Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging

A cross-sectional survey of genetic counselors providing carrier screening regarding GBA variants and Parkinson disease susceptibility

Purpose: Adult-onset disease risks associated with carriers of recessive disease have and will continue to be identified. As carrier screening becomes more broadly utilized, providers face the dilemma of whether they should discuss these risks during discussions with prospective parents. This study aimed to understand whether preconception/prenatal genetic counselors (PPGCs) were aware of the risk of Parkinson disease in carriers of, and persons with, Gaucher disease and the reasons behind choosing whether to discuss this risk with patients. Methods: Eligible participants included board-certified or board-eligible genetic counselors who had counseled preconception/prenatal patients within the past 3 years. An online survey was distributed via the National Society of Genetic Counselors in November of 2017. Results: One hundred twenty genetic counselors completed the quantitative survey, distributed in Fall of 2017. While the majority of respondents knew of the Gaucher-related Parkinson's link (n = 78; 65%), just over one-third reported discussing it in preconception/prenatal settings (n = 30; 38.5%). Respondents reported discussing these links more consistently when disclosing positive results or when the patient/family approached the topic. Respondents cited the lack of professional guidelines as one of the main reasons for not discussing the link. Conclusion: These results highlight an inconsistency in PPGCs' discussions of the Parkinson's risk in Gaucher disease carriers, and the need to develop guidelines regarding these issues to help standardize the care and education of patients

What People Want to Know About Their Genes: A Critical Review of the Literature on Large-Scale Genome Sequencing Studies

From a public health perspective, the “All of Us” study provides an opportunity to isolate targeted and cost-effective prevention and early-detection strategies. Identifying motivations for participation in large-scale genomic sequencing (LSGS) studies, and motivations and preferences to receive results will help determine effective strategies for “All of Us” study implementation. This paper offers a critical review of the literature regarding LSGS for adult onset hereditary conditions where results could indicate an increased risk to develop disease. The purpose of this review is to synthesize studies which explored peoples’ motivations for participating in LSGS studies, and their desire to receive different types of genetic results. Participants were primarily motivated by altruism, desire to know more about their health, and curiosity. When asked about hypothetically receiving results, most participants in hypothetical studies wanted all results except those which were uncertain (i.e., a variant of uncertain significance (VUS)). However, participants in studies where results were returned preferred to receive only results for which an intervention was available, but also wanted VUS. Concerns about peoples’ understanding of results and possible psychosocial implications are noted. Most studies examined populations classified as “early adopters,” therefore, additional research on motivations and expectations among the general public, minority, and underserved populations is needed

Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients’ views on broad consent: challenges and solutions

Abstract Background As biobanks play an increasing role in the genomic research that will lead to precision medicine, input from diverse and large populations of patients in a variety of health care settings will be important in order to successfully carry out such studies. One important topic is participants’ views towards consent and data sharing, especially since the 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and subsequently the 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). These notices required that participants consent to research uses of their de-identified tissue samples and most clinical data, and allowing such consent be obtained in a one-time, open-ended or “broad” fashion. Conducting a survey across multiple sites provides clear advantages to either a single site survey or using a large online database, and is a potentially powerful way of understanding the views of diverse populations on this topic. Methods A workgroup of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, a national consortium of 9 sites (13 separate institutions, 11 clinical centers) supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) that combines DNA biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale genetic research, conducted a survey to understand patients’ views on consent, sample and data sharing for future research, biobank governance, data protection, and return of research results. Results Working across 9 sites to design and conduct a national survey presented challenges in organization, meeting human subjects guidelines at each institution, and survey development and implementation. The challenges were met through a committee structure to address each aspect of the project with representatives from all sites. Each committee’s output was integrated into the overall survey plan. A number of site-specific issues were successfully managed allowing the survey to be developed and implemented uniformly across 11 clinical centers. Conclusions Conducting a survey across a number of institutions with different cultures and practices is a methodological and logistical challenge. With a clear infrastructure, collaborative attitudes, excellent lines of communication, and the right expertise, this can be accomplished successfully

Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site’s research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10–261 days, 0–11, and 11–90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs