority). RESULTS: PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization.

Universal newborn genetic screening for pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes: model-based insights.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing for pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) could augment newborn screening programs, but with uncertain benefits and costs. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to evaluate universal screening for a CPS panel. Cohorts of US newborns were simulated under universal screening versus usual care. Using data from clinical studies, ClinVar, and gnomAD, the presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in RET, RB1, TP53, DICER1, SUFU, PTCH1, SMARCB1, WT1, APC, ALK, and PHOX2B were assigned at birth. Newborns with identified variants underwent guideline surveillance. Survival benefit was modeled via reductions in advanced disease, cancer deaths, and treatment-related late mortality, assuming 100% adherence. RESULTS: Among 3.7 million newborns, under usual care, 1,803 developed a CPS malignancy before age 20. With universal screening, 13.3% were identified at birth as at-risk due to P/LP variant detection and underwent surveillance, resulting in a 53.5% decrease in cancer deaths in P/LP heterozygotes and a 7.8% decrease among the entire cohort before age 20. Given a test cost of $55, universal screening cost $244,860 per life-year gained; with a $20 test, the cost fell to $99,430 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Population-based genetic testing of newborns may reduce mortality associated with pediatric cancers and could be cost-effective as sequencing costs decline.

Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS: We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS: Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION: Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.

Quantifying Downstream Healthcare Utilization in Studies of Genomic Testing.

OBJECTIVES: The challenges of understanding how interventions influence follow-up medical care are magnified during genomic testing because few patients have received it to date and because the scope of information it provides is complex and often unexpected. We tested a novel strategy for quantifying downstream healthcare utilization after genomic testing to more comprehensively and efficiently identify related services. We also evaluated the effectiveness of different methods for collecting these data. METHODS: We developed a risk-based approach for a trial of newborn genomic sequencing in which we defined primary conditions based on existing diagnoses and family histories of disease and defined secondary conditions based on unexpected findings. We then created patient-specific lists of services associated with managing primary and secondary conditions. Services were quantified based on medical record reviews, surveys, and telephone check-ins with parents. RESULTS: By focusing on services that genomic testing would most likely influence in the short-term, we reduced the number of services in our analyses by more than 90% compared with analyses of all observed services. We also identified the same services that were ordered in response to unexpected findings as were identified during expert review and by confirming whether recommendations were completed. Data also showed that quantifying healthcare utilization with surveys and telephone check-ins alone would have missed the majority of attributable services. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk-based strategy provides an improved approach for assessing the short-term impact of genomic testing and other interventions on healthcare utilization while conforming as much as possible to existing best-practice recommendations.

Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies.

PURPOSE: As exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) Consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants' psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item), depressive symptoms (HADS/Personal Health Questionnaire 9-item), and multidimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale). RESULTS: Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to postdisclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants' anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses. CONCLUSION: Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.

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.