Explore the vast range of titles available.

Now more than ever, digital applications are essential to accessing genetics services and optimizing their delivery. At this watershed moment, digital solutions must be balanced with the merits of human interaction, without compromising quality or exacerbating existing genomic and technological disparities.As highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, digital solutions are becoming essential for the provision of clinical genetics services. However, as this Comment emphasizes, the use of digital tools alone can exacerbate genomic and technological disparities and must be balanced with the merits of face-to-face interactions.

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test–specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference −7.01 [95% CI −11.31 to −2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider’s counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

Exome sequencing and genome sequencing have the potential to improve clinical utility for patients undergoing genetic investigations. However, evidence of clinical utility is limited to pediatric populations; we aimed to fill this gap by conducting a systematic review of the literature on the clinical utility of exome/genome sequencing across disease indications in pediatric and adult populations. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched between 2016 and 2020. Quantitative studies evaluating diagnostic yield were included; other measures of clinical utility such as changes to clinical management were documented if reported. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Fifty studies met our inclusion criteria. All studies reported diagnostic yield, which ranged from 3 to 70%, with higher range of yields reported for neurological indications and acute illness ranging from 22 to 68% and 37–70%, respectively. Diagnoses triggered a range of clinical management changes including surveillance, reproductive-risk counseling, and identifying at-risk relatives in 4–100% of patients, with higher frequencies reported for acute illness ranging from 67 to 95%. The frequency of variants of uncertain significance ranged from 5 to 85% across studies with a potential trend of decreasing frequency over time and higher rates identified in patients of non-European ancestry. This review provides evidence for a higher range of diagnostic yield of exome/genome sequencing compared to standard genetic tests, particularly in neurological and acute indications. However, we identified significant heterogeneity in study procedures and outcomes, precluding a meaningful meta-analysis and certainty in the evidence available for decision-making. Future research that incorporates a comprehensive and consistent approach in capturing clinical utility of exome/genome sequencing across broader ancestral groups is necessary to improve diagnostic accuracy and yield and allow for analysis of trends over time.Prospero registration CRD42019094101.

This study systematically reviewed the literature on the impact of digital genetics tools on patient care and system efficiencies. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for articles published between January 2010 and March 2021. Studies evaluating the use of patient-facing digital tools in the context of genetic service delivery were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted patient-reported and system-focused outcomes from each study. Data were synthesised using a descriptive approach. Of 3226 unique studies identified, 87 were included. A total of 70 unique digital tools were identified. As a result of using digital tools, 84% of studies reported a positive outcome in at least one of the following patient outcomes: knowledge, psychosocial well-being, behavioural/management changes, family communication, decision-making or level of engagement. Digital tools improved workflow and efficiency for providers and reduced the amount of time they needed to spend with patients. However, we identified a misalignment between study purpose and patient-reported outcomes measured and a lack of tools that encompass the entire genetic counselling and testing trajectory. Given increased demand for genetic services and the shift towards virtual care, this review provides evidence that digital tools can be used to efficiently deliver patient-centred care. Future research should prioritise development, evaluation and implementation of digital tools that can support the entire patient trajectory across a range of clinical settings. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020202862.

Bombard et al states on the criticality of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNA) for promoting the health of Canadians and ensuring Canada remains on the cutting edge of genomics research. The government of Quebec, however, is challenging the constitutionality of the act and although the act passed into law only last May, it has already had a positive impact and it is therefore imperative that it remains intact for all Canadians. However, people's fear of having their genetic information used against them by third parties, such as insurers or employers, remains a fundamental barrier to accessing genetic testing. Studies have shown that patients and providers are deterred from the use of genetic tests because of fears that an unfavourable result will lead to difficulties with insurance.

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients’ preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) (www.GenomicsADvISER.com). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them “have a good quality of life” through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results “could ruin your quality of life,” such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

IntroductionGenomic sequencing is increasingly enabling precision care across medical specialties; however, the discovery of genomic ‘secondary findings’ (SFs) unrelated to the patient’s primary indication remains a profuse, unintended consequence. Existing practices within the continuum of SF identification, analysis and management are numerous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory across health conditions and regions. Final decisions are often at the discretion of the genomic sequencing laboratory, bioinformatician or treating physician. This difference in healthcare delivery causes inconsistent information, disclosure and downstream impacts required to manage SFs and patient outcomes. Improving our understanding of the SF health policy landscape can determine components of the SF policy continuum spanning generation through to management that are in conflict, limitations of current guidance and existing needs across clinical settings.Methods and analysisWe will carry out a systematic review to catalogue and appraise current guidance directing the identification, analysis and management of SFs for participants receiving genomic sequencing globally. We will conduct a comprehensive search of Medline (Medline R, Medline Epub Ahead of Print and Medline-In-Process & In-Data-Review Citations), Embase and Cochrane databases (n=5, inception to Feb 2022) and a grey literature search of international genomics websites (n=64; inception to May 2022). Key inclusion criteria include: guidance produced by health organisations, bioethics committees and professional associations, outlining recommendations for: (1) SF identification, (2) SF analysis or (3) SF management. Non-English language articles and conference abstracts will be excluded. Guidance will be critically appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument (AGREE) II tool. We will interpret our findings by process and across populations using a qualitative descriptive approach.Ethics and disseminationOur systematic review evaluates published data and does not require ethics review. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and workshops with precision medicine stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022316079.

Patient care involving genetics is challenging for nongenetics health-care providers. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or management recommendations. This systematic review synthesized evidence on whether using CDS tools resulted in appropriate changes in genetics-related patient management made by nongenetics health-care providers. A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL yielded 2,239 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles on management changes by nongenetics clinicians using a CDS tool as part of patient care. Effect sizes were calculated for quantitative studies and all articles were analyzed together using narrative synthesis. Twenty articles were included. In 12/16 quantitative studies, CDS tools slightly increased appropriate changes in management, but study design appeared to affect the statistical significance of the effect. The qualitative data in the four remaining studies reaffirmed that CDS tools facilitated management decisions but raised questions about their effect on patient outcomes. Our review assessed clinical utility of CDS tools, finding that they slightly increase appropriate management changes by nongenetics providers. Future studies on CDS tools should explicitly evaluate decision making and patient outcomes.

Purpose To report BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2 ) variant reassessments and reclassifications between 2012 and 2017 at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (AMDL) in Toronto, Canada, which provides BRCA1/2 testing for patients in Ontario, and to compare AMDL variant classifications with submissions in ClinVar. Methods Variants were assessed using a standardized variant assessment tool based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology’s guidelines and tracked in an in-house database. Variants were shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository and submitted to ClinVar for comparison against other laboratories. Results AMDL identified 1209 BRCA1/2 variants between 2012 and 2017. During this period, 32.9% (398/1209) of variants were reassessed and 12.4% (150/1209) were reclassified. The majority of reclassified variants were downgraded (112/150, 74.7%). Of the reclassified variants, 63.3% (95/150) were reclassified to benign, 20.7% (31/150) to likely benign, 10.0% (15/150) to variant of uncertain significance, 2.0% (3/150) to likely pathogenic, and 4.0% (6/150) to pathogenic. Discordant ClinVar submissions were found for 40.4% (488/1209) of variants. Conclusion BRCA1/ 2 variants may be reclassified over time. Reclassification presents ethical and practical challenges related to recontacting patients. Data sharing is essential to improve variant interpretation, to help patients receive appropriate care based on their genetic results.

Chatbots, web-based artificial intelligence tools that simulate human conversation, are increasingly in use to support many areas of genomic medicine. However, patient preferences towards using chatbots across the range of clinical settings are unknown. We conducted a qualitative study with individuals who underwent genetic testing for themselves or their child. Participants were asked about their preferences for using a chatbot within the genetic testing journey. Thematic analysis employing interpretive description was used. We interviewed 30 participants (67% female, 50% 50 + years). Participants considered chatbots to be inefficient for very simple tasks (e.g., answering FAQs) or very complex tasks (e.g., explaining results). Chatbots were acceptable for moderately complex tasks where participants perceived a favorable return on their investment of time and energy. In addition to achieving this “sweet spot,” participants anticipated that their comfort with chatbots would increase if the chatbot was used as a complement to but not a replacement for usual care. Participants wanted a “safety net” (i.e., access to a clinician) for needs not addressed by the chatbot. This study provides timely insights into patients’ comfort with and perceived limitations of chatbots for genomic medicine and can inform their implementation in practice.