Identity Theft, Deep Brain Stimulation, and the Primacy of Post-trial Obligations.

Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive-compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post-trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post-trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation.

Recontact to return new or updated PALB2 genetic results in the clinical laboratory setting.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to recontact individuals with clinically actionable test results identified through a retrospective research study and to provide a framework for laboratories to recontact patients. METHODS: Genetic testing was conducted on 2977 individuals originally referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing that had a negative genetic test result. A gene panel was used to identify pathogenic variants in known or newly discovered genes that could explain the underlying cause of disease; however, analysis was restricted to PALB2 for the purposes of this study. A patient recontact decision tree was developed to assist in the returning of updated genetic test results to clinics and patients. RESULTS: Novel clinically actionable pathogenic variants were identified in the PALB2 gene in 18 participants (0.6%), the majority of whom were recontacted with their new or updated genetic test results. Eight individuals were unable to be recontacted; five individuals had already learnt about their new or updated findings from genetic testing outside the context of this study; three individuals prompted cascade testing in family members; two individuals were deceased. CONCLUSION: Novel pathogenic variants in PALB2 were identified in 18 individuals through retrospective gene panel testing. Recontacting these individuals regarding these new or updated findings had a range of outcomes. The process of conveying genomic results within this framework can be effectively accomplished while upholding patient autonomy, potentially leading to advantageous outcomes for patients and their families.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey.

PURPOSE: Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022. RESULTS: In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs. CONCLUSION: These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Duty to recontact in genomic cancer care: A tool helping to assess the professional's responsibility.

Tumour DNA and germline testing, based on DNA-wide sequencing analysis, are becoming more and more routine in clinical-oncology practice. A promising step in medicine, but at the same time leading to challenging ethicolegal questions. An important one is under what conditions individuals (patients and their relatives, research participants) should be recontacted with new information, even if many years have passed since the last contact. Based on legal- and ethical study, we developed a tool to help professionals to decide whether or not to recontact an individual in specific cases. It is based on four assessment criteria: (1) professional relationship (2) clinical impact (3) individual's preferences and (4) feasibility. The tool could also serve as a framework for guidelines on the topic.

Recontacting biobank participants to collect lifestyle, behavioural and cognitive information via online questionnaires: lessons from a pilot study within FinnGen.

OBJECTIVES: To recontact biobank participants and collect cognitive, behavioural and lifestyle information via a secure online platform. DESIGN: Biobank-based recontacting pilot study. SETTING: Three Finnish biobanks (Helsinki, Auria, Tampere) recruiting participants from February 2021 to July 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All eligible invitees were enrolled in FinnGen by their biobanks (Helsinki, Auria, Tampere), had available genetic data and were >18 years old. Individuals with severe neuropsychiatric disease or cognitive or physical disabilities were excluded. Lastly, 5995 participants were selected based on their polygenic score for cognitive abilities and invited to the study. Among invitees, 1115 had successfully participated and completed the study questionnaire(s). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the participation rate among study invitees. Secondary outcomes included questionnaire completion rate, quality of data collected and comparison of participation rate boosting strategies. RESULTS: The overall participation rate was 18.6% among all invitees and 23.1% among individuals aged 18-69. A second reminder letter yielded an additional 9.7% participation rate in those who did not respond to the first invitation. Recontacting participants via an online healthcare portal yielded lower participation than recontacting via physical letter. The completion rate of the questionnaire and cognitive tests was high (92% and 85%, respectively), and measurements were overall reliable among participants. For example, the correlation (r) between self-reported body mass index and that collected by the biobanks was 0.92. CONCLUSION: In summary, this pilot suggests that recontacting FinnGen participants with the goal to collect a wide range of cognitive, behavioural and lifestyle information without additional engagement results in a low participation rate, but with reliable data. We suggest that such information be collected at enrolment, if possible, rather than via post hoc recontacting.

Assessing the relationship between patient preferences for recontact after BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic testing and their monitoring coping style in a Norwegian sample.

Recontacting former patients regarding new genetic information is currently not standard care but might be implemented in the future. Little information is available on the implications of this practice from the point of view of former patients. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for recontact when new genetic information becomes available among patients tested for BRCA pathogenic variants. We further wanted to investigate whether having a high or low information-seeking coping style (monitoring) impacts preferences. Preferences for recontact were assessed using a self-constructed questionnaire. The Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI) was used to measure monitoring coping style. The questionnaires were sent to 500 randomly selected patients who had previously been tested for BRCA pathogenic variants within the time frame 2001-2014 at one genetic clinic in Norway. We received 323 completed questionnaires. Most respondents wanted to be recontacted with advances in genetic medicine (81.1%) and to receive highly personalized updates. Genetic counselors/geneticists were believed to be most responsible for recontact. There was a significant relationship between being a high monitor and wanting recontact to learn about own cancer risk and receive ongoing support. Patients have a high interest in being recontacted. The findings indicated a tendency for high monitors to prefer more detailed and personalized information.

Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base.

The practice of recontacting patients has a long history in medicine but emerged as an issue in genetics as the rapid expansion of knowledge and of testing capacity raised questions about whether, when and how to recontact patients. Until recently, the debate on recontacting has focussed on theoretical concerns of experts. The publication of empirical research into the views of patients, clinicians, laboratories and services in a number of countries has changed this. These studies have filled out, and altered our view of, this issue. Whereas debates on the duty to recontact have explored all aspects of recontact practice, recent contributions have been developing a more nuanced view of recontacting. The result is a narrowing of the scope of the duty, so that a norm on recontacting focuses on the practice of reaching out to discharged patients. This brings into focus the importance of the consent conversation, the resource implications of this duty, and the role of the patient in recontacting.

Management of amended variant classification laboratory reports by genetic counselors in the United States and Canada: An exploratory study.

For the past two decades, the guidelines put forth by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) detailing providers' clinical responsibility to recontact patients have remained mostly unchanged, despite evolving variant interpretation practices which have yielded substantial rates of reclassification and amended reports. In fact, there is little information regarding genetic counselors' roles in informing patients of reclassified variants, or the process by which these amended reports are currently being handled. In this study, we developed a survey to measure current experiences with amended variant reports and preferences for ideal management, which was completed by 96 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada. All respondents indicated they were the individuals responsible for disclosing initial positive genetic testing results and any clinically actionable reclassified variant reports, and over half (56%) received at least a few amended variant reports each year. Nearly a quarter (20/87) of respondents reported having a standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing amended reports and all were very satisfied (12/20) or satisfied (8/20) with the SOP. Of those without a protocol, 76% (51/67) would prefer to have an SOP implemented. Respondents reported a preference for (1) laboratories to send amended variant reports directly to the genetic counselor or ordering physician through email or an online portal, and (2) notification to patients ideally occurring through a phone call. In the event that the original genetic counselor is inaccessible, respondents reported a preference for reports to be sent directly to another genetic counselor (36%) on the team or the clinic in general (27%). Information from this study provides insight into the current practices of genetic counselors as applied to amended reports and what improvements may increase the efficiency of the reporting process. Moreover, these results suggest a need for an updated statement addressing duty to recontact, specifically as it applies to amended variant reports.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry.

PURPOSE: Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process. METHODS: GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them. RESULTS: Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories. CONCLUSION: Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.

Preferences of biobank participants for receiving actionable genomic test results: results of a recontacting study.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine preferences of biobank participants whose samples were tested for clinically actionable variants but did not respond to an initial invitation to receive results. METHODS: We recontacted a subsample of participants in the Kaiser Permanente Washington/University of Washington site of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network. The subsample had provided broad consent for their samples to be used for research but had not responded to one initial mailed invitation to receive their results. We sent a letter from the principal investigators with phone outreach. If no contact was made, we sent a certified letter stating our assumption that participant had actively refused. We collected reasons for declining. RESULTS: We recontacted 123 participants. Response rate was 70.7% (n = 87). Of these, 62 (71.3%) declined the offer of returned results and 25 (28.7%) consented. The most common reasons provided for refusal included not wanting to know (n = 22) and concerns about insurability (n = 28). CONCLUSION: Efforts to recontact biobank participants can yield high response. Though active refusal upon recontact was common, our data do not support assuming initial nonresponse to be refusal. Future research can work toward best practices for reconsenting, especially when clinically actionable results are possible.

Dementias Platform UK Clinical Studies and Great Minds Register: protocol of a targeted brain health studies recontact database.

INTRODUCTION: The case for de-risking neurodegenerative research and development through highly informative experimental medicine studies early in the disease process is strong. Such studies depend on the availability of genetic as well as high-granularity, longitudinal, phenotypic data in healthy ageing individuals who can be recruited into early phase trials on the basis of their perceived dementia risk. Until now the creation of such research infrastructure has been hampered by the lack of expense and time required to gather the rich longitudinal data needed for adequate risk stratification. Dementias Platform UK (DPUK) is a public-private partnership that brings together data from over 40 cohorts in a standardised framework, which represent an until now unavailable opportunity to create such a resource through a streamlined brain health recontact platform based on existing cohorts, as well as prospectively collected data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DPUK recontact platform consists of an opt-in (Great Minds, GM) and an opt-out component (Clinical Studies Register, CSR). GM requires invited DPUK cohort participants to consent to targeted recontact at the GM website and then to provide self-reported demographic and medical history information relevant to recruitment into clinical studies. Participants complete prospective browser-based and smartphone-based cognitive tests and are given the option for remote genetic and actigraphy testing. The GM data are linked to the retrospective DPUK cohort dataset, including genotypic and longitudinal phenotypic data. The CSR is a solution for cohorts explicitly allowing targeted recontact. Approved studies provide prescreening criteria on the basis of the CSR/GM dataset, and individuals meeting these criteria are offered participation directly (GM) or through the parent DPUK cohort (CSR). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the outcomes relevant to the number of participants engaged with the register. Its sample size is not defined but is limited by the size of the DPUK parent cohorts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The database was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee, reference 18/SC/0268 on the 27th of June 2018 and amended on the 1st of November 2019. The availability of the register to researchers will be disseminated through DPUK's official communication channels as well as national and international scientific meetings.

Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines.

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

Recontacting patients for multigene panel testing in hereditary cancer: Efficacy and insights.

In hereditary cancer, multigene panel testing is currently replacing older single-gene approaches. Patients whose tests were previously uninformative could benefit from updated testing. Research suggests that patients desire to be recontacted about updated genetic testing, but few studies have tested the efficacy of recontact efforts. This study investigated the outcomes of a recontact effort in a hereditary cancer clinic and explored the impact of four different recontact letters, randomized in a 2X2 factorial design. Patients who had negative genetic testing for single genes or conditions were mailed letters inviting them to schedule an appointment to discuss updated testing. Patients were randomized to receive one of four letters and each letter emphasized different implications of updated multigene genetic testing: (a) personal medical management implications, (b) implications for family members, (c) both personal and family implications or (d) a control letter. The proportion of patients who arrived for appointments was assessed approximately 7 months after mailing along with associations with patient demographics and type of letter received. Letters were mailed to 586 patients who had initial testing between 2001 and 2015. Most patients were white (78%) and female (97%) with private insurance (65%). At 7 months, 25 patients (4.3%, 95% CI: 2.6% to 5.9%) had arrived for an appointment. Older age was significantly associated with response rate (p = .01), while type of recontact letter was not (p = .54). This study suggests that recontacting patients about updated genetic testing by mail does not yield a large response. It also suggests that personal and/or familial implications do not seem to be significant factors that determine response rate. Nevertheless, results provide meaningful information for cancer clinics about the outcomes of recontact efforts via informational letter.

Cost and efficacy comparison of prenatal recall and reflex DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and efficacy of reflex and recall prenatal DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (affected pregnancies). In both methods women have Combined test markers measured. With recall screening, women with a high Combined test risk are recalled for counselling and offered a DNA blood test or invasive diagnostic testing. With reflex screening, a DNA analysis is automatically performed on plasma collected when blood was collected for measurement of the Combined test markers. METHODS: Published data were used to estimate, for each method, using various unit costs and risk cut-offs, the cost per woman screened, cost per affected pregnancy diagnosed, and for a given number of women screened, numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, unaffected pregnancies with positive results, and women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing. RESULTS: Cost per woman screened is lower with reflex v recall screening: £37 v £38, and £11,043 v £11,178 per affected pregnancy diagnosed (DNA £250, Combined test markers risk cut-off 1 in 150). Reflex screening results in similar numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, with 100-fold fewer false-positives and 20-fold fewer women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Reflex DNA screening is less expensive, more cost-effective, and safer than recall screening.

Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty.

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.