Recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice guidelines in the US.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Pharmacogenetic testing can identify patients who may benefit from personalized drug treatment. However, clinical uptake of pharmacogenetic testing has been limited. Clinical practice guidelines recommend biomarker tests that the guideline authors deem to have demonstrated clinical utility, meaning that testing improves treatment outcomes. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the current status of pharmacogenetic testing recommendations within clinical practice guidelines in the US. SUMMARY: Guidelines were reviewed for pharmacogenetic testing recommendations for 21 gene-drug pairs that have well-established drug response associations and all of which are categorized as clinically actionable by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. The degree of consistency within and between organizations in pharmacogenetic testing recommendations was assessed. Relatively few clinical practice guidelines that provide a pharmacogenetic testing recommendation were identified. Testing recommendations for HLA-B*57:01 before initiation of abacavir and G6PD before initiation of rasburicase, both of which are included in drug labeling, were mostly consistent across guidelines. Gene-drug pairs with at least one clinical practice guideline recommending testing or stating that testing could be considered included CYP2C19-clopidogrel, CYP2D6-codeine, CYP2D6-tramadol, CYP2B6-efavirenz, TPMT-thiopurines, and NUDT15-thiopurines. Testing recommendations for the same gene-drug pair were often inconsistent between organizations and sometimes inconsistent between different guidelines from the same organization. CONCLUSION: A standardized approach to evaluating the evidence of clinical utility for pharmacogenetic testing may increase the inclusion and consistency of pharmacogenetic testing recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, which could benefit patients and society by increasing clinical use of pharmacogenetic testing.

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

Does genetic testing offer utility as a supplement to traditional family health history intake for inherited disease risk?

CONTENT: This study examines the potential utility of genetic testing as a supplement to family health history to screen for increased risk of inherited disease. Medical conditions are often misreported or misunderstood, especially those related to different forms of cardiac disease (arrhythmias vs. structural heart disease vs. coronary artery disease), female organ cancers (uterine vs. ovarian vs. cervical), and type of cancer (differentiating primary cancer from metastases to other organs). While these nuances appear subtle, they can dramatically alter medical management. For example, different types of cardiac failure (structural, arrhythmia, and coronary artery disease) have inherited forms that are managed with vastly different approaches. METHODS: Using a dataset of over 6,200 individuals who underwent genetic screening, we compared the ability of genetic testing and traditional family health history to identify increased risk of inherited disease. A further, in-depth qualitative study of individuals for whom risk identified through each method was discordant, explored whether this discordance could be addressed through changes in family health history intake. FINDINGS: Of 90 individuals for whom genetic testing indicated significant increased risk for inherited disease, two-thirds (66%) had no corroborating family health history. Specifically, we identify cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, and malignant hyperthermia as conditions for which discordance between genetic testing and traditional family health history was greatest, and familial hypercholesterolaemia, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as conditions for which greater concordance existed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that genetic testing offers utility as a supplement to traditional family health history intake over certain conditions.

Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication History.

The collection of family health history (FHH) is an essential component of clinical practice and an important piece of data for patient risk assessment. However, family history data have generally been limited to diseases and have not included medication history. Family history was a key component of early pharmacogenetic research, confirming the role of genes in drug response. With the substantial number of known pharmacogenes, many affecting response to commonly prescribed medications, and the availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests and guidelines for interpretation, the collection of family medication history can inform testing decisions. This paper explores the roots of family-based pharmacogenetic studies to confirm the role of genes in these complex phenotypes and the benefits and challenges of collecting family medication history as part of family health history intake.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education.

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: The eMERGE study.

PURPOSE: Assessing the risk of common, complex diseases requires consideration of clinical risk factors as well as monogenic and polygenic risks, which in turn may be reflected in family history. Returning risks to individuals and providers may influence preventive care or use of prophylactic therapies for those individuals at high genetic risk. METHODS: To enable integrated genetic risk assessment, the eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) network is enrolling 25,000 diverse individuals in a prospective cohort study across 10 sites. The network developed methods to return cross-ancestry polygenic risk scores, monogenic risks, family history, and clinical risk assessments via a genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) report and will assess uptake of care recommendations after return of results. RESULTS: GIRAs include summary care recommendations for 11 conditions, education pages, and clinical laboratory reports. The return of high-risk GIRA to individuals and providers includes guidelines for care and lifestyle recommendations. Assembling the GIRA required infrastructure and workflows for ingesting and presenting content from multiple sources. Recruitment began in February 2022. CONCLUSION: Return of a novel report for communicating monogenic, polygenic, and family history-based risk factors will inform the benefits of integrated genetic risk assessment for routine health care.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

BACKGROUND: Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations. METHODS: Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture. SETTING: 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic. METHODS: A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter. OUTCOMES: provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations. MEASURES: patient and provider surveys and EMR data. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Comparative study of different SES neighborhood clinics for health literacy and internet access.

Background: As healthcare services are increasingly dependent on patient utilization of technology to effectively deliver services, the digital divide has the potential to exacerbate health disparities if health literacy and internet access present formidable barriers to patient use of technology. Methods: We examined the differences in health literacy and internet access between lower and upper SES neighborhood primary-care clinics in Northeast Florida. The REALM-SF for health literacy was used to assess health literacy and census survey questions were used to assess internet and technology access, during the Fall, 2020. The clinics were affiliated with a safety-net hospital in a major city in Southeastern U.S. Results: Analysis of key demographic data confirmed that the responding patients from economically disadvantaged neighborhood clinics resided in economically disadvantaged zip codes (307 responding patients lived in lower SES neighborhoods) and did have lower education levels (3% of the patients from Upper SES clinics had 11 grade or lower education, compared to 21%-29% of patients from Lower SES clinics). Patient health literacy significantly differed between clinics located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and clinics located in more affluent neighborhoods, with Upper SES clinics being 2.4 times more likely to have 9th grade or higher reading level. Access to internet technology was also higher in the Upper SES clinics, with 59% of respondents from Upper SES clinics versus 32%-40% from Lower SES clinics owning a computer or an IPAD. Conclusion: Results of this study have important implications for patient-engaged use of digital technology for health. Healthcare and public health clinics should be aware of the difference in health literacy and internet access when implementing technology-based services, so that advances in medicine, including precision medicine and telehealth, can be disseminated and implemented with broad populations, including disadvantaged groups.

Implementing a pragmatic clinical trial to tailor opioids for acute pain on behalf of the IGNITE ADOPT PGx investigators.

Opioid prescribing for postoperative pain management is challenging because of inter-patient variability in opioid response and concern about opioid addiction. Tramadol, hydrocodone, and codeine depend on the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme for formation of highly potent metabolites. Individuals with reduced or absent CYP2D6 activity (i.e., intermediate metabolizers [IMs] or poor metabolizers [PMs], respectively) have lower concentrations of potent opioid metabolites and potentially inadequate pain control. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, randomized pragmatic trial is to determine the effect of postoperative CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing on pain control and opioid usage. Up to 2020 participants, age ≥8 years, scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure will be enrolled and randomized to immediate pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support (CDS) for CYP2D6 phenotype-guided postoperative pain management (intervention arm) or delayed testing without CDS (control arm). CDS is provided through medical record alerts and/or a pharmacist consult note. For IMs and PM in the intervention arm, CDS includes recommendations to avoid hydrocodone, tramadol, and codeine. Patient-reported pain-related outcomes are collected 10 days and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome, a composite of pain intensity and opioid usage at 10 days postsurgery, will be compared in the subgroup of IMs and PMs in the intervention (n = 152) versus the control (n = 152) arm. Secondary end points include prescription pain medication misuse scores and opioid persistence at 6 months. This trial will provide data on the clinical utility of CYP2D6 phenotype-guided opioid selection for improving postoperative pain control and reducing opioid-related risks.

Design and rationale of GUARDD-US: A pragmatic, randomized trial of genetic testing for APOL1 and pharmacogenomic predictors of antihypertensive efficacy in patients with hypertension.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: APOL1 risk alleles are associated with increased cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk. It is unknown whether knowledge of APOL1 risk status motivates patients and providers to attain recommended blood pressure (BP) targets to reduce cardiovascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 6650 individuals with African ancestry and hypertension from 13 health systems. INTERVENTION: APOL1 genotyping with clinical decision support (CDS) results are returned to participants and providers immediately (intervention) or at 6 months (control). A subset of participants are re-randomized to pharmacogenomic testing for relevant antihypertensive medications (pharmacogenomic sub-study). CDS alerts encourage appropriate CKD screening and antihypertensive agent use. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure and surveys are assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP from enrollment to 3 months in individuals with two APOL1 risk alleles. Secondary outcomes include new diagnoses of CKD, systolic blood pressure at 6 months, diastolic BP, and survey results. The pharmacogenomic sub-study will evaluate the relationship of pharmacogenomic genotype and change in systolic BP between baseline and 3 months. RESULTS: To date, the trial has enrolled 3423 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of patient and provider knowledge of APOL1 genotype on systolic blood pressure has not been well-studied. GUARDD-US addresses whether blood pressure improves when patients and providers have this information. GUARDD-US provides a CDS framework for primary care and specialty clinics to incorporate APOL1 genetic risk and pharmacogenomic prescribing in the electronic health record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04191824.

Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients.

A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.

Strategies to Integrate Genomic Medicine into Clinical Care: Evidence from the IGNITE Network.

The complexity of genomic medicine can be streamlined by implementing some form of clinical decision support (CDS) to guide clinicians in how to use and interpret personalized data; however, it is not yet clear which strategies are best suited for this purpose. In this study, we used implementation science to identify common strategies for applying provider-based CDS interventions across six genomic medicine clinical research projects funded by an NIH consortium. Each project's strategies were elicited via a structured survey derived from a typology of implementation strategies, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), and follow-up interviews guided by both implementation strategy reporting criteria and a planning framework, RE-AIM, to obtain more detail about implementation strategies and desired outcomes. We found that, on average, the three pharmacogenomics implementation projects used more strategies than the disease-focused projects. Overall, projects had four implementation strategies in common; however, operationalization of each differed in accordance with each study's implementation outcomes. These four common strategies may be important for precision medicine program implementation, and pharmacogenomics may require more integration into clinical care. Understanding how and why these strategies were successfully employed could be useful for others implementing genomic or precision medicine programs in different contexts.

Multi-Institutional Implementation of Clinical Decision Support for APOL1, NAT2, and YEATS4 Genotyping in Antihypertensive Management.

(1) Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) is a vitally important adjunct to the implementation of pharmacogenomic-guided prescribing in clinical practice. A novel CDS was sought for the APOL1, NAT2, and YEATS4 genes to guide optimal selection of antihypertensive medications among the African American population cared for at multiple participating institutions in a clinical trial. (2) Methods: The CDS committee, made up of clinical content and CDS experts, developed a framework and contributed to the creation of the CDS using the following guiding principles: 1. medical algorithm consensus; 2. actionability; 3. context-sensitive triggers; 4. workflow integration; 5. feasibility; 6. interpretability; 7. portability; and 8. discrete reporting of lab results. (3) Results: Utilizing the principle of discrete patient laboratory and vital information, a novel CDS for APOL1, NAT2, and YEATS4 was created for use in a multi-institutional trial based on a medical algorithm consensus. The alerts are actionable and easily interpretable, clearly displaying the purpose and recommendations with pertinent laboratory results, vitals and links to ordersets with suggested antihypertensive dosages. Alerts were either triggered immediately once a provider starts to order relevant antihypertensive agents or strategically placed in workflow-appropriate general CDS sections in the electronic health record (EHR). Detailed implementation instructions were shared across institutions to achieve maximum portability. (4) Conclusions: Using sound principles, the created genetic algorithms were applied across multiple institutions. The framework outlined in this study should apply to other disease-gene and pharmacogenomic projects employing CDS.

Genomic medicine implementation protocols in the PhenX Toolkit: tools for standardized data collection.

PURPOSE: The PhenX Toolkit ( www.phenxtoolkit.org ), an online catalog of recommended measurement protocols, facilitates cross-study analyses for research with human participants. The PhenX Steering Committee recommended genomic medicine implementation as a new research domain, with the following scope: genomic knowledge and education (both patients and providers); implementation science; changes in management and treatment; return of results; patient outcomes; and ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) associated with genomic research. METHODS: A seven-member expert Working Group convened in October 2019 to identify well-established measurement protocols for a new genomic medicine implementation domain and used the established PhenX consensus process to select measurement protocols for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit. RESULTS: The Working Group recommended 15 measurement protocols for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit, with priority given to those with empirical evidence supporting validity. Consortia funded by the National Institutes of Health, and particularly the National Human Genome Research Institute, proved critical in identifying protocols with established utility in this research domain, and identified protocols that were developed through a rigorous process for scope elements that lacked formally validated protocols. CONCLUSION: Use of these protocols, which were released in September 2020, can facilitate standard data collection for genomic medicine implementation research.

Establishing the value of genomics in medicine: the IGNITE Pragmatic Trials Network.

PURPOSE: A critical gap in the adoption of genomic medicine into medical practice is the need for the rigorous evaluation of the utility of genomic medicine interventions. METHODS: The Implementing Genomics in Practice Pragmatic Trials Network (IGNITE PTN) was formed in 2018 to measure the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine interventions, to assess approaches for real-world application of genomic medicine in diverse clinical settings, and to produce generalizable knowledge on clinical trials using genomic interventions. Five clinical sites and a coordinating center evaluated trial proposals and developed working groups to enable their implementation. RESULTS: Two pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been initiated, one evaluating genetic risk APOL1 variants in African Americans in the management of their hypertension, and the other to evaluate the use of pharmacogenetic testing for medications to manage acute and chronic pain as well as depression. CONCLUSION: IGNITE PTN is a network that carries out PCTs in genomic medicine; it is focused on diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority trial participants; it uses electronic health records and clinical decision support to deliver the interventions. IGNITE PTN will develop the evidence to support (or oppose) the adoption of genomic medicine interventions by patients, providers, and payers.

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services. METHODS: This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors. RESULTS: Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %). CONCLUSIONS: 65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Family history assessment significantly enhances delivery of precision medicine in the genomics era.

BACKGROUND: Family history has traditionally been an essential part of clinical care to assess health risks. However, declining sequencing costs have precipitated a shift towards genomics-first approaches in population screening programs rendering the value of family history unknown. We evaluated the utility of incorporating family history information for genomic sequencing selection. METHODS: To ascertain the relationship between family histories on such population-level initiatives, we analysed whole genome sequences of 1750 research participants with no known pre-existing conditions, of which half received comprehensive family history assessment of up to four generations, focusing on 95 cancer genes. RESULTS: Amongst the 1750 participants, 866 (49.5%) had high-quality standardised family history available. Within this group, 73 (8.4%) participants had an increased family history risk of cancer (increased FH risk cohort) and 1 in 7 participants (n = 10/73) carried a clinically actionable variant inferring a sixfold increase compared with 1 in 47 participants (n = 17/793) assessed at average family history cancer risk (average FH risk cohort) (p = 0.00001) and a sevenfold increase compared to 1 in 52 participants (n = 17/884) where family history was not available (FH not available cohort) (p = 0.00001). The enrichment was further pronounced (up to 18-fold) when assessing only the 25 cancer genes in the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Secondary Findings (SF) genes. Furthermore, 63 (7.3%) participants had an increased family history cancer risk in the absence of an apparent clinically actionable variant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that the collection and analysis of comprehensive family history and genomic data are complementary and in combination can prioritise individuals for genomic analysis. Thus, family history remains a critical component of health risk assessment, providing important actionable data when implementing genomics screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02791152 . Retrospectively registered on May 31, 2016.