Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research.

Purpose: With increased use of genomic testing in cancer research and clinical care, it is important to understand the perspectives and decision-making preferences of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer and their treating oncologists. Methods: We conducted an interview substudy of the BASIC3 Study, which enrolled newly diagnosed cancer patients <18 years of age with assent. Of 32 young adults (YAs) with cancer who reached the age of majority (AOM; 18 years) while on study, 12 were successfully approached and all consented to study continuation at AOM. Of those, seven completed an interview. Patients' oncologists, who enrolled and participated in return of clinical genomic results, were also interviewed (n = 12). Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: YAs cited the possibility of helping others and advancing science as major reasons for their assent to initial study enrollment and their willingness to consent at AOM. YAs thought obtaining informed consent from research participants for study continuation at AOM was a good idea in case they changed their minds or wanted to make their own decisions, and to keep them aware of study activities. There was diversity in what YAs understood and learned from genomic testing: some recalled specific findings, while some remembered minimal information about their results. Oncologists varied in their assessment of adolescents' engagement with the study and understanding of their results. Conclusion: Given the different ways AYAs engage with genomic information, careful assessment of AYAs' diverse communication and decision-making preferences is needed to tailor interactions accordingly.

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.

Researchers' Ethical Concerns About Using Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Enhancement.

The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking. METHODS: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them. RESULTS: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care.

Pediatric oncologists' perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists' experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients' families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients' reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families' questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists' genetics expertise, and navigating families' emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs' and geneticists' support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

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.

What is a Medical Information Commons?

A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an "Information Commons" and a "Knowledge Network" to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions.

Perceived Benefits, Risks, and Utility of Newborn Genomic Sequencing in the BabySeq Project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is interest in applying genomic sequencing (GS) to newborns' clinical care. Here we explore parents' and clinicians' attitudes toward and perceptions of the risks, benefits, and utility of newborn GS compared with newborn screening (NBS) prior to receiving study results. METHODS: The BabySeq Project is a randomized controlled trial used to explore the impact of integrating GS into the clinical care of newborns. Parents (n = 493) of enrolled infants (n = 309) and clinicians (n = 144) completed a baseline survey at enrollment. We examined between-group differences in perceived utility and attitudes toward NBS and GS. Open-ended responses about risks and benefits of each technology were categorized by theme. RESULTS: The majority of parents (71%) and clinicians (51%) agreed that there are health benefits of GS, although parents and clinicians agreed more that there are risks associated with GS (35%, 70%) than with NBS (19%, 39%; all P < .05). Parents perceived more benefit and less risk of GS than did clinicians. Clinicians endorsed concerns about privacy and discrimination related to genomic information more strongly than did parents, and parents anticipated benefits of GS that clinicians did not. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians are less confident in GS than NBS, but parents perceive a more favorable risk/benefit ratio of GS than do clinicians. Clinicians should be aware that parents' optimism may stem from their perceived benefits beyond clinical utility.