COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity among participants enrolled in the GENCOV study.

BACKGROUND: GENCOV is a prospective, observational cohort study of COVID-19-positive adults. Here, we characterize and compare side effects between COVID-19 vaccines and determine whether reactogenicity is exacerbated by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants were recruited across Ontario, Canada. Participant-reported demographic and COVID-19 vaccination data were collected using a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether vaccine manufacturer, type, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are associated with reactogenicity. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from n = 554 participants. Tiredness and localized side effects were the most common reactions across vaccine doses. For most participants, side effects occurred and subsided within 1-2 days. Recipients of Moderna mRNA and AstraZeneca vector vaccines reported reactions more frequently compared to recipients of a Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with developing side effects. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence of relatively mild and short-lived reactions reported by participants who have received approved COVID-19 vaccines.

Parents' attitudes towards research involving genome sequencing of their healthy children: a qualitative study.

With widespread genomic sequencing research efforts, there is increasing impetus to return results to participants. Parents of healthy children are increasingly asked to participate in genomic research, yet there are limited studies of parental expectations for the return of results amongst healthy children. We explored parental attitudes towards their healthy children's participation in genomic research and expectations for return of results. Data collection involved semi-structured telephone interviews with parents of healthy children participating in a primary care research network. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. A total of 26 parents were interviewed: 22 were female, 19 self-reported as White/European, and 20 were aged 30-39. Three themes emerged: (1) Reciprocity; Parents preferred to receive medically actionable, childhood-onset results and expected recontact overtime in exchange for their research participation. (2) Downstream impacts of testing; Parents expected future clinical benefits but were concerned about the risk of genetic discrimination. (3) Power and empowerment; Some parents felt empowered to take preventative action for their child and relatives, while others did not want to limit their child's autonomy. Considering these tensions may help to inform participant-centered approaches to optimize parental decision-making and participation, as well as maximize the utility of results.

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

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

Characterizing Risk Factors for Hospitalization and Clinical Characteristics in a Cohort of COVID-19 Patients Enrolled in the GENCOV Study.

The GENCOV study aims to identify patient factors which affect COVID-19 severity and outcomes. Here, we aimed to evaluate patient characteristics, acute symptoms and their persistence, and associations with hospitalization. Participants were recruited at hospital sites across the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Patient-reported demographics, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms and complications were collected through an intake survey. Regression analyses were performed to identify associations with outcomes including hospitalization and COVID-19 symptoms. In total, 966 responses were obtained from 1106 eligible participants (87% response rate) between November 2020 and May 2022. Increasing continuous age (aOR: 1.05 [95%CI: 1.01-1.08]) and BMI (aOR: 1.17 [95%CI: 1.10-1.24]), non-White/European ethnicity (aOR: 2.72 [95%CI: 1.22-6.05]), hypertension (aOR: 2.78 [95%CI: 1.22-6.34]), and infection by viral variants (aOR: 5.43 [95%CI: 1.45-20.34]) were identified as risk factors for hospitalization. Several symptoms including shortness of breath and fever were found to be more common among inpatients and tended to persist for longer durations following acute illness. Sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, vaccination status, viral strain, and underlying health conditions were associated with developing and having persistent symptoms. By improving our understanding of risk factors for severe COVID-19, our findings may guide COVID-19 patient management strategies by enabling more efficient clinical decision making.

Public knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 serological and viral lineage laboratory testing and result interpretation: A GENCOV study cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and result interpretation can be challenging to understand. A cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 positive adults residing in Ontario, Canada was conducted to explore how well people understand SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and their associated results. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were recruited through fliers or by prospective recruitment of outpatients and hospitalized inpatients with COVID-19. Enrolled participants included consenting adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. An 11-item questionnaire was developed by researchers, nurses, and physicians in the study team and was administered online between April 2021 to May 2022 upon enrolment into the study. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 940 of 1106 eligible participants (85% participation rate). Most respondents understood 1) that antibody results should not influence adherence to social distancing measures (n = 602/888, 68%), 2) asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection following test positivity (n = 698/888, 79%), 3) serological test sensitivity in relation to post-infection timeline (n = 540/891, 61%), and 4) limitations of experts' knowledge related to SARS-CoV-2 serology (n = 693/887, 78%). Conversely, respondents demonstrated challenges understanding 1) conflicting molecular and serological test results and their relationship with immune protection (n = 162/893, 18%) and 2) the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on vaccine effectiveness (n = 235/891, 26%). Analysis of responses stratified by sociodemographic variables identified that respondents who were either: 1) female, 2) more educated, 3) aged 18-44, 4) from a high-income household, or 5) healthcare workers responded expectedly more often. CONCLUSIONS: We have highlighted concepts related to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory tests and associated results which may be challenging to understand. The findings of this study enable us to identify 1) misconceptions related to various SARS-CoV-2 test results, 2) groups of individuals at risk, and 3) strategies to improve people's understanding of their test results.

Germline whole genome sequencing in adults with multiple primary tumors.

Multiple primary tumors (MPTs) are a harbinger of hereditary cancer syndromes. Affected individuals often fit genetic testing criteria for a number of hereditary cancer genes and undergo multigene panel testing. Other genomic testing options, such as whole exome (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are available, but the utility of these genomic approaches as a second-tier test for those with uninformative multigene panel testing has not been explored. Here, we report our germline sequencing results from WGS in 9 patients with MPTs who had non-informative multigene panel testing. Following germline WGS, sequence (agnostic or 735 selected genes) and copy number variant (CNV) analysis was performed according to the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) standards and guidelines for interpreting sequence variants and reporting CNVs. In this cohort, WGS, as a second-tier test, did not identify additional pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes. Although we identified a CHEK2 likely pathogenic variant and a MUTYH pathogenic variant, both were previously identified in the multigene panels and were not explanatory for the presented type of tumors. CNV analysis also failed to identify any pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes. In summary, after multigene panel testing, WGS did not reveal any additional pathogenic variants in patients with MPTs. Our study, based on a small cohort of patients with MPT, suggests that germline gene panel testing may be sufficient to investigate these cases. Future studies with larger sample sizes may further elucidate the additional utility of WGS in MPTs.

HLA Variation and SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibody Response.

Differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses have been observed between individuals following natural infection or vaccination. In addition to already known factors, such as age, sex, COVID-19 severity, comorbidity, vaccination status, hybrid immunity, and duration of infection, inter-individual variations in SARS-CoV-2 immune responses may, in part, be explained by structural differences brought about by genetic variation in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules responsible for the presentation of SARS-CoV-2 antigens to T effector cells. While dendritic cells present peptides with HLA class I molecules to CD8+ T cells to induce cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses (CTLs), they present peptides with HLA class II molecules to T follicular helper cells to induce B cell differentiation followed by memory B cell and plasma cell maturation. Plasma cells then produce SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we review published data linking HLA genetic variation or polymorphisms with differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses. While there is evidence that heterogeneity in antibody response might be related to HLA variation, there are conflicting findings due in part to differences in study designs. We provide insight into why more research is needed in this area. Elucidating the genetic basis of variability in the SARS-CoV-2 immune response will help to optimize diagnostic tools and lead to the development of new vaccines and therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases.

Exploring the role of a multidisciplinary hereditary gynecologic oncology clinic in epithelial ovarian cancer risk-reducing surgical decision-making practices: A mixed-methods study.

Individuals that have gynecologic reproductive organs with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 ("BRCA-positive") have an increased risk of developing high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). The majority of HGSOC develops in the fallopian tubes and later spreads to the ovaries and peritoneal cavity. Therefore, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is recommended for those who are BRCA-positive to preventatively remove their ovaries and fallopian tubes. The Hereditary Gynecology Clinic (HGC) is a provincial program in Winnipeg, Canada, that specifically targets care to the unique needs of such individuals through an interdisciplinary team of gynecological oncologists, menopause specialists, and registered nurses. A mixed-methods study design was used to explore the decision-making processes of these BRCA-positive individuals who have been recommended (or who completed) RRSO and experiences with healthcare providers at the HGC influenced this decision. Individuals who are BRCA-positive without a previous diagnosis of HGSOC and who had previously received genetic counselling were recruited from the HGC and the provincial cancer genetics program (Shared Health Program of Genetics & Metabolism). Forty-three people completed a survey and 15 participated in an in-depth interview about their experiences and decisions surrounding RRSO. Surveys were analyzed to compare scores on validated scales related to decision-making and cancer-related worry. Qualitative interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using interpretive description. Participants described the complex decisions faced by those who are BRCA-positive, which are intertwined with life experiences and circumstances including age, marital status, and family disease history. Participants interpreted their HGSOC risk through a personalized "lens" of contextual factors that impacted perceptions about the practical and emotional implications of RRSO and the need for surgery. Mean scores on validated scales evaluating the HGC's impact on decisional outcomes and preparedness for decision-making about RRSO were not significant, indicating that the HGC played a supportive role, rather than helping with decision-making itself. Therefore, we present a novel framework that consolidates the various influences on decision-making and connects them to the psychological and practical implications of RRSO in the context of the HGC. Strategies for improving support, decisional outcomes, and the overall experiences of individuals who are BRCA-positive attending the HGC are also described.

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations.

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

Genome Reporting for Healthy Populations-Pipeline for Genomic Screening from the GENCOV COVID-19 Study.

Genome sequencing holds the promise for great public health benefits. It is currently being used in the context of rare disease diagnosis and novel gene identification, but also has the potential to identify genetic disease risk factors in healthy individuals. Genome sequencing technologies are currently being used to identify genetic factors that may influence variability in symptom severity and immune response among patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The GENCOV study aims to look at the relationship between genetic, serological, and biochemical factors and variability of SARS-CoV-2 symptom severity, and to evaluate the utility of returning genome screening results to study participants. Study participants select which results they wish to receive with a decision aid. Medically actionable information for diagnosis, disease risk estimation, disease prevention, and patient management are provided in a comprehensive genome report. Using a combination of bioinformatics software and custom tools, this article describes a pipeline for the analysis and reporting of genetic results to individuals with COVID-19, including HLA genotyping, large-scale continental ancestry estimation, and pharmacogenomic analysis to determine metabolizer status and drug response. In addition, this pipeline includes reporting of medically actionable conditions from comprehensive gene panels for Cardiology, Neurology, Metabolism, Hereditary Cancer, and Hereditary Kidney, and carrier screening for reproductive planning. Incorporated into the genome report are polygenic risk scores for six diseases-coronary artery disease; atrial fibrillation; type-2 diabetes; and breast, prostate, and colon cancer-as well as blood group genotyping analysis for ABO and Rh blood types and genotyping for other antigens of clinical relevance. The genome report summarizes the findings of these analyses in a way that extensively communicates clinically relevant results to patients and their physicians. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: HLA genotyping and disease association Basic Protocol 2: Large-scale continental ancestry estimation Basic Protocol 3: Dosage recommendations for pharmacogenomic gene variants associated with drug response Support Protocol: System setup.

Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children.

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results.

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. REGISTRATION: N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results.

Guidelines recommend patients be informed of their incidental results (IR) when undergoing genomic sequencing (GS), yet there are limited tools to support patients' decisions about learning IR. The aim of this study is to develop and test the usability of a decision aid (DA) to guide patients' selection of IR, and to describe patients' preferences for learning IR following use of the DA. We developed and evaluated a DA using an iterative, mixed-methods process consisting of (1) prototype development, (2) feasibility testing, (3) cognitive interviews, (4) design and programming, and (5) usability testing. We created an interactive online DA called the Genomics ADvISER, a genomics decision AiD about Incidental SEquencing Results. The Genomics ADvISER begins with an educational whiteboard video, and then engages users in a values clarification exercise, knowledge quiz and final choice step, based on a 'binning' framework. Participants found the DA acceptable and intuitive to use. They were enthusiastic towards GS and IR; all selected multiple categories of IR. The Genomics ADvISER is a new patient-centered tool to support the clinical delivery of incidental GS results. The Genomics ADvISER fills critical care gaps, given the health care system's limited genomics expertise and capacity to convey the large volume of IR and their myriad of implications.

Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03244202; Pre-results.