Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

BackgroundPhenotypic overlap among the inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFSs) frequently limits the ability to establish a diagnosis based solely on clinical features. >70 IBMFS genes have been identified, which often renders genetic testing prolonged and costly. Since correct diagnosis, treatment and cancer surveillance often depend on identifying the mutated gene, strategies that enable timely genotyping are essential.MethodsTo overcome these challenges, we developed a next-generation sequencing assay to analyse a panel of 72 known IBMFS genes. Cases fulfilling the clinical diagnostic criteria of an IBMFS but without identified causal genotypes were included.ResultsThe assay was validated by detecting 52 variants previously found by Sanger sequencing. A total of 158 patients with unknown mutations were studied. Of 75 patients with known IBMFS categories (eg, Fanconi anaemia), 59% had causal mutations. Among 83 patients with unclassified IBMFSs, we found causal mutations and established the diagnosis in 18% of the patients. The assay detected mutant genes that had not previously been reported to be associated with the patient phenotypes. In other cases, the assay led to amendments of diagnoses. In 20% of genotype cases, the results indicated a cancer surveillance programme.ConclusionsThe novel assay is efficient, accurate and has a major impact on patient care.

IntroductionThe high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey.Methods and analysisWe will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20–035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04725565.

IntroductionGenomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.Methods and analysisWe will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT03597165.

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.

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.

BackgroundExome and genome sequencing have been demonstrated to increase diagnostic yield in paediatric populations, improving treatment options and providing risk information for relatives. There are limited studies examining the clinical utility of these tests in adults, who currently have limited access to this technology.MethodsPatients from adult and cancer genetics clinics across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were recruited into a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in adults. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and suspected of having a hereditary disorder but had received previous uninformative genetic test results. In total, we examined the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in 47 probands and 34 of their relatives who consented to participate and underwent exome or genome sequencing.ResultsOverall, 17% (8/47) of probands had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified in a gene associated with their primary indication for testing. The diagnostic yield for patients with a cancer history was similar to the yield for patients with a non-cancer history (4/18 (22%) vs 4/29 (14%)). An additional 24 probands (51%) had an inconclusive result. Secondary findings were identified in 10 patients (21%); three had medically actionable results.ConclusionsThis study lends evidence to the diagnostic utility of exome or genome sequencing in an undiagnosed adult population. The significant increase in diagnostic yield warrants the use of this technology. The identification and communication of secondary findings may provide added value when using this testing modality as a first-line test.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.