Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Evidence-based recommendations for delivering the diagnosis of X & Y chromosome multisomies in children, adolescents, and young adults: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of supernumerary X & Y chromosome variations has increased following the implementation of genetic testing in pediatric practice. Empirical evidence suggests that the delivery of the diagnosis has a lasting impact on how affected individuals and their parents perceive and adapt to the diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the literature to obtain useful recommendations for delivering a pediatric diagnosis of a sex chromosome multisomy (SCM) based upon a growing body of quantitative and qualitative literature on patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted an integrative literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL employing keywords "genetic diagnosis delivery," "genetic diagnosis disclosure," "sex chromosome aneuploidy," "Klinefelter syndrome" or ""47, XXY," "Jacob syndrome" or "47, XYY," "Trisomy X," "Triple X" or "47, XXX," and "48 XXYY from January 1, 2000, to October 31, 2023. RESULTS: Literature supports that patients and parents value the provision of up-to-date information and connection with supportive resources. Discussion of next steps of care, including relevant referrals, prevents perceptions of provider abandonment and commitment to ongoing support. Proactively addressing special concerns such as disclosing the diagnosis to their child, family, and community is also beneficial. Tables are provided for useful information resources, medical specialties that may be required to support patients, and common misconceptions that interfere with accurate information about the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences suggest there should be heightened attention to diagnosis delivery, in reference to the broader ethical and social impacts of a SCM diagnosis. We present recommendations for optimal disclosure of a SCM diagnosis in early and late childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response.

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Exploring prenatal testing preferences among US pregnant individuals: A discrete choice experiment.

Although there are numerous benefits to diagnostic prenatal testing, such as fetal exome sequencing, there are also consequences, including the possibility of receiving variants of uncertain significance or identifying secondary findings. In this study, we utilized a survey-based discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of pregnant people in Northern California for hypothetical prenatal genomic tests. Pregnant individuals were invited to complete the survey through advertisements on social media. Five test attributes were studied: likelihood of getting a result, time taken to receive results, who explains results, reporting of uncertain results, and reporting of secondary findings. The survey also gathered information about the participants' demographics, current and past pregnancies, and tolerance of uncertainty using the IUS-12 scale. Participants were eligible if they were female, currently 24 or more weeks pregnant, and able to read/write enough English or Spanish to complete an online survey. Overall, participants (n = 56) preferred the option of having a prenatal test over not having a prenatal test (p < 0.01) and had substantially higher preferences for tests with the highest likelihood of getting a result (p < 0.01). There were also positive preferences for tests that reported secondary findings (p = 0.01) and those where results were returned by a genetic specialist (vs. their prenatal provider) (p = 0.04). These findings can be used to guide conversations between pregnant individuals and genetics specialists, such as genetic counselors, as they weigh the pros and cons of diagnostic prenatal testing options.

International genetic counseling: What do genetic counselors actually do?

We conducted an exploratory survey of genetic counselors internationally to assess similarities and differences in reported practice activities. Between November 2018 and January 2020 we conducted a mass emailing to an estimated 5600 genetic counselors in different countries and regions. We obtained 189 useable responses representing 22 countries, which are included in an aggregate manner. Data from countries with 10 or more responses, comprising 82% of the total (N = 156), are the primary focus of this report: Australia (13), Canada (26), USA (59), UK (17), France (12), Japan (19) and India (10). Twenty activities were identified as common (≥74%) across these countries, encompassing most subcategories of genetic counseling activity. Activities with most frequent endorsement include: reviewing referrals and medical records and identifying genetic testing options as part of case preparation; taking family and medical histories; performing and sharing risk assessment; and educating clients about basic genetic information, test options, outcomes and implications, including management recommendations on the basis of the test results. Genetic counselors also consistently establish rapport, tailor the educational process, facilitate informed decision making and recognize factors that may impact the counseling interaction. The least endorsed activities were in the Medical History category. Notable differences between countries were observed in the endorsement of 33 activities, primarily in the Contracting and Establishing Rapport, Family History, Medical History, Assessing Patients Psychosocially and Providing Psychosocial Support categories. Generalizations about international practice patterns are limited by the low response rate. However, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically compare the clinical practice and specific activities of genetic counselors working in different countries.

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.

Factors that impact on women's decision-making around prenatal genomic tests: An international discrete choice survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. METHODS: Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. RESULTS: Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. CONCLUSION: Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

Perspectives of Rare Disease Social Media Group Participants on Engaging With Genetic Counselors: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media provides a potential avenue for genetic counselors to address gaps in access to reliable genetics information for rare disease communities. However, only limited research has examined patient and family attitudes toward engaging with genetic counselors through social media. OBJECTIVE: Our study assessed the attitudes of members of rare disease social media groups toward engaging with genetic counselors through social media, characteristics associated with greater interest, and the benefits and potential pitfalls of various approaches to such engagement. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods survey of patients and family members recruited from a systematic sample of rare disease Facebook groups. Patient characteristics and their associations with interest in engagement with genetic counselors were evaluated using univariate and bivariate statistics. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 1053 individuals from 103 rare disease groups participated. The median overall interest in engaging with genetic counselors on social media was moderately high at 7.0 (IQR 4.0-9.0, range 0-10). No past experience with a genetic counselor was associated with greater interest in engaging with one through social media (µ=6.5 vs 6.0, P=.04). Participants expressed greatest interest (median 9.0, IQR 5.0-10.0) in engagement models allowing direct communication with genetic counselors, which was corroborated by the majority (n=399, 61.3%) of individuals who responded to open-ended questions explicitly stating their interest in 1-on-1 interactions. When asked what forms of support they would request from genetic counselors through social media, participants desired individualized support and information about how to access services. However, participants also expressed concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family members in rare disease social media groups appear interested in engaging with genetic counselors through social media, particularly for individualized support. This form of engagement on social media is not meant to replace the current structure and content of genetic counseling (GC) services, but genetic counselors could more actively use social media as a communication tool to address gaps in knowledge and awareness about genetics services and gaps in accessible patient information. Although encouraging, concerns regarding privacy and feasibility require further consideration, pointing to the need for professional guidelines in this area.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings. METHODS: Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction. RESULTS: Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

How to deal with uncertainty in prenatal genomics: A systematic review of guidelines and policies.

Exome sequencing (ES) enhanced the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, but has also increased the possibility of uncertain findings. Prenatal ES is increasingly being offered after a fetal abnormality is detected through ultrasound. It is important to know how to handle uncertainty in this particularly stressful period. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of guidelines available for addressing uncertainty related to prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and ES. Ten uncertainty types associated with prenatal ES and CMA were identified and defined by an international multidisciplinary team. Medline (all) and Embase were systematically searched. Laboratory scientists, clinical geneticists, psychologists, and a fetal medicine specialist screened the papers and performed the data extraction. Nineteen papers were included. Recommendations generally emphasized the importance of trio analysis, clinical information, data sharing, validation and re-analysis, protocols, multidisciplinary teams, genetic counselling, whether to limit the possible scope of results, and when to report particular findings. This systematic review helps provide a vocabulary for uncertainties, and a compass to navigate uncertainties. Prenatal CMA and ES guidelines provide a strong starting point for determining how to handle uncertainty. Gaps in guidelines and recommendations were identified and discussed to provide direction for future research and policy making.

Dealing with uncertain results from chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing in the prenatal setting: An international cross-sectional study with healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. RESULTS: There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. CONCLUSION: Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches.

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients.

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.

Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty.

For a number of prospective parents, uncertainty during pregnancy starts when an anomaly is found during a routine fetal anomaly scan. This may be followed by numerous tests to determine the etiology and nature of the anomaly. In this study, we aimed to understand how prospective parents perceive and manage uncertainty after being confronted with a structural anomaly during their routine ultrasound. Han's taxonomy of uncertainty was used as a framework to identify and understand the different types of uncertainty experienced. Interviews were held in the UK (n = 8 women and n = 1 male partner) and in the Netherlands (n = 7 women) with participants who had experienced uncertainty in their pregnancy after a fetal scan. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and the uncertainties experienced by parents were mapped against the dimensions of the Han taxonomy (sources, issues, and locus). Participants' experience of uncertainty was relevant to all dimensions and subcategories of the Han taxonomy, showing its applicability in the prenatal setting. Sources of uncertainty included receiving probabilistic or ambiguous information about the anomaly, or information that was complex and challenging to understand. Issues of uncertainty included were those that were scientific-such as a probable diagnosis with no further information, personal-such as the emotional impact of uncertainty, and practical-such as limited information about medical procedures and practical aspects of care. Additionally, participants described what helped them to manage uncertainty. This included active coping strategies such as searching for information on the Internet, external coping resources such as seeking social support, and internal coping resources such as using positivity and hope. Several recommendations for the healthcare professional to minimize uncertainty and help the patient deal with uncertainty have been proposed based on these findings.

"Doctors can read about it, they can know about it, but they've never lived with it": How parents use social media throughout the diagnostic odyssey.

Parents of children with undiagnosed conditions struggle to obtain information about how to treat and support their children. It can be particularly challenging to find communities and other parents who share their experiences and can provide emotional and informational support. This study sought to characterize how parents use social media, both throughout the diagnostic odyssey and post-diagnosis, to meet their informational, social, and emotional support needs. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 14 parents from the Stanford site of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), including five whose children had received a diagnosis through study participation. Interview recordings were analyzed using inductive, team-based coding and thematic analysis based in grounded theory using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Through this process, we identified four key themes related to social media use. First, parents struggled to find the "right" community, often seeking out groups of similar patients based on symptoms or similar conditions. Second, though they found much valuable information through social media about caring for their child, they also struggled to interpret the relevance of the information to their own child's condition. Third, the social support and access to other patients' and families' lived experiences were described as both highly valued and emotionally challenging, particularly in the case of poor outcomes for similar families. Finally, parents expressed the need to balance concerns about their child's privacy with the value of transparency and data sharing for diagnosis. Our results suggest that the needs and experiences of undiagnosed patients and families differ from those with diagnosed diseases and highlight the need for support in best utilizing social media resources at different stages of the diagnostic odyssey.

Human Germline Genome Editing.

With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

"I don't want to be Henrietta Lacks": diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research.

PURPOSE: To determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections. METHODS: We conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian, and non-Hispanic white on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research. RESULTS: Our study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data. CONCLUSION: Considering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great as, if not greater than, for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives, and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

Developing a conceptual, reproducible, rubric-based approach to consent and result disclosure for genetic testing by clinicians with minimal genetics background.

PURPOSE: In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians. METHODS: We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics. RESULTS: Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a "typical" patient. CONCLUSION: We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

Genetic counselors' perceptions of uncertainty in pretest counseling for genomic sequencing: A qualitative study.

Increased usage of exome and genome sequencing has made uncertainties associated with genomic sequencing methods more prevalent within medicine. Current research focuses on patients' perceptions of uncertainty related to genomic sequencing, but there is limited knowledge of the perspectives of providers. The aim of this study was to explore how professionals in genomics perceive uncertainties involved in genomic sequencing, and if or how this impacts their approach to pretest counseling. We performed 20 semi-structured interviews with genetic counselors in the United States and Canada who provide pretest genetic counseling for genomic sequencing. Interviews explored participating genetic counselors' views of uncertainty regarding genomic sequencing, how they classify it, how it manifests, and how they manage it during pretest counseling. Thematic analysis showed that genetic counselors acknowledge concepts of uncertainty that map to existing frameworks of uncertainty for genomic sequencing. Genetic counselors also perceived incongruencies between patients' and providers' expectations of genomic sequencing, which prompted them to modify patients' perceptions of uncertainty related to genomic sequencing. All genetic counselors agreed that guidance and strategies for genomic sequencing pretest counseling would be helpful, particularly for novice genetic counselors and non-genetics providers. These findings highlight the need and potential for conceptual models of uncertainty and uncertainty management strategies to facilitate patient-centered pretest counseling for genomic sequencing.