Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in newborn screening (NBS) could expand the number of genetic conditions detected pre-symptomatically, simultaneously challenging current precedents, raising ethical concerns, and extending the role of parental decision-making in NBS. The NC NEXUS (Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening) study seeks to assess the technical possibilities and limitations of NGS-NBS, devise and evaluate a framework to convey various types of genetic information, and develop best practices for incorporating NGS-NBS into clinical care. The study is enrolling both a healthy cohort and a cohort diagnosed with known disorders identified through recent routine NBS. It uses a novel age-based metric to categorize a priori the large amount of data generated by NGS-NBS and interactive online decision aids to guide parental decision-making. Primary outcomes include: (1) assessment of NGS-NBS sensitivity, (2) decision regret, and (3) parental decision-making about NGS-NBS, and, for parents randomized to have the option of requesting them, additional findings (diagnosed and healthy cohorts). Secondary outcomes assess parents’ reactions to the study and to decision-making. Methods/design Participants are parents and children in a well-child cohort recruited from a prenatal clinic and a diagnosed cohort recruited from pediatric clinics that treat children with disorders diagnosed through traditional NBS (goal of 200 children in each cohort). In phase 1, all parent participants use an online decision aid to decide whether to accept NGS-NBS for their child and provide consent for NGS-NBS. In phase 2, parents who consent to NGS-NBS are randomized to a decision arm or control arm (2:1 allocation) and learn their child’s NGS-NBS results, which include conditions from standard (non-NGS) NBS plus other highly actionable childhood-onset conditions. Parents in the decision arm use a second decision aid to make decisions about additional results from their child’s sequencing. In phase 3, decision arm participants learn additional results they have requested. Online questionnaires are administered at up to five time points. Discussion NC NEXUS will use a rigorous interdisciplinary approach designed to collect rich data to inform policy, practice, and future research. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02826694 . Registered on 11 July, 2016.

There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients. Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe the desired attributes of such a term and then asked to formulate the best term to represent this concept. The term additional findings had the most first-choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also gave reasons why other terms were not optimal. Additional findings was preferred because it was more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology used by healthcare providers. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand parental decisions, perspectives, values, and beliefs on next generation sequencing in the newborn period (NGS-NBS) to inform the development of a decision aid to support parental decision making in the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study.MethodsWe conducted dyadic interviews with 66 current or expectant parents (33 couples) to understand overall decisions about NGS-NBS and reasons for and against learning NGS-NBS results differing by age of onset and medical actionability. Audio recordings were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using qualitative framework analyses.ResultsFavorable views of NGS-NBS included benefits of early intervention, preparedness, child autonomy, and altruism. Unfavorable views were the potential negative effects from early intervention, psychosocial harm, and religious beliefs. Parents universally reported quality of life as important.ConclusionInterviews elucidated what is important in deciding to have NGS-NBS.Understanding parental perspectives, values, and beliefs and integrating evidence-based findings into a parent-centric decision aid provides value and support in making decisions related to NGS-NBS, where there is no clear course of action.

Purpose Clinical genome sequencing produces uncertain diagnostic results, raising concerns about how to communicate the method’s inherent complexities in ways that reduce potential misunderstandings and harm. This study investigates clinicians’ communications and patient/participant responses to uncertain diagnostic results arising from a clinical exome sequencing research study, contributing empirical data to the debate surrounding disclosure of uncertain genomic information. Methods We investigated the communication and impact of uncertain diagnostic results using ethnographic observations of result disclosures with 21 adults and 11 parents of child patients, followed by two semistructured interviews with these same participants. Results Participants understood their uncertain results in ways that were congruent with clinical geneticists’ communications. They followed recommendations for further consultation, although family testing to resolve uncertainty was not always done. Participants were prepared for learning an uncertain result and grasped the key concept that it should not be used to guide health-care or other decisions. They did not express regret for having learned the uncertain result; most regarded it as potentially valuable in the future. Conclusion This study suggests that uncertain diagnostic results from genome sequencing can be relayed to patients in ways they can understand and consistent with providers’ interpretations, without causing undue harm.

As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision making about their analysis. We established a semiquantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0 to 15. The semiquantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1,000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (P < 0.0001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test). Gene–disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semiquantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.

Purpose People undergoing diagnostic genome-scale sequencing are expected to have better psychological outcomes when they can incorporate and act on accurate, relevant knowledge that supports informed decision making. Methods This longitudinal study used data from the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing Study (NCGENES) of diagnostic exome sequencing to evaluate associations between factual genomic knowledge (measured with the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale at three assessments from baseline to after return of results) and sequencing outcomes that reflected participants’ perceived understanding of the study and sequencing, regret for joining the study, and responses to learning sequencing results. It also investigated differences in genomic knowledge associated with subgroups differing in race/ethnicity, income, education, health literacy, English proficiency, and prior genetic testing. Results Multivariate models revealed higher genomic knowledge at baseline for non-Hispanic Whites and those with higher income, education, and health literacy ( p values < 0.001). These subgroup differences persisted across study assessments despite a general increase in knowledge among all groups. Greater baseline genomic knowledge was associated with lower test-related distress ( p  = 0.047) and greater perceived understanding of diagnostic genomic sequencing ( p values 0.04 to <0.001). Conclusion Findings extend understanding of the role of genomic knowledge in psychological outcomes of diagnostic exome sequencing, providing guidance for additional research and interventions.

Purpose Application of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing is likely to increase in clinical practice, public health contexts, and research. We investigated how parental preference for acquiring information from genome-scale testing is influenced by the characteristics of non-medically actionable genetic disorders in children, as well as whether the preferences differed by gender and between African-American and white respondents. Methods We conducted a Web-based discrete-choice experiment with 1,289 parents of young children. Participants completed “choice tasks” based on pairs of profiles describing sequencing results for hypothetical genetic disorders, selected the profile in each pair that they believed represented the information that would be more important to know, and answered questions that measured their level of distress. Results Knowing the likelihood that the disorder would develop given a true-positive test result was most important to parents. Parents showed greater interest in learning sequencing results for disease profiles with more severe manifestations. This was associated with greater distress. Differences by gender and race reflected small differences in magnitude, but not direction. Conclusion Parents preferred to learn results about genetic disorders with more severe manifestations, even when this knowledge was associated with increased distress. These results may help clinicians support parental decision making by revealing which types of sequencing results parents are interested in learning.

As the use of genomic technology has expanded in research and clinical settings, issues surrounding informed consent for genome and exome sequencing have surfaced. Despite the importance of informed consent, little is known about the specific challenges that professionals encounter when consenting patients or research participants for genomic sequencing. We interviewed 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators with considerable experience obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing to understand their experiences and perspectives. As part of this interview, 24 interviewees discussed an informed consent case they found particularly memorable or challenging. We analyzed these case examples to determine the primary issue or challenge represented by each case. Challenges fell into two domains: participant understanding, and facilitating decisions about testing or research participation. Challenges related to participant understanding included varying levels of general and genomic literacy, difficulty managing participant expectations, and contextual factors that impeded participant understanding. Challenges related to facilitating decision-making included complicated family dynamics such as disagreement or coercion, situations in which it was unclear whether sequencing research would be a good use of participant time or resources, and situations in which the professional experienced disagreement or discomfort with participant decisions. The issues highlighted in these case examples are instructive in preparing genetics professionals to obtain informed consent for genomic sequencing.