Genetic health professionals' experiences returning results from diagnostic genomic sequencing to patients

Despite widespread use of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical care, there has been little exploration of actual experiences of genetic health professionals (GHPs) using GS in clinical practice worldwide. To address this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counselors across Europe, Australia, and Canada to explore their experiences with returning results from GS to patients. GHPs remarked that patients' reactions to receiving causative results vary; some patients are relieved or appreciative at identification of a genetic cause, while others express frustration that finding an answer does not lead to a treatment. GHPs discussed the importance of managing expectations in pre-test counseling to minimize disappointment. Although some patients experience mild distress, they generally cope well receiving unsolicited findings and appreciate being informed of their increased risk. While many GHPs felt patients understand what a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) means, a proportion found VUS quite difficult to convey and had concerns for patients' level of understanding. A proportion mentioned concerns regarding potential negative repercussions of non-genetic clinicians misinterpreting the significance of VUS. These results provide important insights into the challenges GHPs can experience returning GS results to patients, highlighting a need for additional training for GHPs and non-genetic clinicians.status: publishe

Genetic health professionals' experiences with initiating reanalysis of genomic sequence data

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients' inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients' and clinicians' roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.status: publishe

Exploration of genetic health professional - laboratory specialist interactions in diagnostic genomic sequencing

Like any new technology, rapid integration of genomic sequencing (GS) into the clinical setting can pose challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) using it to diagnose patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors across Europe, Australia and Canada to gain a better understanding of the issues they were experiencing when requesting GS and receiving reports from laboratories. There was a spectrum of interactions between genetic health professionals and laboratories. This ranged from those that almost exclusively request sequencing from the laboratory that is affiliated with their genetic service, to those who do not have access to exome sequencing 'in-house' and instead send patient samples to a selection of different external laboratories. In general, a closer interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory scientists increased the involvement of the clinicians in the analysis/interpretation process. This appeared to lead to fewer, but more clinically relevant variants being reported, and greater GHP satisfaction in what is reported. Our findings suggest that GHPs consider integration of clinical expertise into the analysis/interpretation process is critical to ensure that the variants reported are of high clinical significance to patients. They also highlight the importance of providing GHPs with training in report interpretation.status: publishe

Ethics watch DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER GENOME SCANNING SERVICES. ALSO FOR CHILDREN?

status: publishe

Key Implications of Data Sharing in Pediatric Genomics

Accurate clinical interpretation of children’s whole-genome and whole-exome sequences relies on comparing the patient’s linked genomic and phenotypic data with variant reference databases of both healthy and affected patients. The robustness of such comparisons, in turn, is made possible by sharing pediatric genomic and associated clinical data. Despite this, sparse ethical-legal policy attention has been paid to making such sharing routine in practice. The interdisciplinary Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health considered in detail the current ethical, legal, and social implications of sharing genomic and associated clinical data involving children. An initial set of points to consider was presented at a meeting of the Paediatric Task Team at the 4th Plenary of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. The Key Implications for Data Sharing (KIDS) framework for pediatric genomics was developed based on feedback from this group and was supplemented by findings from a critical appraisal of the data-sharing literature. The final points to consider that comprise the KIDS framework are categorized into the following 4 primary themes: children’s involvement, parental consent, balancing benefits and risks, and data protection and release requirements

Recontacting Pediatric Research Participants for Consent When They Reach the Age of Majority

Because children are presumed to have insufficient cognitive ability to consent to participate in research, pediatric research raises particular ethical and legal issues. For children who have not reached the age of consent stipulated by law or policy, parents (or legal guardians) must authorize their participation. This paper explores the issue of whether, to satisfy the ethical and legal norms of consent for research, participants in pediatric studies who attain the age of majority after their parents or guardians enrolled them in a study should be “recontacted” to obtain their consent to remain in the study. Using three different contexts (longitudinal studies, clinical trials, and newborn screening), we argue that distinctions should be made between the risks and benefits involved in recontacting for consent before determining the potential duties of researchers. An obligation to recontact should always be balanced with the feasibility and cost of such efforts in each particular research context and with consideration for the existence or lack of an ongoing relationship with the participant.status: publishe