The evolution of genetic counseling at Johns Hopkins Hospital and beyond.

In celebration of the 100th birthday of Dr. Victor A. McKusick, we look back at the history of genetic counseling at Johns Hopkins Hospital and at some milestones for the profession. With the first students graduating from the Human Genetics program at Sarah Lawrence College in 1971, the genetic counseling profession is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The profession has seen growth in numbers and scope of practice, the evolution of a national society, the advent of certification and accreditation, the proliferation of graduate programs, the pursuit of state licensure, and collaboration with fellow genetics professionals. Many of the early jobs were at academic centers, such as Johns Hopkins Hospital, while today counselors are employed in a multitude of settings and engaged in a variety of roles.

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.

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation.

PURPOSE: Research on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects. METHODS: Up to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs. RESULTS: Key barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice.

Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings. METHODS: Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined how responses varied by secondary finding. RESULTS: Genetic specialists scored higher than other providers on four-point scales assessing understandings of reports (3.89 vs. 3.42, p = 0.0002), and lower on scales assessing reporting obligations (2.60 vs. 3.51, p < 0.0001) and burdens of responding (1.73 vs. 2.70, p < 0.0001). Nearly all attitudes differed between findings, although genetic specialists were more likely to assert that laboratories had no obligations when findings had less-established actionability (p < 0.0001 in interaction tests). The importance of reviewing personal and family histories, documenting findings, learning more about the variant, and recommending familial discussions also varied according to finding (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Genetic specialists felt better prepared to respond to secondary findings than providers without specialized genetics training, but perceived fewer obligations for laboratories to report them, and the two groups anticipated similar clinical responses. Findings may inform development of targeted education and support.

Gratitude, protective buffering, and cognitive dissonance: How families respond to pediatric whole exome sequencing in the absence of actionable results.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) may identify variants leading to targeted management of existing conditions. Yet, CGES often fails to identify pathogenic diagnostic variants and introduces uncertainties by detecting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and secondary findings. This study investigated how families understand findings and adjust their perspectives on CGES. As part of NIH's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium, children were recruited from clinics at the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP) and offered exome sequencing. Primary pathogenic and possibly pathogenic, and some secondary findings were returned. Investigators digitally recorded results disclosure sessions and conducted 3-month follow up interviews with 10 adolescents and a parent. An interdisciplinary team coded all transcripts. Participants were initially disappointed with findings, yet reactions evolved within disclosure sessions and at 3-month interviews toward acceptance and satisfaction. Families erroneously expected, and prepared extensively, to learn about risk for common conditions. During disclosure sessions, parents and adolescents varied in how they monitored and responded to each others reactions. Several misinterpreted, or overestimated, the utility of findings to attribute meaning and achieve closure for the CGES experience. Participants perceived testing as an opportunity to improve disease management despite results that did not introduce new treatments or diagnoses. Future research may examine whether families experience cognitive dissonance regarding discrepancies between expectations and findings, and how protective buffering minimizes the burden of disappointment on loved ones. As CGES is increasingly integrated into clinical care providers must contend with tempering family expectations and interpretations of findings while managing complex medical care.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing.

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Health screening behaviors among adults with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia in North America.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify factors that influence screening behaviors of adults with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). METHODS: Participants with a self-reported diagnosis of HHT were recruited from the HHT Foundation International, Inc.; the "HHT Awareness" Facebook group; and six HHT clinics. A cross-sectional mixed methods survey was administered to investigate the relationships among the Health Belief model constructs, the domains of illness representations, and HHT-specific screening behaviors consistent with recommended guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 320 participants reported rates of cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM) screenings, pulmonary AVM screenings, and HHT annual checkups that were 82.0, 67.1, and 56.5%, respectively. Logistical regression analysis showed that perceived barriers (ß = -0.114, P < 0.001), perceived susceptibility (ß = 0.117, P < 0.05), treatment control (ß = 0.078, P < 0.05), and emotional representations (ß = 0.067, P < 0.05) were significant predictors of HHT screening. Open-ended responses revealed perceived barriers to screening, including a lack of health-care providers (HCPs) familiar with and/or knowledgeable about HHT. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal suboptimal screening rates among adults with HHT and identify several factors influencing these behaviors. We suggest that there is a need for increased provider education regarding HHT as well as approaches that providers can use to improve screening adherence.Genet Med advance online publication 13 October 2016.

A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing.

PURPOSE: Clinical next-generation sequencing (CNGS) is introducing new opportunities and challenges into the practice of medicine. Simultaneously, these technologies are generating uncertainties of an unprecedented scale that laboratories, clinicians, and patients are required to address and manage. We describe in this report the conceptual design of a new taxonomy of uncertainties around the use of CNGS in health care. METHODS: Interviews to delineate the dimensions of uncertainty in CNGS were conducted with genomics experts and themes were extracted in order to expand on a previously published three-dimensional taxonomy of medical uncertainty. In parallel, we developed an interactive website to disseminate the CNGS taxonomy to researchers and engage them in its continued refinement. RESULTS: The proposed taxonomy divides uncertainty along three axes-source, issue, and locus-and further discriminates the uncertainties into five layers with multiple domains. Using a hypothetical clinical example, we illustrate how the taxonomy can be applied to findings from CNGS and used to guide stakeholders through interpretation and implementation of variant results. CONCLUSION: The utility of the proposed taxonomy lies in promoting consistency in describing dimensions of uncertainty in publications and presentations, to facilitate research design and management of the uncertainties inherent in the implementation of CNGS.Genet Med advance online publication 19 January 2017.

"They Can't Find Anything Wrong with Him, Yet": Mothers' experiences of parenting an infant with a prenatally diagnosed copy number variant (CNV).

Chromosome microarray (CMA) testing is used widely in prenatal settings. Some copy number variants (CNVs) detected using CMA are associated with variable or uncertain phenotype and/or possible neurocognitive involvement. Little is known about parenting an infant following such findings. Researchers conducted interviews with 23 mothers of infants diagnosed prenatally with a potentially pathogenic CNV to elicit perspectives on the child's development and disclosure of results to others. Interviews were audiotaped and analyzed for common themes. Most respondents reported their infants were developing typically. The majority expressed concern about their child's future development given the CNV. They reassured themselves their child was unaffected by: comparing him/her to siblings, scrutinizing the child's appearance and behavior, or following provider reassurances. Even without developmental and neurological concerns, some remained acutely observant of their child's neurocognitive development, leading to enrollment in early intervention or ongoing medical assessments. Mothers who were unconcerned stated they would likely attribute atypical behavior or developmental to the CNV. All interviewees shared the result with pediatricians, relatives, or friends, and many shared across groups. Most shared information with pregnant friends considering prenatal testing, but withheld partial or full information from family members due to stigma, lack of understanding, inability to explain the CNV, or presumptions that the child was unaffected. Research must address the long-term consequences of returning uncertain results for parent-child bonding and costs of ongoing assessment and early intervention for typically developing children. Follow up appointments will permit providers to screen for anxiety and assuage worry in the absence of symptoms. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Balancing Genetics (Science) and Counseling (Art) in Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing.

Genetic counselors frequently are called upon to assist patients in understanding the implications of prenatal testing information for their pregnancies and their family's lives. The introduction of highly sensitive testing such as chromosomal microarray has generated additional kinds of uncertainty into the prenatal period. Counselors may feel uncomfortable or inadequately prepared to engage in discussions with prospective parents who are faced with making critical, and timely, decisions about a pregnancy based on uncertain information. As highly sensitive prenatal testing becomes routine in prenatal care, counselors may be in search of approaches to prenatal counseling, as well as specific skills to approach, engage with, and help families find resolution in such challenging circumstances. To assist genetic counselors, we describe practice skills and provide language for approaching conversations with prospective parents. When clinicians regularly provide care to patients and families making life-altering decisions under conditions of significant uncertainty, discomfort is common and compassion fatigue is likely. We make recommendations directly to the genetic counselor working in reproductive and perinatal settings to enhance training and self-care and to decrease discomfort in balancing the scientific- and art- demands of genetic counseling.

"Something Extra on Chromosome 5": Parents' Understanding of Positive Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) Results.

This study aims to explore how couples' understanding of the nature and consequences of positive prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) results impacts decision-making and concern about pregnancy. We interviewed 28 women and 12 male partners after receiving positive results and analyzed the transcripts to assess their understanding and level of concern about the expected clinical implications of results. Participant descriptions were compared to the original laboratory interpretation. When diagnosed prenatally, couples' understanding of the nature and consequences of copy number variants (CNVs) impacts decision-making and concern. Findings suggest women, but less so partners, generally understand the nature and clinical implications of prenatal CMA results. Couples feel reassured, perhaps sometimes falsely so, when a CNV is inherited from a "normal" parent and experience considerable uncertainty when a CNV is de novo, frequently precipitating a search for additional information and guidance. Five factors influenced participants' concern including: the pattern of inheritance, type of possible phenotypic involvement, perceived manageability of outcomes, availability and strength of evidence about outcomes associated with the CNV, and provider messages about continuing the pregnancy. A good understanding of results is vital as couples decide whether or not to continue with their pregnancy and seek additional information to assist in pregnancy decision-making.

"Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow": Professionals' Challenging Cases in Informed Consent for Genomic Sequencing.

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Couple's Narratives of Communion and Isolation Following Abnormal Prenatal Microarray Testing Results.

In 2% to 3% of cases, prenatal microarray testing detects deletions and duplications in a fetus' genome that are undetected by conventional cytogenetics. Many of these changes are associated with variable or uncertain symptomatology. Little is known about how couples experience uncertain results. This study analyzed 24 interviews with members of 12 heterosexual U.S. couples who received pathogenic or uncertain microarray prenatal testing results. Researchers used narrative analysis to examine couples' understanding and incorporation of findings into decision making regarding pregnancy termination. Couples felt unprepared for these findings and frustrated because scant information was available to aid interpretation. Women sought information and made decisions, and men marginalized their distress to support their wives. A shift in voice from first to second person indicated attempts to normalize emotional responses by making the process "common" to all couples. Families pursuing highly sensitive prenatal testing may need expert guidance to support decision making.

Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Despite the increased utilization of genome and exome sequencing, little is known about the actual content and process of informed consent for sequencing. We addressed this by interviewing 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators experienced in obtaining informed consent for sequencing in research and clinical settings. Interviews focused on the process and content of informed consent; patients/participants' common questions, concerns and misperceptions; and challenges to obtaining informed consent. Content analysis of transcribed interviews revealed that the main challenges to obtaining consent related to the broad scope and uncertainty of results, and patient/participants' unrealistic expectations about the likely number and utility of results. Interviewees modified their approach to sessions according to contextual issues surrounding the indication for testing, type of patient, and timing of testing. With experience, most interviewees structured sessions to place less emphasis on standard elements in the consent form and technological aspects of sequencing. They instead focused on addressing misperceptions and helping patients/participants develop realistic expectations about the types and implications of possible results, including secondary findings. These findings suggest that informed consent sessions should focus on key issues that may be misunderstood by patients/participants. Future research should address the extent to which various stakeholders agree on key elements of informed consent.

Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.

OBJECTIVE: Chromosome microarray analysis is poised to take a significant place in the prenatal setting given its increased yield over standard karyotyping, but concerns regarding ethical and counseling challenges remain, especially associated with the risk of uncertain and incidental findings. Guidelines recommend patients receiving prenatal screening to undergo genetic counseling prior to testing, but little is known about women's specific pre-testing and post-testing informational needs, as well as their preference for return of various types of results. METHODS: The present study surveys 199 prenatal genetic counselors who have counseled patients undergoing chromosome microarray analysis testing and 152 women who have undergone testing on the importance of understanding pre-test information, return of various types of results, and resources made available following an abnormal finding. RESULTS: Counselors and patients agree on many aspects, although findings indicate patients consider all available information very important, while genetic counselors give more varying ratings. CONCLUSION: Counseling sessions would benefit from information personalized to a patient's particular needs and a shared decision-making model, to reduce informational overload and avoid unnecessary anxiety. Additionally, policies regarding the return of various types of results are needed. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Next generation genomic sequencing technologies (including whole genome or whole exome sequencing) are being increasingly applied to clinical care. Yet, the breadth and complexity of sequencing information raise questions about how best to communicate and return sequencing information to patients and families in ways that facilitate comprehension and optimal health decisions. Obtaining answers to such questions will require multidisciplinary research. In this paper, we focus on how psychological science research can address questions related to clinical genomic sequencing by explaining emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in response to different types of genomic sequencing information (e.g., diagnostic results and incidental findings). We highlight examples of psychological science that can be applied to genetic counseling research to inform the following questions: (1) What factors influence patients' and providers' informational needs for developing an accurate understanding of what genomic sequencing results do and do not mean?; (2) How and by whom should genomic sequencing results be communicated to patients and their family members?; and (3) How do patients and their families respond to uncertainties related to genomic information?

Erratum to: How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Erratum to: J Genet Counsel DOI 10.1007/s10897-014-9804-6. Grant support from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program of the National Human Genome Research Institute was awarded to James P. Evans, Jonathan S. Berg, and Gail E. Henderson for the NCGENES Study (NIH #U01 HG006487). The authors and publisher regret the omission from the original article.

Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group.

The routine use of genomic sequencing in clinical medicine has the potential to dramatically alter patient care and medical outcomes. To fully understand the psychosocial and behavioral impact of sequencing integration into clinical practice, it is imperative that we identify the factors that influence sequencing-related decision making and patient outcomes. In an effort to develop a collaborative and conceptually grounded approach to studying sequencing adoption, members of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium formed the Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Here we highlight the priority areas of investigation and psychosocial and behavioral outcomes identified by the Working Group. We also review some of the anticipated challenges to measurement in social and behavioral research related to genomic sequencing; opportunities for instrument development; and the importance of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. This work represents the early, shared efforts of multiple research teams as we strive to understand individuals' experiences with genomic sequencing. The resulting body of knowledge will guide recommendations for the optimal use of sequencing in clinical practice.