A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation

Genome and exome sequencing can identify variants unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing. Detecting pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk of a medical disorder enables clinical interventions to improve future health outcomes in patients and their at-risk relatives. The Clinical Genome Resource, or ClinGen, aims to assess clinical actionability of genes and associated disorders as part of a larger effort to build a central resource of information regarding the clinical relevance of genomic variation for use in precision medicine and research

Genome sequencing and carrier testing: decisions on categorization and whether to disclose results of carrier testing

We are investigating the use of genome sequencing for preconception carrier testing. Genome sequencing could identify one or more of thousands of X-linked or autosomal recessive conditions that could be disclosed during preconception or prenatal counseling. Therefore, a framework that helps both clinicians and patients understand the possible range of findings is needed to respect patient preferences by ensuring that information about only the desired types of genetic conditions are provided to a given patient

Universal Screen for Lynch Syndrome in an Integrated Health Care System: Assessment of Patient Perspectives and Sharing Results With At-Risk Relatives

Background/Aims: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). Evidence-based recommendations promote universal tumor screening for LS among all new cases of CRC over selective screening based on family history or age of diagnosis. Maximal reduction in morbidity and mortality from universal tumor screening depends on patients with a positive screen following up with genetic counseling and testing to confirm a diagnosis of LS and sharing results with at-risk relatives. Methods: Participants included 165 Kaiser Permanente Northwest members aged 39 to 91 years who had undergone surgery for CRC. Tumor samples were screened for microsatellite instability and participants surveyed before and after receiving screening results to assess perspectives on screening and sharing results with at-risk relatives. Results: Most patients reported no family history of CRC; 14.1% had a first-degree relative and 7.4% had a second- or third-degree relative with CRC. However, most (93%) wanted to know their risk for hereditary CRC. Overall, most patients endorsed potential benefits and few barriers to screening, though 62% indicated a worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance. Before receiving screening results, most patients indicated they would likely share their result with their parents (90%), siblings (96%) and children (97%), where applicable. Of the 25 patients with a positive microsatellite instability screen, 96.0% reported they shared their results with at least one relative. Most patients endorsed motivations to share results, namely: so family members could act to reduce their risk of CRC (76%) and it was their responsibility to let family members know they might be at higher risk of CRC (68%). None of the patients indicated that strained family relationships would prevent them from sharing results, and few indicated that they would not share their results because it would worry relative(s) (8%) or because discussing their results could hurt relationship(s) (4%). Conclusion: Given universal tumor screening will target all new cases of CRC, it is important to understand motivations among patients not identified via high-risk factors such as family history or age of diagnosis. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes and perspectives toward LS screening to guide successful implementation of screening programs

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews

Abstract Background Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system. Methods We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist. Results Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result. Conclusion The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers

BACKGROUND Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recommended among all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. However, there is limited literature regarding patient perspectives of tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with CRC who are not selected for screening based on family history criteria. METHODS A total of 145 patients aged 39 to 87 years were administered surveys assessing perceived risk, patient perspectives, and potential benefits of and barriers to tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. Associations between patient‐specific and cancer‐specific factors and survey responses were analyzed. RESULTS The majority of participants perceived their risk of developing Lynch syndrome as being low, with 9 participants (6.2%) anticipating an abnormal screening result. However, most participants endorsed the potential benefits of screening for themselves and their families, with 84.8% endorsing ≥6 benefits and 50.3% endorsing all 8 benefits. Participants also endorsed few potential barriers to screening, with 89.4% endorsing ≤4 of 9 potential barriers. A common barrier was worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance, which was endorsed by 54.5% of participants. The level of distress associated with tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, which was very low, was not associated with age or CRC stage. CONCLUSIONS The results of the current study indicate that patients with CRC overall have a positive attitude toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, endorse the benefits of screening, and experience low levels of distress. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with CRC to inform educational approaches that assist in patient decision‐making and guide the successful implementation of screening programs. Cancer 2015;121:3281–3289. © 2015 American Cancer Society

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing a universal lynch syndrome screening program: A qualitative study of early barriers and facilitators

Background: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancers be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS). Best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied. Purpose We interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal (LS) screening program. Methods: We conducted interviews with health plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). Results: We completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health plan departments. While in general stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote/hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included: 1) perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization; 2) collaboration between departments; and 3) availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also found, including: 1) lack of awareness of guidelines; 2) lack of guideline clarity; 3) staffing and program “ownership” concerns; and 4) cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation. Conclusion: We found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication; patient and provider/staff education; and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking

Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study

BackgroundClinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. Methods: As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, we developed a web-based consent approach that featured plain language, multimedia, and separate descriptions of clinical care and research activities. CHARM offered clinical exome sequencing to individuals at high risk of hereditary cancer. We interviewed CHARM participants about their reactions to the consent approach. We audio recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews using a deductively and inductively derived codebook. We reviewed coded excerpts as a team to identify overarching themes. Results: We conducted 32 interviews, including 12 (38%) in Spanish. Most (69%) enrolled without assistance from study staff, usually on a mobile phone. Those who completed enrollment in one day spent an average of 12 minutes on the consent portion. Interviewees found the information simple to read but comprehensive, were neutral to positive about the multimedia support, and identified increased access to testing in the study as the key difference from clinical care. Conclusions: This study showed that interviewees found our literacy-focused, web-based consent approach acceptable; did not distinguish the consent materials from other online study processes; and valued getting access to testing in the study. Overall, conducting empirical bioethics research in an ongoing clinical trial was useful to demonstrate the acceptability of our novel consent approach but posed practical challenges

Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study

Abstract Background Genetic testing can identify cancer risk early, enabling prevention and early detection. We describe use of risk management interventions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study. CHARM assessed risk and provided genetic testing to low income, low literacy, and other underserved populations that historically face barriers to accessing cancer genetic services. Methods CHARM was implemented in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and Denver Health (DH) between 2018 and 2020. We identified post‐testing screening (mammography, breast MRI, colonoscopy) and surgical (mastectomy, oophorectomy) procedures using electronic health records. We examined utilization in participants who did and did not receive actionable risk management recommendations from study genetic counselors following national guidelines. Results CHARM participants were followed for an average of 15.4 months (range: 0.4–27.8 months) after results disclosure. Less than 2% (11/680) received actionable risk management recommendations (i.e., could be completed in the initial years following testing) based on their test result. Among those who received actionable recommendations, risk management utilization was moderate (54.5%, 6/11 completed any procedure) and varied by procedure (mammogram: 0/3; MRI: 2/4; colonoscopy: 4/5; mastectomy: 1/5; oophorectomy: 0/3). Cancer screening and surgery procedures were rare in participants without actionable recommendations. Conclusion Though the number of participants who received actionable risk management recommendations was small, our results suggest that implementing CHARM's risk assessment and testing model increased access to evidence‐based genetic services and provided opportunities for patients to engage in recommended preventive care, without encouraging risk management overuse

Lessons learned about harmonizing survey measures for the CSER consortium.

IntroductionImplementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium.MethodsA key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing.ResultsIdentifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects.ConclusionsIn summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia