Search

Context: The greatest public health benefit of advances in understanding the human genome may be realized for common chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and cancer. Attempts to integrate such knowledge into clinical practice are still in the early stages, and as a result, many questions surround the current state of this translation.Objective: To synthesize current information on genetic health services for common adult-onset conditions by examining studies that have addressed the outcomes, consumer information needs, delivery, and challenges in integrating these services.Data Sources: MEDLINE articles published between January 2000 and February 2008.Study Selection: Original research articles and systematic reviews dealing with common chronic adult-onset conditions were reviewed. A total of 3371 citations were reviewed, 170 articles retrieved, and 68 articles included in the analysis.Data Extraction: Data were independently extracted by one reviewer and checked by another with disagreement resolved by consensus. Variables assessed included study design and 4 key areas: outcomes of genomic medicine, consumer information needs, delivery of genomic medicine, and challenges and barriers to integration of genomic medicine.Data Synthesis: Sixty-eight articles contributed data to the synthesis: 5 systematic reviews, 8 experimental studies, 35 surveys, 7 pre/post studies, 3 observational studies, and 10 qualitative reports. Three systematic reviews, 4 experimental studies, and 9 additional studies reported on outcomes of genetic services. Generally there were modest positive effects on psychological outcomes such as worry and anxiety, behavioral outcomes have shown mixed results, and clinical outcomes were less well studied. One systematic review, 1 randomized controlled trial, and 14 other studies assessed consumer information needs and found in general that genetics knowledge was reported to be low but that attitudes were generally positive. Three randomized controlled trials and 13 other studies assessed how genomic medicine is delivered and newer models of delivery. One systematic review and 19 other studies assessed barriers; the most consistent finding was the self-assessed inadequacy of the primary care workforce to deliver genetic services. Additional identified barriers included lack of oversight of genetic testing and concerns about privacy and discrimination.Conclusion: Many gaps in knowledge about organization, clinician, and patient needs must be filled to translate basic and clinical science advances in genomics of common chronic diseases into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To better understand Veterans' decisions about germline testing, we conducted a single-site, qualitative study of 32 Veterans with advanced prostate cancer. Seven days after oncologist-patient discussions about germline testing, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients exploring their decision-making process using an interview guide. Four of 14 Veterans with service-connected disability benefits for prostate cancer declined germline testing for fear of losing benefits, as their livelihood depended on these benefits. All 18 Veterans without service-connected benefits agreed to testing. Veterans declining germline testing for this concern can lead to suboptimal cancer care because targeted treatments that could improve their outcomes may go unrecognized. Our findings contributed to new language in the Veterans Benefits Administration Compensation and Pension Manual clarifying that genetic testing showing hereditary predisposition is insufficient to deny service-connected benefits for conditions presumed to be caused by military exposures. Clinicians should communicate this protection when counseling Veterans about genetic testing., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: Telegenetics services can expand access to guideline-recommended cancer genetic testing. However, access is often not distributed equitably to all races and ethnicities. We evaluated the impact of an on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service in a diverse Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) oncology clinic on likelihood of germline testing (GT) completion., Methods: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of patients who were referred for cancer genetics services at the Philadelphia VAMC between October 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. We evaluated the association between genetics service (on-site v telegenetics) and likelihood of GT completion in a subcohort of new consults, excluding patients with prior consults and those referred for known history of germline mutations., Results: A total of 238 Veterans, including 108 (45%) seen on site, were identified for cancer genetics services during the study period, with the majority referred for a personal (65%) or family (26%) history of cancer. In the subcohort of new consults, 121 Veterans (54% self-identified race/ethnicity [SIRE]-Black), including 60 (50%) seen on site, were included in the analysis of germline genetic testing completion. In a univariate analysis, patients who were seen by the on-site genetics service had 3.2-fold higher likelihood of completing GT (relative risk, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89 to 5.48) compared with the telegenetics service. In multivariable regression analysis, the on-site genetics service was associated with higher likelihood of GT completion, but this association was only statistically significant in SIRE-Black compared with SIRE-White Veterans (adjusted RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.53 to 14.96; P < .001; P -interaction of race × genetics service = .016)., Conclusion: An on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service embedded in a VAMC Oncology practice was associated with higher likelihood of germline genetic testing completion than a telegenetics service among self-identified Black Veterans.

Background: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging., Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk., Design: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control., Participants: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk., Interventions: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later., Main Measures: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively., Key Results: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed., Conclusions: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Purpose: Genetic tests have become widely available. We sought to understand the use of genetic tests in the practice of frontline clinicians within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)., Methods: We administered a web-based survey to clinicians at 20 VA facilities. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists were eligible. We excluded genetics providers and clinicians not seeing patients. We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate the associations between clinician characteristics and experience with genetics., Results: The response rate was 11.3% (1207/10,680) and of these, 909 respondents were eligible. Only 20.8% of the respondents reported feeling prepared to use genetic tests and 13.0% of the respondents were currently ordering genetic tests; although, it was usually only 1 or 2 a year. Delivery of genetic tests without involving genetics providers was preferred by only 7.9% of the respondents. Characteristics positively associated with currently ordering genetic tests included practice in clinical and research settings, believing improving genetics knowledge could alter their practice, feeling prepared to use genetic tests, and referral of at least 1 patient to genetics in the past year., Conclusion: Most VA clinicians don't feel prepared to use genetic tests. Those with genetic testing experience are more likely to consult genetics providers. The demand for genetics providers should increase as frontline clinicians use genetic tests in their practice., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling., (© 2022 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Importance: Telehealth enables access to genetics clinicians, but impact on care coordination is unknown., Objective: To assess care coordination and equity of genetic care delivered by centralized telehealth and traditional genetic care models., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included patients referred for genetic consultation from 2010 to 2017 with 2 years of follow-up in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Patients were excluded if they were referred for research, cytogenetic, or infectious disease testing, or if their care model could not be determined., Exposures: Genetic care models, which included VA-telehealth (ie, a centralized team of genetic counselors serving VA facilities nationwide), VA-traditional (ie, a regional service by clinical geneticists and genetic counselors), and non-VA care (ie, community care purchased by the VA)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariate regression models were used to assess associations between patient and consultation characteristics and the type of genetic care model referral; consultation completion; and having 0, 1, or 2 or more cancer surveillance (eg, colonoscopy) and risk-reducing procedures (eg, bilateral mastectomy) within 2 years following referral., Results: In this study, 24 778 patients with genetics referrals were identified, including 12 671 women (51.1%), 13 193 patients aged 50 years or older (53.2%), 15 639 White patients (63.1%), and 15 438 patients with cancer-related referrals (62.3%). The VA-telehealth model received 14 580 of the 24 778 consultations (58.8%). Asian patients, American Indian or Alaskan Native patients, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients were less likely to be referred to VA-telehealth than White patients (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with the VA-traditional model. Completing consultations was less likely with non-VA care than the VA-traditional model (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57); there were no differences in completing consultations between the VA models. Black patients were less likely to complete consultations than White patients (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93), but only if referred to the VA-telehealth model. Patients were more likely to have multiple cancer preventive procedures if they completed their consultations (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.40-1.72) but only if their consultations were completed with the VA-traditional model., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the VA-telehealth model was associated with improved access to genetics clinicians but also with exacerbated health care disparities and hindered care coordination. Addressing structural barriers and the needs and preferences of vulnerable subpopulations may complement the centralized telehealth approach, improve care coordination, and help mitigate health care disparities.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing., (© 2021 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Purpose: How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown., Methods: We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority)., Results: PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014)., Conclusion: Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.)

Purpose: Germline testing laboratories have evolved over several decades. We describe laboratory business models and practices and explore their implications on germline testing availability and access., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with key informants using purposive sampling. We interviewed 13 key informants representing 14 laboratories. We used triangulation and iterative data analysis to identify topics concerning laboratory business models and practices., Results: We characterized laboratories as full-service (FSL), for-profit germline (PGL), and not-for-profit germline (NGL). Relying on existing payer contracts is a key characteristic of the FSL business models. FSLs focus on high-volume germline tests with evidence of clinical utility that have reimbursable codes. In comparison, a key business model characteristic of PGLs is direct patient billing facilitated by commodity-based pricing made possible by investors and industry partnerships. Client billing is a key business model characteristic of NGLs. Because many NGLs exist within academic settings, they are challenged by their inability to optimize laboratory processes and billing practices., Conclusion: Continued availability of, and access to germline testing will depend on the financial success of laboratories; organizational characteristics of laboratories and payers; cultural factors, particularly consumer interest and trust; and societal factors, such as regulation and laws surrounding pricing and reimbursement., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10 -8 , at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing can be used for detecting genetic variations that may affect an individual's anticipated metabolism of, or response to, medications. Although several studies have focused on developing tools for delivering results from PGx testing, there is a relative dearth of information about how to design provider-friendly electronic order-entry systems for PGx. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is preparing to implement a new electronic health records system. In this study, VA PGx test end users were surveyed about their preferences for how electronic test orders for PGx should be structured, including the nomenclature that should be used to search for and identify PGx-test orders, whether to offer single- versus multigene tests, and whether information about test methodology should be included in the order name. Responses were analyzed systematically to identify areas of agreement and disagreement with the survey options, and areas where respondents' opinions diverged. End users endorsed preferences for flexible ways to identify and order PGx tests and multigene panel tests; opinions on whether test methodology should be included in the test name were divergent. The results could be used for both informing the VA's new electronic health records implementation (including how PGx tests are searched for and ordered) and for providing insights for other health systems implementing PGx-testing programs., (Copyright © 2020 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The advent of germline testing as a standard-of-care practice for certain tumor types and patients presents unique opportunities and challenges for the field of precision oncology. This article describes strategies to address workforce capacity, organizational structure, and genetics education needs within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the expectation that these approaches may be applicable to other health care systems., Observations: Germline information can have health, reproductive, and psychosocial implications for veterans and their family members, which can pose challenges when delivering germline information in the setting of cancer care. Additional challenges include the complexity inherent in the interpretation of germline information, the national shortage of genetics professionals, limited awareness and knowledge about genetic principles among many clinicians, and organizational barriers, such as the inability to order genetic tests and receive results in the electronic health record. These challenges demand thoughtful implementation planning at the health care system level to develop sustainable strategies for the delivery of high-quality genetic services in precision oncology practice., Conclusions: The VA is uniquely positioned to address the integration of germline genetic testing into precision oncology practice due to its outsized role in treating veterans with cancer, training the health care workforce, and developing, testing, and implementing innovative models of clinical care., Competing Interests: Author disclosures The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article., (Copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA.)

Breast cancer susceptibility variants frequently show heterogeneity in associations by tumor subtype 1-3 . To identify novel loci, we performed a genome-wide association study including 133,384 breast cancer cases and 113,789 controls, plus 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer) of European ancestry, using both standard and novel methodologies that account for underlying tumor heterogeneity by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and tumor grade. We identified 32 novel susceptibility loci (P < 5.0 × 10 -8 ), 15 of which showed evidence for associations with at least one tumor feature (false discovery rate < 0.05). Five loci showed associations (P < 0.05) in opposite directions between luminal and non-luminal subtypes. In silico analyses showed that these five loci contained cell-specific enhancers that differed between normal luminal and basal mammary cells. The genetic correlations between five intrinsic-like subtypes ranged from 0.35 to 0.80. The proportion of genome-wide chip heritability explained by all known susceptibility loci was 54.2% for luminal A-like disease and 37.6% for triple-negative disease. The odds ratios of polygenic risk scores, which included 330 variants, for the highest 1% of quantiles compared with middle quantiles were 5.63 and 3.02 for luminal A-like and triple-negative disease, respectively. These findings provide an improved understanding of genetic predisposition to breast cancer subtypes and will inform the development of subtype-specific polygenic risk scores.

Purpose: Exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) are performed frequently in patients with congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or intellectual disability (CA/DD/ID), but the impact of results from ES/GS on clinical management and patient outcomes is not well characterized. A systematic evidence review (SER) can support future evidence-based guideline development for use of ES/GS in this patient population., Methods: We undertook an SER to identify primary literature from January 2007 to March 2019 describing health, clinical, reproductive, and psychosocial outcomes resulting from ES/GS in patients with CA/DD/ID. A narrative synthesis of results was performed., Results: We retrieved 2654 publications for full-text review from 7178 articles. Only 167 articles met our inclusion criteria, and these were primarily case reports or small case series of fewer than 20 patients. The most frequently reported outcomes from ES/GS were changes to clinical management or reproductive decision-making. Two studies reported on the reduction of mortality or morbidity or impact on quality of life following ES/GS., Conclusion: There is evidence that ES/GS for patients with CA/DD/ID informs clinical and reproductive decision-making, which could lead to improved outcomes for patients and their family members. Further research is needed to generate evidence regarding health outcomes to inform robust guidelines regarding ES/GS in the care of patients with CA/DD/ID.

Genome-wide association studies have identified breast cancer risk variants in over 150 genomic regions, but the mechanisms underlying risk remain largely unknown. These regions were explored by combining association analysis with in silico genomic feature annotations. We defined 205 independent risk-associated signals with the set of credible causal variants in each one. In parallel, we used a Bayesian approach (PAINTOR) that combines genetic association, linkage disequilibrium and enriched genomic features to determine variants with high posterior probabilities of being causal. Potentially causal variants were significantly over-represented in active gene regulatory regions and transcription factor binding sites. We applied our INQUSIT pipeline for prioritizing genes as targets of those potentially causal variants, using gene expression (expression quantitative trait loci), chromatin interaction and functional annotations. Known cancer drivers, transcription factors and genes in the developmental, apoptosis, immune system and DNA integrity checkpoint gene ontology pathways were over-represented among the highest-confidence target genes.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , ATM , and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM , which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM :p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2 . These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM :p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P  = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P  = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM :p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM :p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P  = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM :p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM -associated tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interestsC.I. reports consulting with AstraZeneca and Pfizer and her institution receives research support for Tesaro, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. B.Y.K. served on Invitae Corporation’s Advisory Board from 2017 to 2018. K.P. reports receiving fee, paid to his institution, for lectures and/or participation in advisory board of AstraZeneca and Pfizer and travel support from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Jordi Surrallés’ institution received research support from Rocket Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Background: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices., Methods: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective., Discussion: This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014.

Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) is a late onset neurodegenerative disorder associated with dysfunction of movement, memory, and the peripheral nervous system. We report an 82 years old male who presented with tremors and difficulty with balance that started at 65 years of age. His motor examination revealed decreased strength in left lower extremity. Tremors were seen in both the upper limbs at rest that worsened with movement. Bilateral lower extremities showed absent vibration and proprioception sensations, absent reflexes and upgoing toes. Electrodiagnostic studies revealed sensory predominant axonal sensory-motor peripheral polyneuropathy. Brain MRI revealed microvascular ischemic changes. The cervical and lumbar MRI showed diffuse degenerative changes. Genetic test for heritable causes of ataxia revealed a premutation in Fragile X gene (84 CGG repeats), confirming the diagnosis of FXTAS. On further genetic testing three out of his four daughters also tested positive for the FMR1 premutation. In appropriate clinical setting, Fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) should be considered in every middle aged/elderly patient who presented with slowly progressive ataxia, tremor and peripheral polyneuropathy without any history of cognitive or neurological disabilities in childhood., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown., Methods: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models., Results: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06-1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.33) per 5-kg/m 2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (P interaction  < 0.05)., Conclusion: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.

Purpose: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value., Methods: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds., Results: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity., Conclusion: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Purpose: Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits., Methods: We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context., Results: The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers., Conclusion: We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Purpose: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee is charged with making recommendations about whether specific pharmacogenetic tests should be used in healthcare at VHA facilities. We describe a process to inform VHA pharmacogenetic testing policy., Methods: After developing consensus definitions of clinical validity and utility, the Subcommittee identified salient drug-gene pairs with potential clinical application in VHA. Members met monthly to discuss each drug-gene pair, the evidence of clinical utility for the associated pharmacogenetic test, and any VHA-specific testing considerations. The Subcommittee classified each test as strongly recommended, recommended, or not routinely recommended before drug initiation., Results: Of 30 drug-gene pair tests reviewed, the Subcommittee classified 4 (13%) as strongly recommended, including HLA-B*15:02 for carbamazepine-associated Stevens-Johnston syndrome and G6PD for rasburicase-associated hemolytic anemia; 12 (40%) as recommended, including CYP2D6 for codeine toxicity; and 14 (47%) as not routinely recommended, such as CYP2C19 for clopidogrel dosing., Conclusion: Only half of drug-gene pairs with high clinical validity received Subcommittee support for policy promoting their widespread use across VHA. The Subcommittee generally found insufficient evidence of clinical utility or available, effective alternative strategies for the remainders. Continual evidence review and rigorous outcomes research will help promote the translation of pharmacogenetic discovery to healthcare.

Objective: To determine whether family history of coronary heart disease (FH) definitions differ in their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events., Patients and Methods: Participants who provided FH data from July 17, 2000, through February 24, 2004, were identified. Definitions of FH were any, premature, and Familial Risk Assessment (FRA). Outcomes included coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease, angina, and congestive heart failure. Multivariable-adjusted Cox models examined the association of FH definitions with events. C statistics and the net reclassification index examined the incremental prognostic contribution of each definition., Results: In 6200 participants, the proportions of any FH and premature FH were 36% and 16%, respectively, and of weak, moderate, and strong familial risk were 20%, 16%, and 20%, respectively. Over median follow-up of 10.1 years (range, 0.02-11.5 years), 741 participants experienced a composite event. Compared with no FH, any FH was associated with incident CHD, angina, and composite ASCVD (hazard ratios [95% CIs]: 1.4 [1.1-1.8], 1.6 [1.2-2.1], and 1.3 [1.1-1.5], respectively). Similar results were obtained for premature FH compared with no FH and for strong compared with weak FRA for these 3 outcomes. There was no association between the FH definitions and noncoronary cardiovascular events. Compared with traditional risk factors (C statistic = 0.740), any FH, premature FH, and FRA all improved discrimination of composite ASCVD (all P < .01); however, the differences in C statistics among any FH (0.743), premature FH (0.742), and FRA (0.744) were numerically small, as were differences in the net reclassification index., Conclusion: A single question regarding the presence of FH in any first-degree relative performs just as well as more complicated assessments in predicting CHD., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00005487., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Here, we present a case of a 31-year-old man with progressive cognitive decline, ataxia, and dystonia. Extensive laboratory, radiographic, and targeted genetic studies over the course of several years failed to yield a diagnosis. Initial whole exome sequencing through a commercial laboratory identified several variants of uncertain significance; however, follow-up clinical examination and testing ruled each of these out. Eventually, repeat whole exome sequencing identified a known pathogenic intronic variant in the NPC1 gene (NM&#95;000271.4, c.1554-1009G>A) and an additional heterozygous exonic variant of uncertain significance in the NPC1 gene (NM&#95;000271.4, c.2524T>C). Follow-up biochemical testing was consistent with a diagnosis of probable Niemann-Pick disease Type C (NP-C). This case illustrates the potential of whole exome sequencing for diagnosing rare complex neurologic diseases. It also identifies several potential common pitfalls that must be navigated by clinicians when interpreting commercial whole exome sequencing results.

Objective: To assess the value of genetic testing from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical leadership., Methods: We administered an Internet-based survey to VA clinical leaders nationwide. Respondents rated the value (on a 5-point scale) of each of six possible reasons for genetic testing. Bivariate and linear regressions identified associations between value ratings and environmental, organizational, provider, patient, and encounter characteristics., Results: Respondents (n = 353; 63% response rate) represented 92% of VA medical centers. Tests that inform clinical management had the highest value rating (58.6%), followed by tests that inform disease prevention (56.4%), reproductive options (50.1%), life planning (43.9%), and a suspected (39.9%) or established (32.3%) diagnosis. Factors positively associated with high value included a culture that fosters adoption of genomics, specialist versus primary care provider, genetic tests available on laboratory menus, availability of genetic testing guidelines, clinicians knowing when to request genetics referrals, and availability of genetics professionals., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the varied value of genetic testing from the perspective of clinical leadership within a health-care system. Engaging organizational leadership in understanding the various reasons for genetic testing and its value beyond clinical utility may increase adoption of genetic tests to support patient-centered care.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

Objective: To determine whether electronic health record (EHR) tools improve documentation of pre- and postanalytic care processes for genetic tests ordered by nongeneticists., Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled, pre-/postintervention study of EHR point-of-care tools (informational messages and template report) for three genetic tests. Chart review assessed documentation of genetic testing processes of care, with points assigned for each documented item. Multiple linear and logistic regressions assessed factors associated with documentation., Results: Preimplementation, there were no significant site differences (P > 0.05). Postimplementation, mean documentation scores increased (5.9 (2.1) vs. 5.0 (2.2); P = 0.0001) and records with clinically meaningful documentation increased (score >5: 59 vs. 47%; P = 0.02) at the intervention versus the control site. Pre- and postimplementation, a score >5 was positively associated with abnormal test results (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.8-9.2) and trainee provider (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.6). Postimplementation, a score >5 was also positively associated with intervention site (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.1) and specialty clinic (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.6). There were also significantly fewer tests ordered after implementation (264/100,000 vs. 204/100,000; P = 0.03), with no significant change at the control site (280/100,000 vs. 257/100,000; P = 0.50)., Conclusions: EHR point-of-care tools improved documentation of genetic testing processes and decreased utilization of genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.Genet Med 19 1, 112-120.

Gnathodiaphyseal dysplasia (GDD) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder characterized by florid osseous dysplasia of the jaws, bone fragility, and diaphyseal cortical thickening and bowing of long bones. We present a family with previously undiagnosed GDD. The disorder was identified by the characteristic gnathic and skeletal manifestations in the father. Clinical and radiologic examination of the patient's son also revealed the characteristic features of GDD. Gene sequencing revealed a novel mutation (c. 1067 G>A, p. Cys356 Tyr) in the ANO5 gene, which is causative for GDD. This mutation was predicted to be detrimental by computational analyses and by structural modeling of the protein. The implications for recognition and management of this disease are discussed., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Adoption and implementation of evidence-based genetic and genomic medicine have been slow. We describe a methodology for identifying the influence of organizational factors on adoption and implementation of these services in health-care organizations., Methods: We illustrate a three-component, mixed-methods health services research approach, including expert panels, qualitative interviews with key informants, and quantitative surveys completed by key informants., Results: This research approach yielded a baseline assessment of existing genetic health-care models in the Veterans Health Administration and identified organizational barriers to and facilitators of adoption. In aggregate, the panel and key informant strategies created a communication network of relevant organizational stakeholders and a detailed foundation of organizational knowledge from which to design tools and models for implementation-level genetic/genomic translation., Conclusion: Expert panel and key informant strategies can be used to create a backdrop of stakeholder involvement and baseline organizational knowledge within which to plan translation research and to inform strategic planning and policies for adoption and implementation of genetic services in health-care organizations.

Family health history is one of the least expensive, most useful, and most underused methods available to conduct assessments of the genetic aspect of a condition or to target the need for a genetic evaluation. This article introduces to the surgical oncologist the reason and process of collecting family history information. As medical records shift from paper to electronic formats, pedigree drawings are not readily available within the electronic health records. International efforts are underway to develop searchable, updatable, and interoperable formats that can collect family history information to inform clinical decision support for genetic risk assessment., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The prognostic value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) or carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) among asymptomatic adults with a family history (FH) of premature coronary heart disease is unclear., Methods and Results: Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis enrolled 6814 adults without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Hard ASCVD events were ascertained over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. We estimated adjusted-hazard ratios for CAC and CIMT categories using Cox regression, both within and across FH status groups. Improvement in discrimination with CAC or CIMT added to variables from the ASCVD pooled cohort equation was also evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratio analysis. Of 6125 individuals (62±10 years; 47% men) who reported information on FH, 1262 (21%) had an FH of premature coronary heart disease. Among these, 104 hard ASCVD events occurred. Crude incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) for hard ASCVD were 4.4 for CAC, 0 (n=574; 46% of the sample); 8.8 for CAC, 1 to 99 (n=368); 14.9 for CAC, 100 to 399 (n=178); and 20.8 for CAC, ≥400 (n=142). Relative to CAC=0, adjusted hard ASCVD hazard ratios for each CAC category among persons with an FH were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.87), 2.45 (1.31-4.58), and 2.80 (1.44-5.43), respectively. However, there was no increased adjusted hazard for hard ASCVD in high versus low CIMT categories. In participants with an FH of premature coronary heart disease, CAC improved discrimination of hard ASCVD events (P<0.001). However, CIMT did not discriminate ASCVD (P=0.70)., Conclusions: Nearly half of individuals reporting FH have zero CAC and may receive less net benefit from aspirin or statin therapy. Among persons with an FH, CAC is a robust marker of absolute and relative risk of ASCVD, whereas CIMT is not., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to survey American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics members about secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing., Methods: A Web-based survey was mailed to 1,687 members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Exploratory factor analysis identified underlying factors assessed by survey items. Linear regression assessed associations between factor scores and respondent characteristics., Results: The response rate was 29%. Four factors explained 51% of the survey variance: best practices, patient preferences, guidance, and informed consent. Most agreed with "best practice" items describing seeking and reporting of secondary findings as consistent with medical standards, having sufficient evidence, and, for adults, the benefits generally outweighing potential harms. There was lack of agreement regarding benefits versus harms for children and impact on health-care resources. The majority agreed that patient preferences should be considered, including ability to opt out, and that informed consent was feasible and critical. Characteristics significantly associated with factor scores included country of residence, sequencing experience, and years in practice., Conclusion: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics should update a list of genes to be assessed when clinical genome-scale sequencing is performed. Informed consent is necessary, and reporting of secondary findings should be optional. Research on implementation of secondary findings reporting is needed.

Objective: To characterize the delivery of genetic consultative services for adults, we examined the prevalence and organizational determinants of genetic consult availability and the organization of these services in the Veterans Health Administration., Methods: We conducted a Web-based survey of Veterans Health Administration clinical leaders. We summarized facility characteristics using descriptive statistics. Multivariate logistic regression assessed associations between organizational characteristics and consult availability., Results: We received 353 survey responses from key informants representing 141 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Clinicians could obtain genetic consults at 110 (78%) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Cancer genetic and neurogenetic consults were most common. Academic affiliation (odds ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-8.6) and provider education about genetics (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-7.8) were significantly associated with consult availability. The traditional model of multidisciplinary specialty clinics or coordinated services between geneticists and other providers was most prevalent, although variability in the organization of these services was described, with consults available on-site, at another Veterans Affairs Medical Center, via telegenetics, or at non-Veterans Health Administration facilities. The emerging model of nongeneticists integrating genetics into their practices was also reported, with considerable variability by specialty., Conclusion: Both traditional and emerging models for genetic consultation are available in the Veterans Health Administration; however, there is variability in service organization that could influence quality of care.

Purpose: We sought to identify characteristics of genetic services that facilitate or hinder adoption., Methods: We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews in five clinical specialties (primary care, medical oncology, neurology, cardiology, pathology/laboratory medicine) within 13 Veterans Administration facilities., Results: Genetic services (defined as genetic testing and consultation) were not typically characterized by informants (n = 64) as advantageous for their facilities or their patients; compatible with organizational norms of low cost and high clinical impact; or applicable to patient populations or norms of clinical care. Furthermore, genetic services had not been systematically adopted in most facilities because of their complexity: knowledge of and expertise on genetic testing was limited, and organizational barriers to utilization of genetic services were formidable. The few facilities that had some success with implementation of genetic services had knowledgeable clinicians interested in developing services and organizational-level facilitators such as accessible genetic test-ordering processes., Conclusion: Adoption and implementation of genetic services will require a multilevel effort that includes education of providers and administrators, opportunities for observing the benefits of genetic medicine, strategies for reducing the complexity of genomic medicine, expanded strategies for accessing genetics expertise and streamlining utilization, and resources dedicated to assessing the value of genetic information for the outcomes that matter to health-care organizations.

Purpose: We developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent cancer genetics toolkit designed to improve recognition and appropriate referral of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes., Methods: We evaluated toolkit implementation in the women's clinics at a large Veterans Administration medical center using mixed methods, including pre-post semistructured interviews, clinician surveys, and chart reviews, and during implementation, monthly tracking of genetic consultation requests and use of a reminder in the electronic health record. We randomly sampled 10% of progress notes 6 months before (n = 139) and 18 months during implementation (n = 677)., Results: The toolkit increased cancer family history documentation by almost 10% (26.6% pre- and 36.3% postimplementation). The reminder was a key component of the toolkit; when used, it was associated with a twofold increase in cancer family history documentation (odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.15), and the history was more complete. Patients whose clinicians completed the reminder were twice as likely to be referred for genetic consultation (4.1-9.6%, P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: A multicomponent approach to the systematic collection and use of family history by primary-care clinicians increased access to genetic services.

Purpose: We evaluated a template for molecular genetic test reports that was developed as a strategy to reduce communication errors between the laboratory and ordering clinician., Methods: We surveyed 1,600 primary care physicians to assess satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness of genetic test reports developed using our template and reports developed by clinical laboratories. Mean score differences of responses between the reports were compared using t-tests. Two-way analysis of variance evaluated the effect of template versus standard reports and the influence of physician characteristics., Results: There were 396 (24%) respondents. Template reports had higher scores than the standard reports for each survey item. The gender and specialty of the physician did not influence scores; however, younger physicians gave higher scores regardless of report type. There was significant interaction between report type and whether physicians ordered or reviewed any genetic tests (none versus at least one) in the past year, P = 0.005., Conclusion: For each survey item assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness, physicians gave higher ratings to genetic test reports developed with the template than standard reports used by clinical laboratories. Physicians least familiar with genetic test reports, and possibly having the greatest need for better communication, were best served by the template reports.