The National Academies' Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health: Where we have been and where we are heading.

The clinical application of genetics and genomics to advance precision health is one of the most dynamic and promising areas of medicine. In 2020, building on nearly 15 years of work, the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine undertook a strategic planning process to assess its strengths, consider the current challenges facing the field, and set out new goals for its future work. As a result, the Roundtable has updated its vision and mission and prioritized four major areas of inquiry-innovation, dialogue, equity, and adoption-while keeping true to its founding goal of providing a neutral convening space for the diversity of stakeholders in genomics and precision health. The Roundtable is unique for its breadth of membership and is committed to fostering a new era for precision health built on decades of expanding knowledge and the emergence of new technologies. To achieve its goals, the Roundtable seeks to broaden its membership's diversity and to engage with new audiences. Roundtable members explore how evidence-based discoveries in genomics could be adopted and used in innovative ways to better serve human health, how equitable access to genomic and precision health technologies can be ensured, and how the Roundtable and broader genomics and precision health community can communicate more effectively to inform the public regarding genomics and precision health. As a first principle, the Roundtable is working to support the overall goal that all people benefit from genomics for precision health.

Correction: A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002631.].

A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

In a Policy Forum, Muin Khoury and colleagues discuss research on the clinical application of genome sequencing data.

Implementation science, genomic precision medicine, and improved health: A new path forward?

Implementation of genomic discoveries into health care optimally includes evaluation of outcomes for recipients of care, providers, payers, and health care systems. However, the influence of specific aspects of the implementation process on observed outcomes may be missed if assessment of implementation success is not built into the implementation design. The intersection of implementation science with genomics may provide new insights on how to maximize the benefits of emerging genomic technologies in health care. In this summary, members of the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, formerly the Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the American Academy of Nursing explore challenges and opportunities for nurses to participate in implementing genomic discoveries into their practice informed by the principles of implementation science. Implementation requires collaboration across disciplines. Nurses can take leadership roles in engaging key stakeholders in health care organizations, assuring that communications regarding implementation are consistent with genomic literacy for each group of stakeholders, and planning for evaluation of data to assess how each component of the implementation process affected the overall outcome for health care.

Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review.

Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2-fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high-risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633-2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Preliminary validation of a consumer-oriented colorectal cancer risk assessment tool compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait.

PURPOSE: This study examines the analytic validity of a software tool designed to provide individuals with risk assessments for colorectal cancer based on personal health and family history information. The software is compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (MFHP). METHODS: An algorithm for risk assessment was created using accepted colorectal risk assessment guidelines and programmed into a software tool (MFHP). Risk assessments derived from 150 pedigrees using the MFHP tool were compared with "gold standard" risk assessments developed by three expert cancer genetic counselors. RESULTS: Genetic counselor risk assessments showed substantial, but not perfect, agreement. MFHP risk assessments for colorectal cancer yielded a sensitivity for colorectal cancer risk of 81% (95% confidence interval: 54-96%) and specificity of 90% (95% confidence interval: 83-94%), as compared with genetic counselor pedigree review. The positive predictive value for risk for MFHP was 48% (95% confidence interval: 29-68%), whereas the negative predictive value was 98% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Agreement between MFHP and genetic counselor pedigree review was moderate (κ = 0.54). CONCLUSION: The analytic validity of the MFHP colorectal cancer risk assessment software is similar to those of other types of screening tools used in primary care. Future investigations should explore the clinical validity and utility of the software in diverse population groups.Genet Med 17 9, 753-756.

Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable.

Genomic research has generated much new knowledge into mechanisms of human disease, with the potential to catalyze novel drug discovery and development, prenatal and neonatal screening, clinical pharmacogenomics, more sensitive risk prediction, and enhanced diagnostics. Genomic medicine, however, has been limited by critical evidence gaps, especially those related to clinical utility and applicability to diverse populations. Genomic medicine may have the greatest impact on health care if it is integrated into primary care, where most health care is received and where evidence supports the value of personalized medicine grounded in continuous healing relationships. Redesigned primary care is the most relevant setting for clinically useful genomic medicine research. Taking insights gained from the activities of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, we apply lessons learned from the patient-centered medical home national experience to implement genomic medicine in a patient-centered, learning health care system.

Genetics professionals' opinions of whole-genome sequencing in the newborn period.

Newborn screening (NBS) programs have been successful in identifying infants with rare, treatable, congenital conditions. While current programs rely largely on biochemical analysis, some predict that in the future, genome sequencing may be used as an adjunct. The purpose of this exploratory pilot study was to begin to characterize genetics professionals' opinions of the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in NBS. We surveyed members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) via an electronic survey distributed through email. The survey included questions about results disclosure, the current NBS paradigm, and the current criteria for adding a condition to the screening panel. The response rate was 7.3 % (n = 113/1549). The majority of respondents (85 %, n = 96/113) felt that WGS should not be currently used in NBS, and that if it were used, it should not be mandatory (86.5 %, n = 96/111). However, 75.7 % (n = 84/111) foresee it as a future use of WGS. Respondents felt that accurate interpretation of results (86.5 %, n = 83/96), a more extensive consent process (72.6 %, n = 69/95), pre- (79.2 %, n = 76/96) and post-test (91.6 %, n = 87/95) counseling, and comparable costs (70.8 %, n = 68/96) and turn-around-times (64.6 %, n = 62/96) to current NBS would be important for using WGS in NBS. Participants were in favor of disclosing most types of results at some point in the lifetime. However, the majority (87.3 %, n = 96/110) also indicated that parents should be able to choose what results are disclosed. Overall, respondents foresee NBS as a future use of WGS, but indicated that WGS should not occur within the framework of traditional NBS. They agreed with the current criteria for including a condition on the recommended uniform screening panel (RUSP). Further discussion about these criteria is needed in order to better understand how they could be utilized if WGS is incorporated into NBS.

Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care.

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile," (PHP) is a free genetic risk assessment software tool for primary prenatal providers that collects patient-entered family (FHH), personal, and obstetrical health history, performs risk assessment, and presents the provider with clinical decision support during the prenatal encounter. The tool is freely available for download at www.hughesriskapps.net. We evaluated the implementation of PHP in four geographically diverse clinical sites. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients seen prior to the study period and for patients who used the PHP to collect data on documentation of FHH, discussion of cystic fibrosis (CF) and hemoglobinopathy (HB) carrier screening, and CF and HB interventions (tests, referrals). Five hundred pre-implementation phase and 618 implementation phase charts were reviewed. Documentation of a 3-generation FHH or pedigree improved at three sites; patient race/ethnicity at three sites, father of the baby (FOB) race/ethnicity at all sites, and ancestry for the patient and FOB at three sites (P < 0.001-0001). CF counseling improved for implementation phase patients at one site (8% vs. 48%, P < 0.0001) and CF screening/referrals at two (2% vs. 14%, P < 0.0001; 6% vs. 14%; P = 0.05). Counseling and intervention rates did not increase for HB. This preliminary study suggests that the PHP can improve documentation of FHH, race, and ancestry, as well as the compliance with current CF counseling and intervention guidelines in some prenatal clinics. Future evaluation of the PHP should include testing in a larger number of clinical environments, assessment of additional performance measures, and evaluation of the system's overall clinical utility.

Evaluation of a novel electronic genetic screening and clinical decision support tool in prenatal clinical settings.

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile" (PHP) is a free prenatal genetic screening and clinical decision support (CDS) software tool for prenatal providers. PHP collects family health history (FHH) during intake and provides point-of-care risk assessment for providers and education for patients. This pilot study evaluated patient and provider responses to PHP and effects of using PHP in practice. PHP was implemented in four clinics. Surveys assessed provider confidence and knowledge and patient and provider satisfaction with PHP. Data on the implementation process were obtained through semi-structured interviews with administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Chi square test, Fisher's exact test, paired t tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Of the 83% (513/618) of patients that provided feedback, 97% felt PHP was easy to use and 98% easy to understand. Thirty percent (21/71) of participating physicians completed both pre- and post-implementation feedback surveys [13 obstetricians (OBs) and 8 family medicine physicians (FPs)]. Confidence in managing genetic risks significantly improved for OBs on 2/6 measures (p values ≤0.001) but not for FPs. Physician knowledge did not significantly change. Providers reported value in added patient engagement and reported mixed feedback about the CDS report. We identified key steps, resources, and staff support required to implement PHP in a clinical setting. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on the integration of patient-completed, electronically captured and CDS-enabled FHH software into primary prenatal practice. PHP is acceptable to patients and providers. Key to successful implementation in the future will be customization options and interoperability with electronic health records.

A blueprint for genomic nursing science.

PURPOSE: This article reports on recommendations arising from an invitational workshop series held at the National Institutes of Health for the purposes of identifying critical genomics problems important to the health of the public that can be addressed through nursing science. The overall purpose of the Genomic Nursing State of the Science Initiative is to establish a nursing research blueprint based on gaps in the evidence and expert evaluation of the current state of the science and through public comment. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: A Genomic Nursing State of the Science Advisory Panel was convened in 2012 to develop the nursing research blueprint. The Advisory Panel, which met via two webinars and two in-person meetings, considered existing evidence from evidence reviews, testimony from key stakeholder groups, presentations from experts in research synthesis, and public comment. FINDINGS: The genomic nursing science blueprint arising from the Genomic Nursing State of Science Advisory Panel focuses on biologic plausibility studies as well as interventions likely to improve a variety of outcomes (e.g., clinical, economic, environmental). It also includes all care settings and diverse populations. The focus is on (a) the client, defined as person, family, community, or population; (b) the context, targeting informatics support systems, capacity building, education, and environmental influences; and (c) cross-cutting themes. It was agreed that building capacity to measure the impact of nursing actions on costs, quality, and outcomes of patient care is a strategic and scientific priority if findings are to be synthesized and aggregated to inform practice and policy. CONCLUSIONS: The genomic nursing science blueprint provides the framework for furthering genomic nursing science to improve health outcomes. This blueprint is an independent recommendation of the Advisory Panel with input from the public and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the federal government. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This genomic nursing science blueprint targets research to build the evidence base to inform integration of genomics into nursing practice and regulation (such as nursing licensure requirements, institutional accreditation, and academic nursing school accreditation).