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.

Building a family network from genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing has multigenerational and familial repercussions. However, the "trickle-down effect" of providing genetic counseling and testing to family members at risk after an initial identification of a pathogenic variant in a medically actionable gene has been poorly understood. METHODS: Three probands were identified during the pharmacogenetics research phase of eMERGEII (electronic MEdical Record and Genomics, phase II) to have variants in genes associated with autosomal dominant adult-onset disorders determined to be actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG). Two of the three probands had variants that were classified as pathogenic and the third proband had a variant ultimately classified of uncertain significance, but of concern due to the proband's own phenotype. All probands had additional family members at risk for inheriting the variant. Two of the three probands had family members who received their medical care from the same health care system, Group Health Cooperative (GHC). It was recommended that the proband contact their family members at risk to be referred to genetic counseling for consideration of genetic testing. RESULTS: The two probands with pathogenic variants contacted some of their family members at risk. Individuals contacted included children and adult grandchildren, particularly if they received their medical care at GHC. To the best of our knowledge, siblings and more distant relatives at risk were not informed by the proband of their genetic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a family network is essential to disseminate knowledge of genetic risk. These three initial cases describe our experience of contacting eMERGE participants with identified variants, providing the probands with appropriate genetic counseling and care coordination, and recommendations for contacting family members at risk. Greater challenges were observed for coordinating genetics care for family members and extending the family network to include other relatives at risk.