Correction: Foss et al. The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 692.

There was an error in the original publication [...].

The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation.

PURPOSE: Advances in clinical genomic sequencing capabilities, including reduced costs and knowledge gains, have bolstered the consideration of genomic screening in healthy adult populations. Yet, little is known about the existing landscape of genomic screening programs in the United States. It can be difficult to find information on current implementation efforts and best practices, particularly in light of critical questions about equity, cost, and benefit. METHODS: In 2020, we searched publicly available information on the Internet and the scientific literature to identify programs and collect information, including: setting, program funding, targeted population, test offered, and patient cost. Program representatives were contacted throughout 2020 and 2021 to clarify, update, and supplement the publicly available information. RESULTS: Twelve programs were identified. Information was available on key program features, such as setting, genes tested, and target populations. Data on costs, outcomes, or long-term sustainability plans were not always available. Most programs offered testing at no or significantly reduced cost due to generous pilot funding, although the sustainability of these programs remains unknown. Gene testing lists were diverse, ranging from 11 genes (CDC tier 1 genes) to 59 genes (ACMG secondary findings list v.2) to broad exome and genome sequencing. This diversity presents challenges for harmonized data collection and assessment of program outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early programs are exploring the logistics and utility of population genomic screening in various settings. Coordinated efforts are needed to take advantage of data collected about uptake, infrastructure, and intervention outcomes to inform future research, evaluation, and program development.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.

The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.

Development and validation of a measure of comprehension of genomic screening-negative results (CoG-NR).

To realize the promise of population genomic screening for rare medically actionable conditions, critical challenges in the return of normal/negative results must be understood and overcome. Our study objective was to assess the functioning of a new 13-item measure (CoG-NR) of understanding of and knowledge about normal/negative genomic screening results for three highly actionable conditions: Lynch Syndrome, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, and Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Based on our prior research and expert review, we developed CoG-NR and tested how well it functioned using hypothetical scenarios in three Qualtrics surveys. We report on its psychometric properties and performance across the three different conditions. The measure performed similarly for the three conditions. Examinations of item difficulty, internal reliability, and differential item functioning indicate that the items perform well, with statistically significant positive correlations with genomic knowledge, health literacy, and objective numeracy. CoG-NR assesses understanding of normal/negative results for each of the conditions. The next step is to examine its performance among individuals who have actually undergone such tests, and subsequent use in clinical or research situations. The CoG-NR measure holds great promise as a tool to enhance benefits of population genomic screening by bringing to light the prevalence of incorrect interpretation of negative results.

Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned.

PURPOSE: In genomics, the return of negative screening results for rare, medically actionable conditions in large unselected populations with low prior risk of disease is novel and may involve important and nuanced concerns for communicating their meaning. Recruitment may result in self-selection because of participants' personal or family history, changing the characteristics of the screened population and interpretation of both positive and negative findings; prior motivations may also affect responses to results. METHODS: Using data from GeneScreen, an exploratory adult screening project that targets 17 genes related to 11 medically actionable conditions, we address four questions: (1) Do participants self-select based on actual or perceived risk for one of the conditions? (2) Do participants understand negative results? (3) What are their psychosocial responses? (4) Are negative results related to changes in reported health-related behaviors? RESULTS: We found disproportionate enrollment of individuals at elevated prior risk for conditions being screened, and a need to improve communication about the nature of screening and meaning of negative screening results. Participants expressed no decision regret and did not report intention to change health-related behaviors. CONCLUSION: This study illuminates critical challenges to overcome if genomic screening is to benefit the general population.

Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Human Gene Editing?

New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what "prevention" might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its "off-label" uses.

Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study.

BACKGROUND: Online study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features. METHODS: Individuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey. RESULTS: Participants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information.

The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations.

As exome and genome sequencing move into clinical application, questions surround how to elicit consent and handle potential return of individual genomic results. This study analyzes nine consent forms used in NIH-funded sequencing studies. Content analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity, including in defining results that may be returned, identifying potential benefits and risks of return, protecting privacy, addressing placement of results in the medical record, and data-sharing. In response to lack of consensus, we offer recommendations.