Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors.

PURPOSE: We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants. METHODS: Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes. RESULTS: Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings. CONCLUSION: Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Medical and psychosocial outcomes of state-funded population genomic screening.

As the uptake of population screening expands, assessment of medical and psychosocial outcomes is needed. Through the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI), a state-funded genomic research program, individuals received screening for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 59 actionable genes via genotyping. Of the 3874 eligible participants that received screening results, 858 (22%) responded to an outcomes survey. The most commonly reported motivation for seeking testing through AGHI was contribution to genetic research (64%). Participants with positive results reported a higher median number of planned actions (median = 5) due to AGHI results as compared to negative results (median = 3). Interviews were conducted with survey participants with positive screening results. As determined by certified genetic counselors, 50% of interviewees took appropriate medical action based on their result. There were no negative or harmful actions taken. These findings indicate population genomic screening of an unselected adult population is feasible, is not harmful, and may have positive outcomes on participants now and in the future; however, further research is needed in order to assess clinical utility.

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.

Genome sequencing as a first-line diagnostic test for hospitalized infants.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that undertook genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern United States, which are historically underrepresented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants, and 14% of infants harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing, suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results show the utility of GS because it provides early-in-life detection of clinically relevant genetic variations not detected by current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, now in its second funding cycle, is investigating the effectiveness of integrating genomic (exome or genome) sequencing into the clinical care of diverse and medically underserved individuals in a variety of healthcare settings and disease states. The consortium comprises a coordinating center, six funded extramural clinical projects, and an ongoing National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project. Collectively, these projects aim to enroll and sequence over 6,100 participants in four years. At least 60% of participants will be of non-European ancestry or from underserved settings, with the goal of diversifying the populations that are providing an evidence base for genomic medicine. Five of the six clinical projects are enrolling pediatric patients with various phenotypes. One of these five projects is also enrolling couples whose fetus has a structural anomaly, and the sixth project is enrolling adults at risk for hereditary cancer. The ongoing NHGRI intramural project has enrolled primarily healthy adults. Goals of the consortium include assessing the clinical utility of genomic sequencing, exploring medical follow up and cascade testing of relatives, and evaluating patient-provider-laboratory level interactions that influence the use of this technology. The findings from the CSER consortium will offer patients, healthcare systems, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges of providing genomic medicine in diverse populations and settings, and contribute evidence toward developing best practices for the delivery of clinically useful and cost-effective genomic sequencing in diverse healthcare settings.

Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of population-based genomic screening in Alabama. METHODS: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) has enrolled and evaluated 5369 participants for the presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants using the Illumina Global Screening Array (GSA), with validation of all P/LP variants via Sanger sequencing in a CLIA-certified laboratory before return of results. RESULTS: Among 131 variants identified by the GSA that were evaluated by Sanger sequencing, 67 (51%) were false positives (FP). For 39 of the 67 FP variants, a benign/likely benign variant was present at or near the targeted P/LP variant. Variants detected within African American individuals were significantly enriched for FPs, likely due to a higher rate of nontargeted alternative alleles close to array-targeted P/LP variants. CONCLUSION: In AGHI, we have implemented an array-based process to screen for highly penetrant genetic variants in actionable disease genes. We demonstrate the need for clinical validation of array-identified variants in direct-to-consumer or population testing, especially for diverse populations.

A state-based approach to genomics for rare disease and population screening.

PURPOSE: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) is a state-funded effort to provide genomic testing. AGHI engages two distinct cohorts across the state of Alabama. One cohort includes children and adults with undiagnosed rare disease; a second includes an unselected adult population. Here we describe findings from the first 176 rare disease and 5369 population cohort AGHI participants. METHODS: AGHI participants enroll in one of two arms of a research protocol that provides access to genomic testing results and biobank participation. Rare disease cohort participants receive genome sequencing to identify primary and secondary findings. Population cohort participants receive genotyping to identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants for actionable conditions. RESULTS: Within the rare disease cohort, genome sequencing identified likely pathogenic or pathogenic variation in 20% of affected individuals. Within the population cohort, 1.5% of individuals received a positive genotyping result. The rate of genotyping results corroborated by reported personal or family history varied by gene. CONCLUSIONS: AGHI demonstrates the ability to provide useful health information in two contexts: rare undiagnosed disease and population screening. This utility should motivate continued exploration of ways in which emerging genomic technologies might benefit broad populations.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

Recruiting diversity where it exists: The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative.

Lack of diversity among genomic research participants results in disparities in benefits from genetic testing. To address this, the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative employed community engagement strategies to recruit diverse populations where they lived. In this paper, we describe our engagement techniques and recruitment strategies, which resulted in significant improvement in representation of African American participants. While African American participation has not reached the representation of this community as a percentage of Alabama's overall population (26%-27%), we have achieved an overall representation exceeding 20% for African Americans. We believe this demonstrates the value of engagement and recruitment where diverse populations reside.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Correction: Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

The originally published version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 2. The numbers below the black arrowheads were incorrect; please see incorrect Figure in associated Correction. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

PURPOSE: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs). METHODS: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. RESULTS: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Understanding the present and preparing for the future: Exploring the needs of diagnostic and elective genomic medicine patients.

Advances in genomic knowledge and technology have increased the use of comprehensive clinical sequencing tests. Genome sequencing has established utility for diagnosing patients with rare, undiagnosed diseases as well as interest in an elective context, without a clinical indication for testing. The Smith Family Clinic for Genomic Medicine, LLC in Huntsville, AL is a private practice genomic medicine clinic caring for both diagnostic (79%) and elective (21%) patients. Diagnostic and elective patients are seen on a clinical basis and receive standard care. Genome sequencing is provided on a self-pay basis, with assistance available for diagnostic patients who have financial need. Here, we describe demographics and motivations of the distinct patient populations and our experiences engaging patients in online education. Diagnostic patients were motivated by the possibility of receiving an explanation for symptoms (96%) while elective patients were motivated by the chance to learn about future disease risk (57%). Elective patients were less likely to engage with online education, with only 28% reading all assigned topics compared to 54% of diagnostic patients. Understanding the needs, interests, and barriers unique to diagnostic and elective patients is critical to inform individualized and scalable best practices in patient education and engagement.

Genomic sequencing identifies secondary findings in a cohort of parent study participants.

PURPOSE: Clinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability. METHODS: Exome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 "unaffected" parents was performed. RESULTS: Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. These 25 individuals self-reported either relevant clinical diagnoses (5); relevant family history or symptoms (13); or no relevant family history, symptoms, or clinical diagnoses (7). A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate pairs (n = 365) to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease, yielding three such cases (0.8%), two of which had children with the relevant recessive disease. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one noncarrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings. CONCLUSION: We provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Eliciting preferences on secondary findings: the Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results.

PURPOSE: Eliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results are key aspects of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pretest counseling while still faithfully eliciting patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role that preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Patients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel instrument-PIGSR-should be useful in a wide variety of clinical and research settings.Genet Med 19 3, 337-344.

"Touching Triton": Building Student Understanding of Complex Disease Risk.

Life science classrooms often emphasize the exception to the rule when it comes to teaching genetics, focusing heavily on rare single-gene and Mendelian traits. By contrast, the vast majority of human traits and diseases are caused by more complicated interactions between genetic and environmental factors. Research indicates that students have a deterministic view of genetics, generalize Mendelian inheritance patterns to all traits, and have unrealistic expectations of genetic technologies. The challenge lies in how to help students analyze complex disease risk with a lack of curriculum materials. Providing open access to both content resources and an engaging storyline can be achieved using a "serious game" model. "Touching Triton" was developed as a serious game in which students are asked to analyze data from a medical record, family history, and genomic report in order to develop an overall lifetime risk estimate of six common, complex diseases. Evaluation of student performance shows significant learning gains in key content areas along with a high level of engagement.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU. METHODS: Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews. RESULTS: Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt. CONCLUSION: Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.