Genetics Visit Uptake Among Individuals Receiving Clinically Actionable Genomic Screening Results.

Importance: Screening unselected populations for clinically actionable genetic disease risk can improve ascertainment and facilitate risk management. Genetics visits may encourage at-risk individuals to perform recommended management, but little has been reported on genetics visit completion or factors associated with completion in genomic screening programs. Objective: To identify factors associated with postdisclosure genetics visits in a genomic screening cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study of biobank data in a health care system in central Pennsylvania. Participants' exome sequence data were reviewed for pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) results in all genes on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Secondary Findings list. Clinically confirmed results were disclosed by phone and letter. Participants included adult MyCode biobank participants who received P/LP results between July 2015 and November 2019. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: Clinically confirmed P/LP result disclosed by phone or letter. Main Outcomes and Measures: Completion of genetics visit in which the result was discussed and variables associated with completion were assessed by electronic health record (EHR) review. Results: Among a total of 1160 participants (703 [60.6%] female; median [IQR] age, 57.0 [42.1-68.5] years), fewer than half of participants (551 of 1160 [47.5%]) completed a genetics visit. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] for age 18-40 years, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.40-6.53; OR for age 41-65 years, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.22-4.74; OR for age 66-80 years, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41-4.98 vs age ≥81 years); female sex (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.96); being married (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.47) or divorced (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.11-2.91); lower Charlson comorbidity index (OR for score of 0-2, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.68; OR for score of 3-4, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18-2.54 vs score of ≥5); EHR patient portal use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.89); living closer to a genetics clinic (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36 for <8.9 miles vs >20.1 miles); successful results disclosure (OR for disclosure by genetic counselor, 16.32; 95% CI, 8.16-37.45; OR for disclosure by research assistant, 20.30; 95% CI, 10.25-46.31 vs unsuccessful phone disclosure); and having a hereditary cancer result (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.58 vs other disease risk) were significantly associated with higher rates of genetics visit completion. Preference to follow up with primary care was the most common reported reason for declining a genetics visit (68 of 152 patients [44.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of a biobank-based population genomic screening program suggests that targeted patient engagement, improving multidisciplinary coordination, and reducing barriers to follow-up care may be necessary for enhancing genetics visit uptake.

Evaluation of Malignant Hyperthermia Features in Patients with Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic RYR1 Variants Disclosed through a Population Genomic Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Malignant hyperthermia (MH) susceptibility is a heritable musculoskeletal disorder that can present as a potentially fatal hypermetabolic response to triggering anesthesia agents. Genomic screening for variants in MH-associated genes RYR1 and CACNA1S provides an opportunity to prevent morbidity and mortality. There are limited outcomes data from disclosing variants in RYR1, the most common MH susceptibility gene, in unselected populations. The authors sought to identify the rate of MH features or fulminant episodes after triggering agent exposure in an unselected population undergoing genomic screening including actionable RYR1 variants. METHODS: The MyCode Community Health Initiative by Geisinger (USA) is an electronic health record-linked biobank that discloses pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes to patient-participants. Available electronic anesthesia and ambulatory records for participants with actionable RYR1 results returned through December 2020 were evaluated for pertinent findings via double-coded chart reviews and reconciliation. Descriptive statistics for observed phenotypes were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two participants had an actionable RYR1 variant disclosed during the study period. None had previous documented genetic testing for MH susceptibility; one had previous contracture testing diagnosing MH susceptibility. Sixty-eight participants (44.7%) had anesthesia records documenting triggering agent exposure during at least one procedure. None received dantrolene treatment or had documented muscle rigidity, myoglobinuria, hyperkalemia, elevated creatine kinase, severe myalgia, or tea-colored urine. Of 120 possibly MH-related findings (postoperative intensive care unit admissions, hyperthermia, arterial blood gas evaluation, hypercapnia, or tachycardia), 112 (93.3%) were deemed unlikely to be MH events; 8 (6.7%) had insufficient records to determine etiology. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate a low frequency of classic intraanesthetic hypermetabolic phenotypes in an unselected population with actionable RYR1 variants. Further research on the actionability of screening for MH susceptibility in unselected populations, including economic impact, predictors of MH episodes, and expanded clinical phenotypes, is necessary.

Using whole genome sequence findings to assess gene-disease causality in cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia patients.

Aim: The genetic etiologies of cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias have not been fully elucidated. Materials & methods: Research findings from genome analyses in a cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia cohort were gathered. Gene-disease relationships from two databases were compared with patient phenotypes. A literature review was conducted for genes with limited evidence. Results: Of 43 genes with candidate findings from 18 cases, 23.3% of genes had never been curated, 15.0% were curated for cardiomyopathies, 16.7% for arrhythmias and 31.3% for other conditions. 25.5% of candidate findings were curated for the patient's specific phenotype with 11.8% having definitive evidence. MYH6 and TPCN1 were flagged for recuration. Conclusion: Findings from genome sequencing in disease cohorts may be useful to guide gene-curation efforts.

Testing and Management of Iron Overload After Genetic Screening-Identified Hemochromatosis.

Importance: HFE gene-associated hereditary hemochromatosis type 1 (HH1) is underdiagnosed, resulting in missed opportunities for preventing morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess whether screening for p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity is associated with recognition and management of asymptomatic iron overload. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study obtained data from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative, a biobank of biological samples and linked electronic health record data from a rural, integrated health care system. Participants included those who received a p.Cys282Tyr homozygous result via genomic screening (MyCode identified), had previously diagnosed HH1 (clinically identified), and those negative for p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity between 2017 and 2018. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to August 2023. Exposure: Disclosure of a p.Cys282Tyr homozygous result. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postdisclosure management and HFE-associated phenotypes in MyCode-identified participants were analyzed. Rates of HFE-associated phenotypes in MyCode-identified participants were compared with those of clinically identified participants. Relevant laboratory values and rates of laboratory iron overload among participants negative for p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity were compared with those of MyCode-identified participants. Results: A total of 86 601 participants had available exome sequences at the time of analysis, of whom 52 994 (61.4%) were assigned female at birth, and the median (IQR) age was 62.0 (47.0-73.0) years. HFE p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity was disclosed to 201 participants, of whom 57 (28.4%) had a prior clinical HH1 diagnosis, leaving 144 participants who learned of their status through screening. There were 86 300 individuals negative for p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity. After result disclosure, among MyCode-identified participants, 99 (68.8%) had a recommended laboratory test and 36 (69.2%) with laboratory or liver biopsy evidence of iron overload began phlebotomy or chelation. Fifty-three (36.8%) had iron overload; rates of laboratory iron overload were higher in MyCode-identified participants than participants negative for p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity (females: 34.1% vs 2.1%, P < .001; males: 39.0% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Iron overload (females: 34.1% vs 79.3%, P < .001; males: 40.7% vs 67.9%, P = .02) and some liver-associated phenotypes were observed at lower frequencies in MyCode-identified participants compared with clinically identified individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study showed the ability of genomic screening to identify undiagnosed iron overload and encourage relevant management, suggesting the potential benefit of population screening for HFE p.Cys282Tyr homozygosity. Further studies are needed to examine the implications of genomic screening for health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Optimizing communication strategies and designing a comprehensive program to facilitate cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: This project aimed to optimize communication strategies to support family communication about familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and improve cascade testing uptake among at-risk relatives. Individuals and families with FH provided feedback on multiple strategies including: a family letter, digital tools, and direct contact. METHODS: Feedback from participants was collected via dyadic interviews (n = 11) and surveys (n = 98) on communication strategies and their proposed implementation to improve cascade testing uptake. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify how to optimize each strategy. We categorized optimizations and their implementation within the project's healthcare system using a Traffic Light approach. RESULTS: Thematic analysis resulted in four distinct suggested optimizations for each communication strategy and seven suggested optimizations that were suitable across all strategies. Four suggestions for developing a comprehensive cascade testing program, which would offer all optimized communication strategies also emerged. All optimized suggestions coded green (n = 21) were incorporated. Suggestions coded yellow (n = 12) were partially incorporated. Only two suggestions were coded red and could not be incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates how to collect and analyze stakeholder feedback for program design. We identified feasible suggested optimizations, resulting in communication strategies that are patient-informed and patient-centered. Optimized strategies were implemented in a comprehensive cascade testing program.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Motivating cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia: applying the extended parallel process model for clinician communication.

Motivating at-risk relatives to undergo cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is critical for diagnosis and lifesaving treatment. As credible sources of information, clinicians can assist in family communication about FH and motivate cascade testing uptake. However, there are no guidelines regarding how clinicians should effectively communicate with probands (the first person diagnosed in the family) and at-risk relatives. Individuals and families with FH can inform our understanding of the most effective communications to promote cascade testing. Guided by the extended parallel process model (EPPM), we analyzed the perspectives of individuals and families with FH for effective messaging clinicians can use to promote cascade testing uptake. We analyzed narrative data from interviews and surveys collected as part of a larger mixed-methods study. The EPPM was used to identify message features recommended by individuals and families with FH that focus on four key constructs (severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy) to promote cascade testing. Participants included 22 individuals from 11 dyadic interviews and 98 survey respondents. Participants described prioritizing multiple messages that address each EPPM construct to alert relatives about their risk. They illustrated strategies clinicians could use within each EPPM construct to communicate to at-risk relatives about the importance of pursuing diagnosis via cascade testing and subsequent treatment for high cholesterol due to FH. Findings provide guidance on effective messaging to motivate cascade testing uptake for FH and demonstrates how the EPPM may guide communication with at-risk relatives about genetic risk and motivate cascade testing broadly.

Adopted individuals' interest in elective genomic testing.

PURPOSE: Adoptees are a population that could benefit from genetic testing to fill gaps in family health history (FHH). Elective genomic testing (EGT) provides adoptees with clinical genetic testing options to learn about genetic health risks in the absence of FHH. We assessed adoptees' interests in, motivations for and perceived utility of EGT. METHODS: Adult adoptees and non-adoptees completed an anonymous, online survey regarding their interest and motivations for EGT, perceived utility of potential results and willingness to pay for EGT. A validated measure of social identity was included to measure the effects of social identity on testing interest. RESULTS: There were 112 adoptees and 229 non-adoptees included in the study. Adoptees reported greater interest in EGT (OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 11.3) than non-adoptees. They were motivated by curiosity and a desire to learn information about risks to children and grandchildren more than non-adoptees. Adoptees with higher education and non-adoptees with higher incomes were significantly more likely to spend more on EGT. Adoptees with higher incomes and non-adoptees with higher education were not significantly more likely to spend more. Social identity was a significant mediator between adoption and testing motivation. CONCLUSION: Understanding adoptees' unique motivations and interests in EGT will allow healthcare providers to better address the informational needs and desires of this population. Social identity provides a foundation for recognising adoptees' universal experiences that influence motivations for genetic testing.

Clinical Findings and Diagnostic Yield of Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy Through Genomic Screening of Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic Desmosome Gene Variants.

BACKGROUND: Genomic screening holds great promise for presymptomatic identification of hidden disease, and prevention of dramatic events, including sudden cardiac death associated with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM). Herein, we present findings from clinical follow-up of carriers of ACM-associated pathogenic/likely pathogenic desmosome variants ascertained through genomic screening. METHODS: Of 64 548 eligible participants in Geisinger MyCode Genomic Screening and Counseling program (2015-present), 92 individuals (0.14%) identified with pathogenic/likely pathogenic desmosome variants by clinical laboratory testing were referred for evaluation. We reviewed preresult medical history, patient-reported family history, and diagnostic testing results to assess both arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and left-dominant ACM. RESULTS: One carrier had a prior diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy with arrhythmia; no other related diagnoses or diagnostic family history criteria were reported. Fifty-nine carriers (64%) had diagnostic testing in follow-up. Excluding the variant, 21/59 carriers satisfied at least one arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy task force criterion, 11 (52%) of whom harbored DSP variants, but only 5 exhibited multiple criteria. Six (10%) carriers demonstrated evidence of left-dominant ACM, including high rates of atypical late gadolinium enhancement by magnetic resonance imaging and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. Two individuals received new cardiomyopathy diagnoses and received defibrillators for primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic screening for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in desmosome genes can uncover both left- and right-dominant ACM. Findings of overt cardiomyopathy were limited but were most common in DSP-variant carriers and notably absent in PKP2-variant carriers. Consideration of the pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant as a major criterion for diagnosis is inappropriate in the setting of genomic screening.

Genetic counseling for patients with positive genomic screening results: Considerations for when the genetic test comes first.

Emerging genetic testing delivery models have enabled individuals to receive testing without a medical indication. This article will highlight key considerations for patient care in the setting of adult patients with positive results for monogenic disease identified through genomic screening. Suggestions for how to adapt genetic counseling to a genomic screening population will encompass topics such as phenotyping, risk assessments, and the use of existing guidelines and resources. Case examples will demonstrate principles of genotype-first patient care.

The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the method of presenting testing options and a provider recommendation can influence a decision about genetic testing for inherited cancer predispositions. METHODS: An online hypothetical vignette study was completed by 454 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized to receive one of two survey versions which differed by genetic testing choice presentation. One group was shown three options simultaneously (no test, 5-gene or 15-gene), and a second group received the 15-gene option after choosing between the no test and 5-gene options. A preference-based provider recommendation was also incorporated. We examined the effect of these interventions on test selection. RESULTS: Participants in the simultaneous group were more likely to choose a genetic test than those in the sequential group (OR: 2.35, p=0.003). This effect was no longer observed when individuals who had selected no-test in the sequential group were told about the 15-gene test (OR: 1.03 p=0.932). Incorporating a provider recommendation into the hypothetical scenario led to more preference-consistent choices (χ2 = 8.53, p < 0.0035,). CONCLUSIONS: A larger menu of testing choices led to higher testing uptake. A preference-based clinician recommendation resulted in more preference-consistent choices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The structuring of testing options and preference-sensitive recommendations appear to facilitate informed testing decisions.

Clinical outcomes of a genomic screening program for actionable genetic conditions.

PURPOSE: Three genetic conditions-hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia-have tier 1 evidence for interventions that reduce morbidity and mortality, prompting proposals to screen unselected populations for these conditions. We examined the impact of genomic screening on risk management and early detection in an unselected population. METHODS: Observational study of electronic health records (EHR) among individuals in whom a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a tier 1 gene was discovered through Geisinger's MyCode project. EHR of all eligible participants was evaluated for a prior genetic diagnosis and, among participants without such a diagnosis, relevant personal/family history, postdisclosure clinical diagnoses, and postdisclosure risk management. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of participants (305/351) did not have a prior genetic diagnosis of their tier 1 result. Of these, 65% had EHR evidence of relevant personal and/or family history of disease. Of 255 individuals eligible to have risk management, 70% (n = 179) had a recommended risk management procedure after results disclosure. Thirteen percent of participants (41/305) received a relevant clinical diagnosis after results disclosure. CONCLUSION: Genomic screening programs can identify previously unrecognized individuals at increased risk of cancer and heart disease and facilitate risk management and early cancer detection.

Positive impact of genetic counseling assistants on genetic counseling efficiency, patient volume, and cost in a cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: Cancer genetics clinics have seen increasing demand, challenging genetic counselors (GCs) to increase efficiency and prompting some clinics to implement genetic counseling assistants (GCAs). To evaluate the impact of GCAs on Geisinger's cancer genetics clinic, we tracked GC time utilization, new patient volume, and clinic cost per patient before and after implementing a GCA program. METHODS: GCs used time-tracking software while completing preappointment activities. Electronic health records were reviewed for appointment length and number of patients per week. Internal salary data for GCs and GCAs were used to calculate clinic costs per patient. RESULTS: Time spent by GCs completing each preappointment activity (21.8 vs. 15.1 minutes) and appointment length (51.6 vs. 44.5 minutes) significantly decreased after GCA program implementation (p values < 0.001). New patients per week per GC significantly increased (7.9 vs. 11.4, p < 0.001). Weekly clinic cost per patient significantly decreased ($233 vs. $176, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Implementing a GCA program increased GC efficiency in preappointment activities and clinic appointments, increased patient volume, and decreased clinic cost per patient. Such a program can improve access to GC services and assist GCs in focusing on the direct patient care for which they are specially trained.

Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling.

A barrier to incorporating genomics more broadly is limited access to providers with genomics expertise. Chatbots are a technology-based simulated conversation used in scaling communications. Geisinger and Clear Genetics, Inc. have developed chatbots to facilitate communication with participants receiving clinically actionable genetic variants from the MyCode® Community Health Initiative (MyCode® ). The consent chatbot walks patients through the consent allowing them to opt to receive more or less detail on key topics (goals, benefits, risks, etc.). The follow-up chatbot reminds participants of suggested actions following result receipt and the cascade chatbot can be sent to at-risk relatives by participants to share their genetic test results and facilitate cascade testing. To explore the acceptability, usability, and understanding of the study consent, post-result follow-up and cascade testing chatbots, we conducted six focus groups with MyCode® participants. Sixty-two individuals participated in a focus group (n = 33 consent chatbot, n = 29 follow-up and cascade chatbot). Participants were mostly female (n = 42, 68%), Caucasian (n = 58, 94%), college-educated (n = 33,53%), retirees (n = 38, 61%), and of age 56 years or older (n = 52, 84%). Few participants reported that they knew what a chatbot was (n = 10, 16%), and a small number reported that they had used a chatbot (n = 5, 8%). Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes from focus groups revealed four main themes: (a) overall impressions, (b) suggested improvements, (c) concerns and limitations, and (d) implementation. Participants supported using chatbots to consent for genomics research and to interact with healthcare providers for care coordination following receipt of genomic results. Most expressed willingness to use a chatbot to share genetic information with relatives. The consent chatbot presents an engaging alternative to deliver content challenging to comprehend in traditional paper or in-person consent. The cascade and follow-up chatbots may be acceptable, user-friendly, scalable approaches to manage ancillary genetic counseling tasks.

Generation and Implementation of a Patient-Centered and Patient-Facing Genomic Test Report in the EHR.

CONTEXT: Communication of genetic laboratory results to patients and providers is impeded by the complexity of results and reports. This can lead to misinterpretation of results, causing inappropriate care. Patients often do not receive a copy of the report leading to possible miscommunication. To address these problems, we conducted patient-centered research to inform design of interpretive reports. Here we describe the development and deployment of a specific patient-centered clinical decision support (CDS) tool, a multi-use patient-centered genomic test report (PGR) that interfaces with an electronic health record (EHR). IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: A PGR with a companion provider report was configured for implementation within the EHR using locally developed software (COMPASS™) to manage secure data exchange and access. FINDINGS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients, family members, and clinicians that showed they sought clear information addressing findings, family implications, resources, prognosis and next steps relative to the genomic result. Providers requested access to applicable, available clinical guidelines. Initial results indicated patients and providers found the PGR contained helpful, valuable information and would provide a basis for result-related conversation between patients, providers and family. MAJOR THEMES: Direct patient involvement in the design and development of a PGR identified format and presentation preferences, and delivery of relevant information to patients and providers, prompting the creation of a CDS tool. CONCLUSIONS: Research and development of patient-centered CDS tools designed to support improved patient outcomes, are enhanced by early and substantial engagement of patients in contributing to all phases of tool design and development.

A Model for Genome-First Care: Returning Secondary Genomic Findings to Participants and Their Healthcare Providers in a Large Research Cohort.

There is growing interest in communicating clinically relevant DNA sequence findings to research participants who join projects with a primary research goal other than the clinical return of such results. Since Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) was launched in 2007, more than 200,000 participants have been broadly consented for discovery research. In 2013 the MyCode consent was amended to include a secondary analysis of research genomic sequences that allows for delivery of clinical results. Since May 2015, pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants from a set list of genes associated with monogenic conditions have prompted "genome-first" clinical encounters. The encounters are described as genome-first because they are identified independent of any clinical parameters. This article (1) details our process for generating clinical results from research data, delivering results to participants and providers, facilitating condition-specific clinical evaluations, and promoting cascade testing of relatives, and (2) summarizes early results and participant uptake. We report on 542 participants who had results uploaded to the electronic health record as of February 1, 2018 and 291 unique clinical providers notified with one or more participant results. Of these 542 participants, 515 (95.0%) were reached to disclose their results and 27 (5.0%) were lost to follow-up. We describe an exportable model for delivery of clinical care through secondary use of research data. In addition, subject and provider participation data from the initial phase of these efforts can inform other institutions planning similar programs.