Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs’ views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6–40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs’ emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients’ expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

Genomic sequencing advances have increased the potential to identify secondary findings (SFs). Current guidelines recommend the analysis of 59 medically actionable genes; however, patient preferences indicate interest in learning a broader group of SFs. We aimed to develop an analytical pipeline for the efficient analysis and return of all clinically significant SFs. We developed a pipeline consisting of comprehensive gene lists for five categories of SFs and filtration parameters for prioritization of variants in each category. We applied the pipeline to 42 exomes to assess feasibility and efficiency. Comprehensive lists of clinically significant SF genes were curated for each category: (1) 90 medically actionable genes and 28 pharmacogenomic variants; (2) 17 common disease risk variants; (3) 3166 Mendelian disease genes, (4) 7 early onset neurodegenerative disorder genes; (5) 688 carrier status results. Analysis of 42 exomes using our pipeline resulted in a significant decrease (> 98%) in variants compared to the raw analysis (13,036.56 ± 59.72 raw variants/exome vs 161.32 ± 7.68 filtered variants/exome), and aided in time and costs savings for the overall analysis process. Our pipeline represents a critical step in overcoming the analytic challenge associated with returning all clinically relevant SFs to allow for its routine implementation in clinical practice.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients’ preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as “planners” and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because “knowledge is power”. Concerned Individuals defined themselves as “anxious,” and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to “un-know” information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: “hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy”. These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.