The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.
To describe the development of a web-based, patient-facing decision aid to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing.We developed the decision aid following the multi-step process described in the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. This utilized literature review, focus groups, and alpha testing with research participants undergoing clinical genomic sequencing.The decision aid, the Optional Results Choice Aid (ORCA), includes a seven-question "values clarification exercise," illustrative patient quotes, and summative guidance for the user. The decision aid was found to be highly readable, acceptable and relevant in alpha testing.We developed a decision aid to support informed, values-based decision making for patients and research participants considering whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing. ORCA is being implemented in the NHGRI-funded Cancer Health Assessment Reaching Many (CHARM) study, where we are measuring informed values-choice congruence.ORCA was designed to support patients and research participants to make an informed, values-based decision about whether to receive additional results from genomic sequencing.
We developed an electronic patient-facing family history collection tool including B-RST 3.0, PREMM5 risk assessments and "limited family knowledge/structure" information designed for primary care settings. We evaluated the tool's performance compared with genetic-counselor-collected information for clinical risk stratification in a population with barriers to access. English- or Spanish-speaking patients aged 18 to 49 were invited to participate. Individuals with limited family knowledge or at high or moderate risk based on their responses in the tool were offered genetic testing and counseling. We assessed overall agreement of family history collected in the tool compared with family history collected by the genetic counselors using Krippendorff's alpha (K-alpha). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess characteristics associated with inaccuracy. Most people (94%, n = 1711) who interacted with the tool completed it. Those included in the agreement analysis (n = 604) had a median age of 36.3 years, 81.6% were female, and 44.4% were Non-Hispanic White. Both the B-RST 3.0 and PREMM5 had moderate agreement: 69.9% (K-alpha = .40, 95% CI [0.32, 0.47]) and 83.9% (K-alpha = .52, 95% CI [0.43, 0.60]), respectively. Agreement was high (96%) for people with clinically significant risk for one of the hereditary cancer syndromes. For B-RST 3.0, the factors significantly associated with inaccuracy were study site, sex, and race/ethnicity. For PREMM5, age, sex, and education were associated with inaccuracy. Barriers to access were not associated with inaccuracy. Implementation of this tool could increase identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes, including those with barriers to health care access.
The ethical principle of ‘respect for persons’ in clinical research has traditionally focused on protecting individuals’ autonomy rights, but respect for participants also includes broader, although less well understood, ethical obligations to regard individuals’ rights, needs, interests and feelings. However, there is little empirical evidence about how to effectively convey respect to potential and current participants. To fill this gap, we conducted exploratory, qualitative interviews with participants in a clinical genomics implementation study. We interviewed 40 participants in English (n=30) or Spanish (n=10) about their experiences with respect in the study and perceptions of how researchers in a hypothetical observational study could convey respect or a lack thereof. Most interviewees were female (93%), identified as Hispanic/Latino(a) (43%) or non-Hispanic white (38%), reported annual household income under US$60 000 (70%) and did not have a Bachelor’s degree (65%); 30% had limited health literacy. We identified four key domains for demonstrating respect: (1) personal study team interactions, with an emphasis on empathy, appreciation and non-judgment; (2) study communication processes, including following up and sharing results with participants; (3) inclusion, particularly ensuring materials are understandable and procedures are accessible; and (4) consent and authorisation, including providing a neutral informed consent and keeping promises regarding privacy protections. While the experience of respect is inherently subjective, these findings highlight four key domains that may meaningfully demonstrate respect to potential and current research participants. Further empirical and normative work is needed to substantiate these domains and evaluate how best to incorporate them into the practice of research.
Aim: Before population screening of 'healthy' individuals is widely adopted, it is important to consider the harms and benefits of receiving positive results and how harms and benefits may differ by age. Subjects & methods: Participants in a preventive genomic screening study were screened for 17 genes associated with 11 conditions. We interviewed 11 participants who received positive results. Results: Interviewees expressed little concern about their positive results in light of their older age, the risk condition for which they tested positive, or other pressing health concerns. Conclusion: Researchers and clinicians should recognize that returning positive results may not have the impact they presume given the diversity of the conditions screened and those who choose to undergo screening.
