Search

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.

Emerging genetic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS) can generate a broad range of benefits, but funding criteria only prioritize diagnosis and clinical management. There is limited evidence on all types of benefits obtained from GS in practice. We aimed to explore real-world experiences of Canadian clinicians across specialties on the full range of benefits obtained from the results from GS.We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with Canadian clinicians. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using constant comparison.In total, 25 clinicians participated, including 12 geneticists, 7 genetic counselors, 4 oncologists, 1 neurologist, and 1 family physician. Although diagnoses and management were the most valued benefits of GS, clinicians also prioritized nontraditional utility, such as access to community supports. However, clinicians felt "restricted" by funding bodies, which only approved funding when GS would inform diagnoses and management. Consequently, clinicians sought ways to "cheat the system" to access GS (eg, research testing) but acknowledged workarounds were burdensome, drove inequity, and undermined patient care.Current governance structures undervalue real-world benefits of GS leading clinicians to adopt workarounds, which jeopardize patient care. These results support calls for the expansion of the definition of clinical utility and research to quantify the additional benefits.

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) predispose individuals to a higher risk of developing multiple cancers. However, current screening strategies have limited ability to screen for all cancer risks. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detects DNA fragments shed by tumour cells in the bloodstream and can potentially detect cancers early. This study aimed to explore patients’ perspectives on ctDNA’s utility to help inform its clinical adoption and implementation. We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study using semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were purposively sampled adult HCS patients recruited from a Canadian HCS research consortium. Thirty HCS patients were interviewed (n=19 women, age range 20s-70s, n=25 were white). Participants were highly concerned about developing cancers, particularly those without reliable screening options for early detection. They “just wanted more” than their current screening strategies. Participants were enthusiastic about ctDNA’s potential to be comprehensive (detect multiple cancers), predictive (detect cancers early) and tailored (lead to the personalized clinical management). Participants also acknowledged ctDNA’s potential limitations, including false positives/negatives risks and experiencing additional anxiety. However, they saw ctDNA’s potential benefits outweighing its limitations. In conclusion, participants’ belief in ctDNA’s potential to improve their care overshadowed its limitations, indicating patients’ support for using ctDNA in HCS care.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Purpose Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada. Methods A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses. Results Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74–81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs. Conclusion This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

IntroductionThe high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey.Methods and analysisWe will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20–035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04725565.

This study systematically reviewed the literature on the impact of digital genetics tools on patient care and system efficiencies. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for articles published between January 2010 and March 2021. Studies evaluating the use of patient-facing digital tools in the context of genetic service delivery were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted patient-reported and system-focused outcomes from each study. Data were synthesised using a descriptive approach. Of 3226 unique studies identified, 87 were included. A total of 70 unique digital tools were identified. As a result of using digital tools, 84% of studies reported a positive outcome in at least one of the following patient outcomes: knowledge, psychosocial well-being, behavioural/management changes, family communication, decision-making or level of engagement. Digital tools improved workflow and efficiency for providers and reduced the amount of time they needed to spend with patients. However, we identified a misalignment between study purpose and patient-reported outcomes measured and a lack of tools that encompass the entire genetic counselling and testing trajectory. Given increased demand for genetic services and the shift towards virtual care, this review provides evidence that digital tools can be used to efficiently deliver patient-centred care. Future research should prioritise development, evaluation and implementation of digital tools that can support the entire patient trajectory across a range of clinical settings. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020202862.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in 3 phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Genomic sequencing advances have increased the potential to identify secondary findings (SFs). Current guidelines recommend the analysis of 59 medically actionable genes; however, patient preferences indicate interest in learning a broader group of SFs. We aimed to develop an analytical pipeline for the efficient analysis and return of all clinically significant SFs. We developed a pipeline consisting of comprehensive gene lists for five categories of SFs and filtration parameters for prioritization of variants in each category. We applied the pipeline to 42 exomes to assess feasibility and efficiency. Comprehensive lists of clinically significant SF genes were curated for each category: (1) 90 medically actionable genes and 28 pharmacogenomic variants; (2) 17 common disease risk variants; (3) 3166 Mendelian disease genes, (4) 7 early onset neurodegenerative disorder genes; (5) 688 carrier status results. Analysis of 42 exomes using our pipeline resulted in a significant decrease (> 98%) in variants compared to the raw analysis (13,036.56 ± 59.72 raw variants/exome vs 161.32 ± 7.68 filtered variants/exome), and aided in time and costs savings for the overall analysis process. Our pipeline represents a critical step in overcoming the analytic challenge associated with returning all clinically relevant SFs to allow for its routine implementation in clinical practice.

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.

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.

Background We explored health professionals’ views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management. Materials and Methods A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data. Results Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as “transformative” and a “game-changer”. However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA’s role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA’s invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness. Conclusions Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA’s role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption.

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings.