Evaluation for Genetic Disorders in the Absence of a Clinical Indication for Testing: Elective Genomic Testing.

The increasing quality and diminishing cost of next-generation sequencing has transformed our ability to interrogate large quantities of genetic information. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of elective genomic tests performed. In this article, elective test denotes a test that a patient chooses to undertake without a clinical indication. The variety of elective genomic testing options is considerable. Because these offerings provide differing levels of sensitivity and specificity, it can be difficult to choose among them. A simple rubric to compare offerings is not readily available. We propose a framework designated completeness that evaluates both analytical and interpretative components of genomic tests. We then illustrate how this framework can be used to evaluate the expanding landscape of elective genomic testing.

Successful Application of Whole Genome Sequencing in a Medical Genetics Clinic.

A pilot program was initiated using whole genome sequencing (WGS) to diagnose suspected genetic disorders in the Genetics Clinic at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin. Twenty-two patients underwent WGS between 2010 and 2013. Initially, we obtained a 14% (3/22) diagnosis rate over 2 years; with subsequent reanalysis, this increased to 36% (8/22). Disease causing variants were identified in SKIV2L, CECR1, DGKE, PYCR2, RYR1, PDGFRB, EFTUD2, and BCS1L. In 75% (6/8) of diagnosed cases, the diagnosis affected treatment and/or medical surveillance. Additionally, one case demonstrated a homozygous A18V variant in VLDLR that appears to be associated with a previously undescribed phenotype.

Genetics and Genomics in Clinical Practice: The Views of Wisconsin Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Decreasing costs and increased availability of genetic testing and genome sequencing mean many physicians will consider using these services over the next few years. Despite this promising future, some argue the present roadmap for translating genetics and genomics into routine clinical practice is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study to explore Wisconsin physicians' views, practices and educational desires regarding genetic and genomic testing. METHODS: Our study consists of an Internet survey (n=155) conducted in August and September 2015 and follow-up phone interviews with a portion of survey participants. Physicians of all specialties were invited to participate. Variables measured include physicians' general knowledge and experience regarding genetic and genomic testing, attitudes and perceptions toward these tests, testing intentions, and educational desires. Sociodemographic variables included gender, age, and medical specialty. RESULTS: In our exploratory survey of Wisconsin physicians, adult primary care providers (PCPs) lagged behind other providers in terms of familiarity and experience with genetic and genomic testing. PCPs in our sample were less likely than other physicians to feel their training in genetics and genomics is adequate. Physicians younger than 50 were more likely than older colleagues to feel their training is adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory study suggests a gap in physician education and understanding regarding genomic testing, which is fast becoming part of personalized medical care. Future studies with larger samples should examine ways for physicians to close this gap, with special focus on the needs of PCPs.

Does Lack of "Genetic-Relative Family Health History" Represent a Potentially Avoidable Health Disparity for Adoptees?

Many adoptees face a number of challenges relating to separation from biological parents during the adoption process, including issues concerning identity, intimacy, attachment, and trust, as well as (for older adopted children) language and other cultural challenges. One common health challenge faced by adoptees involves lack of access to genetic-relative family health history (GRFHx). Lack of GRFHx represents a disadvantage due to a reduced capacity to identify diseases and recommend appropriate screening for conditions for which the adopted person may be at increased risk. In this article, we draw out common features of traditionally understood "health disparities" in order to identify analogous features in the context of adoptees' lack of GRFHx.

Challenges to clinical utilization of hereditary cancer gene panel testing: perspectives from the front lines.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology is rapidly being implemented into clinical practice. Qualitative research was performed to gain an improved understanding of the landscape surrounding the use of NGS in cancer genetics. A focus group was conducted at the Wisconsin Cancer Risk Programs Network biannual meeting. Free flowing discussion with occasional open-ended questions provided insights into the use of NGS. 19 genetic counselors and medical professionals participated. Three major themes were identified with respect to NGS and its use in cancer genetics: knowledge gaps, the evolving clinician role, and uncertain utility. Several corresponding subthemes were identified. With respect to knowledge gaps, participants expressed concern regarding unexpected results and variants of unknown significance, lack of data about NGS findings, absence of standardization regarding use of NGS and guidelines for interpretation, and discomfort with new technology. Regarding the evolving clinician role, necessary changes to the roles of genetic counselors and physicians were noted, as was the resultant impact on care received by patients and their families. Finally, the clinical and economic utility of NGS was questioned. While a shift from traditional Sanger sequencing to NGS is occurring in molecular genetic testing for disease susceptibility, there are several obstacles that need to be overcome before widespread adoption of this technology can occur. Furthermore, key aspects of NGS and it utility remain unexplored. Continued investigation into these subjects is necessary before this technology will consistently be of benefit to patients and their families.

The limits of traditional approaches to informed consent for genomic medicine.

This paper argues that it will be important for new genomic technologies to recognize the limits of traditional approaches to informed consent, so that other-regarding implications of genomic information can be properly contextualized and individual rights respected. Respect for individual autonomy will increasingly require dynamic consideration of the interrelated dimensions of individual and broader community interests, so that the interests of one do not undermine fundamental interests of the other. In this, protection of individual rights will be a complex interplay between individual and community concerns.

Views of nonmedical, health system professionals regarding the return of whole genome sequencing incidental findings.

BACKGROUND: Use of genome sequencing in the clinic continues to increase. In addition to its potential to provide findings of clinical benefit, it also has the potential to identify findings unrelated to the indication for testing (incidental findings). Incidental findings are the subject of considerable debate, particularly following the publication of recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. This debate involves how and which results should be returned as well as stakeholders' desires for such results. Part of the difficulty in determining best practice in relation to returning incidental findings is the dearth of empirical data available regarding laypersons' attitudes and desire for the sometimes controversial information. METHODS: In an effort to contribute data on views regarding the return of incidental findings following genome sequencing in a clinical setting, a survey specifically designed around the various types of incidental findings that occur, ranging from clinically actionable to nonactionable, was administered to a nonmedical population of medical coders working at a medical school (N = 97). Almost all (98%) of the respondents were women, 80% had 6 or more years of experience as a medical coder, and about three-fourths (74%) of participants reported that they had children. RESULTS: The group surveyed was considerably more interested in receiving all types of results for both themselves and their children than previously surveyed genetics professionals. CONCLUSION: Results from this study offer a snapshot of opinions beyond those of the professional genetic community and demonstrate a striking difference between genetic professionals and a more lay population in terms of their attitudes and desires regarding the return of incidental findings. Additional research is needed to explain the nuances in the perspectives motivating these variations.

Informing patients about emerging treatment options: creating "saviour siblings" for haemopoietic stem cell transplant.

In June 2008, the ABC screened a television documentary involving a couple who decided to have an additional child in the hope of obtaining umbilical cord blood to treat their daughter who had leukaemia. The couple conceived naturally, meaning that there was a one in four chance that their child would be suitably matched. They seemed to be unaware of technologies that, if successful, could provide a near certainty that the next child would be a matched "saviour sibling". This story raises questions about whether clinicians have an obligation to discuss emerging and morally contentious treatment options. Ignorance of technology, assumptions about availability, and medical assessment of burdens and benefits may affect attitudes towards treatment options, but they do not justify non-disclosure of information.