Familial communication and cascade testing following elective genomic testing.

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty.

Aim: To understand how attitudes toward pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing among healthcare providers varies by specialty. Methods: Providers reported comfort ordering PGx testing and its perceived utility on web-based surveys before and after genetics education. Primary quantitative analyses compared primary care providers (PCPs) to specialty providers at both timepoints. Results: PCPs were more likely than specialty care providers to rate PGx testing as useful at both timepoints. Education increased comfort ordering PGx tests, with larger improvements among PCPs than specialty providers. Over 90% of cardiology and internal medicine providers rated PGx testing as useful at pre- and post-education. Conclusion: PCPs overwhelmingly perceive PGx to be useful, and provider education is particularly effective for improving PCPs' confidence. Education for all specialties will be essential to ensure appropriate integration into routine practice.

Public perspective on medications to delay Alzheimer's disease symptoms.

Disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease are emerging. Our research examined how personal risk for AD may influence intentions to ask for medications to delay symptoms of AD, and how the availability of such medications impacts interest in AD-related genetic testing. Invitations to a web-based survey were posted on social media sites. Respondents were sequentially assigned to imagine that they had a 5%, 15%, or 35% chance of developing AD. They were then provided a hypothetical scenario describing a medication that delayed AD symptoms. After reporting intentions to ask for the medication, respondents were asked about their interest in genetic testing to predict AD risk. Data from 310 individuals were analyzed. Intentions to ask for a preventative medication were greater for respondents presented AD risks of 35% compared to risks of 15% and 5% (86% vs. 66% vs. 62%, respectively, p < 0.001). The proportion who would ask for genetic susceptibility testing increased from 58% to 79% when respondents were told to imagine that a medication that delayed AD symptoms existed (p < 0.001). Findings suggest that individuals who know they have an increased risk for AD are more likely pursue medications to delay onset of disease symptoms, and the availability of AD-delaying treatments will increase interest in associated genetic testing. Findings provide insight about who will pursue emerging preventative medications, including individuals for whom the medications may be inappropriate, and the impact on genetic test utilization.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing. METHODS: We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision. RESULTS: Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision. CONCLUSION: Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Awareness and utilization of genetic testing among Hispanic and Latino adults living in the US: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.

We investigated the awareness, perceived usefulness, and use of genetic testing among Hispanic and Latino individuals. Annual follow-up surveys for the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) from 2019 to April 2020 assessed participants' level of awareness and use of genetic tests to determine disease risks, likelihood of passing disease to children, disease treatment, or drug selection. They also were asked to rate the usefulness of the tests for managing a person's health on a 1 (not at all useful) to 10 (extremely useful) scale. There were 5,769 HCHS/SOL participants who completed at least one survey question. Of the target population, 55.2% was aware of at least one type of genetic test. Awareness varied between HCHS/SOL enrollment sites and was higher among individuals who had higher educational attainment and had higher incomes. Only 3.3% of the target population reported receiving one or more of the tests described. HCHS/SOL individuals rated the usefulness as 8.4, on average, with lower scores observed among U.S.-born individuals compared to individuals born outside the United States, with differences by HCHS/SOL enrollment sites. In conclusion, while awareness of genetic testing among Hispanic and Latino individuals varies by location, education, and income, perceptions about its usefulness are high while experiences with testing are rare. Results identify groups and locations that may benefit from greater outreach about the capabilities of genetic testing and precision medicine.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program.

This paper describes one healthcare system's approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Assessing co-occurring mental health conditions in a multidisciplinary Down syndrome clinic and the role of family history.

Compared to the general population, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are at a significantly increased risk to develop mental health conditions. This study sought to examine individuals with DS and co-existing mental health comorbidities at one DS specialty clinic. Retrospective chart review of medical records including demographics, genetic testing history, personal and familial mental health history, referrals for mental health indications, and recommendations was performed. Summary statistics, logistic regression, and log of odds were converted to odd ratios to assess associations and significance. The charts of 327 patients, average 19.4 years of age (1-70), were reviewed. Nearly half the participants (42.2%) had at least one diagnosis of a mental health condition. Those with a family history were significantly more likely to have a personal diagnosis of a mental health condition than those without a family history (p < 0.01). Moreover, those who completed referrals often received medical management recommendations (86%). This study highlights the prevalence of mental health comorbidities among individuals with DS, and the referral process for mental health conditions, at one DS specialty clinic. Further research is needed to investigate our family history findings, and to determine if these results are generalizable across other DS clinics.

Parental Attitudes Toward Standard Newborn Screening and Newborn Genomic Sequencing: Findings From the BabySeq Study.

Introduction: With increasing utility and decreasing cost of genomic sequencing, augmentation of standard newborn screening (NBS) programs with newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has been proposed. Before nGS can be integrated into newborn screening, parents' perspectives must be better understood. Objective: Using data from surveys administered to parents of healthy newborns who were enrolled in the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial of nGS alongside NBS, this paper reports parents' attitudes regarding population-based NBS and nGS assessed 3 months after results disclosure. Methods: Parental attitudes regarding whether all newborns should receive, and whether informed consent should be required for, NBS and nGS, as well as whether nGS should be mandated were assessed using 5-point scales from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). Parents' interest in receiving types of results from nGS was assessed on a 5-point scale from not at all interested (=1) to very interested (=5). Survey responses were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: At 3 months post-disclosure, 248 parents of 174 healthy newborns submitted a survey. Support for every newborn receiving standard NBS (mean 4.67) was higher than that for every newborn receiving nGS (mean 3.60; p < 0.001). Support for required informed consent for NBS (mean 3.44) was lower than that for nGS (mean 4.27, p < 0.001). Parents' attitudes toward NBS and nGS were not significantly associated with self-reported political orientation. If hypothetically receiving nGS outside of the BabySeq Project, most parents reported being very interested in receiving information on their baby's risk of developing a disease in childhood that can be prevented, treated, or cured (86.8%) and their risk of developing a disease during adulthood that can be prevented, treated, or cured (84.6%). Discussion: Parents' opinions are crucial to inform design and delivery of public health programs, as the success of the program hinges on parents' trust and participation. To accommodate parents' preferences without affecting the current high participation rates in NBS, an optional add-on consent to nGS in addition to NBS may be a feasible approach. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

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.

Psychosocial Effect of Newborn Genomic Sequencing on Families in the BabySeq Project: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) may provide health benefits throughout the life span, but there are concerns that it could also have an unfavorable (ie, negative) psychosocial effect on families. Objective: To assess the psychosocial effect of nGS on families from the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of nGS on the clinical care of newborns from well-baby nurseries and intensive care units. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted from May 14, 2015, to May 21, 2019, at well-baby nurseries and intensive care units at 3 Boston, Massachusetts, area hospitals, 519 parents of 325 infants completed surveys at enrollment, immediately after disclosure of nGS results, and 3 and 10 months after results disclosure. Statistical analysis was performed on a per-protocol basis from January 16, 2019, to December 1, 2019. Intervention: Newborns were randomized to receive either standard newborn screening and a family history report (control group) or the same plus an nGS report of childhood-onset conditions and highly actionable adult-onset conditions (nGS group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean responses were compared between groups and, within the nGS group, between parents of children who received a monogenic disease risk finding and those who did not in 3 domains of psychosocial impact: parent-child relationship (Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale), parents' relationship (Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale), and parents' psychological distress (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale). Results: A total of 519 parents (275 women [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 35.1 [4.5] years) were included in this study. Although mean scores differed for some outcomes at singular time points, generalized estimating equations models did not show meaningful differences in parent-child relationship (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale scores: postdisclosure, 0.04 [0.15]; 3 months, -0.18 [0.18]; 10 months, -0.07 [0.20]; joint P = .57) or parents' psychological distress (between-group ratio of adjusted mean [SE] Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores: postdisclosure, 1.04 [0.08]; 3 months, 1.07 [0.11]; joint P = .80) response patterns between study groups over time for any measures analyzed in these 2 domains. Response patterns on one parents' relationship measure differed between groups over time (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale scores: postdisclosure, -0.19 [0.07]; 3 months, -0.04 [0.07]; and 10 months, -0.01 [0.08]; joint P = .02), but the effect decreased over time and no difference was observed on the conflict measure responses over time. We found no evidence of persistent negative psychosocial effect in any domain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of nGS, there was no persistent negative psychosocial effect on families among those who received nGS nor among those who received a monogenic disease risk finding for their infant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511.

Universal newborn genetic screening for pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes: model-based insights.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing for pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) could augment newborn screening programs, but with uncertain benefits and costs. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to evaluate universal screening for a CPS panel. Cohorts of US newborns were simulated under universal screening versus usual care. Using data from clinical studies, ClinVar, and gnomAD, the presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in RET, RB1, TP53, DICER1, SUFU, PTCH1, SMARCB1, WT1, APC, ALK, and PHOX2B were assigned at birth. Newborns with identified variants underwent guideline surveillance. Survival benefit was modeled via reductions in advanced disease, cancer deaths, and treatment-related late mortality, assuming 100% adherence. RESULTS: Among 3.7 million newborns, under usual care, 1,803 developed a CPS malignancy before age 20. With universal screening, 13.3% were identified at birth as at-risk due to P/LP variant detection and underwent surveillance, resulting in a 53.5% decrease in cancer deaths in P/LP heterozygotes and a 7.8% decrease among the entire cohort before age 20. Given a test cost of $55, universal screening cost $244,860 per life-year gained; with a $20 test, the cost fell to $99,430 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Population-based genetic testing of newborns may reduce mortality associated with pediatric cancers and could be cost-effective as sequencing costs decline.