Medical Actionability Research Articles

Expectations, needs and mid-term outcomes in people accessing to secondary findings from ES: 1st French mixed study (FIND Study)

Generation and subsequently accessibility of secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a subject of debate around the world and particularly in Europe. The French FIND study has been set up to assess patient/parent expectations regarding SF from exome sequencing (ES) and to collect their real-life experience until 1 year after the delivery of results. 340 patients who had ES for undiagnosed developmental disorders were included in this multicenter mixed study (quantitative N = 340; qualitative N = 26). Three groups of actionable SF were rendered: predisposition to late-onset actionable diseases; genetic counseling; pharmacogenomics. Participants expressed strong interest in obtaining SF and a high satisfaction level when a SF is reported. The medical actionability of the SF reinforced parents’ sense of taking action for their child and was seen as an opportunity. While we observed no serious psychological concerns, we showed that these results could have psychological consequences, in particular for late-onset actionable diseases SF, within families already dealing with rare diseases. This study shows that participants remain in favor of accessing SF despite the potential psychological, care, and lifestyle impacts, which are difficult to anticipate. The establishment of a management protocol, including the support of a multidisciplinary team, would be necessary if national policy allows the reporting of these data.

Artificial Intelligence in Postoperative Care: Assessing Large Language Models for Patient Recommendations in Plastic Surgery.

Since their release, the medical community has been actively exploring large language models' (LLMs) capabilities, which show promise in providing accurate medical knowledge. One potential application is as a patient resource. This study analyzes and compares the ability of the currently available LLMs, ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Gemini, to provide postoperative care recommendations to plastic surgery patients. We presented each model with 32 questions addressing common patient concerns after surgical cosmetic procedures and evaluated the medical accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability of the models' responses. The three LLMs provided equally accurate information, with GPT-3.5 averaging the highest on the Likert scale (LS) (4.18 ± 0.93) (p = 0.849), while Gemini provided significantly more readable (p = 0.001) and understandable responses (p = 0.014; p = 0.001). There was no difference in the actionability of the models' responses (p = 0.830). Although LLMs have shown their potential as adjunctive tools in postoperative patient care, further refinement and research are imperative to enable their evolution into comprehensive standalone resources.

Actionability and familial uptake following opportunistic genomic screening in a pediatric cancer cohort

The care for patients with serious conditions is increasingly guided by genomic medicine, and genomic medicine may equally transform care for healthy individual if genomic population screening is implemented. This study examines the medical impact of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS) in a cohort of patients undergoing comprehensive genomic germline DNA testing for childhood cancer, including the impact on their relatives. Medical actionability and uptake after cascade testing in the period following disclosure of OGS results was quantified. A secondary finding was reported to 19/595 (3.2%) probands primarily in genes related to cardiovascular and lipid disorders. After a mean follow up time of 1.6 years (Interquartile range (IQR): 0.57-1.92 yrs.) only 12 (63%) of these variants were found to be medically actionable. Clinical follow up or treatment was planned in 16 relatives, and as in the probands, the prescribed treatment was primarily betablockers or cholesterol lowering therapy. No invasive procedures or implantation of medical devices were performed in probands or relatives, and no reproductive counseling was requested. After an average of 1.6 years of follow-up 2.25 relatives per family with an actionable finding had been tested. This real-world experience of OGS grants new insight into the practical implementation effects and derived health care demands of genotype-first screening. The resulting health care effect and impact on demand for genetic counseling and workup in relatives extends beyond the effect in the probands.

Selection, optimization and validation of ten chronic disease polygenic risk scores for clinical implementation in diverse US populations

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have improved in predictive performance, but several challenges remain to be addressed before PRSs can be implemented in the clinic, including reduced predictive performance of PRSs in diverse populations, and the interpretation and communication of genetic results to both providers and patients. To address these challenges, the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network has developed a framework and pipeline for return of a PRS-based genome-informed risk assessment to 25,000 diverse adults and children as part of a clinical study. From an initial list of 23 conditions, ten were selected for implementation based on PRS performance, medical actionability and potential clinical utility, including cardiometabolic diseases and cancer. Standardized metrics were considered in the selection process, with additional consideration given to strength of evidence in African and Hispanic populations. We then developed a pipeline for clinical PRS implementation (score transfer to a clinical laboratory, validation and verification of score performance), and used genetic ancestry to calibrate PRS mean and variance, utilizing genetically diverse data from 13,475 participants of the All of Us Research Program cohort to train and test model parameters. Finally, we created a framework for regulatory compliance and developed a PRS clinical report for return to providers and for inclusion in an additional genome-informed risk assessment. The initial experience from eMERGE can inform the approach needed to implement PRS-based testing in diverse clinical settings.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response.

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Genetic Testing in Parkinson's Disease.

Genetic testing for persons with Parkinson's disease is becoming increasingly common. Significant gains have been made regarding genetic testing methods, and testing is becoming more readily available in clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer settings. Although the potential utility of clinical testing is expanding, there are currently no proven gene-targeted therapies, but clinical trials are underway. Furthermore, genetic testing practices vary widely, as do knowledge and attitudes of relevant stakeholders. The specter of testing mandates financial, ethical, and physician engagement, and there is a need for guidelines to help navigate the myriad of challenges. However, to develop guidelines, gaps and controversies need to be clearly identified and analyzed. To this end, we first reviewed recent literature and subsequently identified gaps and controversies, some of which were partially addressed in the literature, but many of which are not well delineated or researched. Key gaps and controversies include: (1) Is genetic testing appropriate in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals without medical actionability? (2) How, if at all, should testing vary based on ethnicity? (3) What are the long-term outcomes of consumer- and research-based genetic testing in presymptomatic PD? (4) What resources are needed for clinical genetic testing, and how is this impacted by models of care and cost-benefit considerations? Addressing these issues will help facilitate the development of consensus and guidelines regarding the approach and access to genetic testing and counseling. This is also needed to guide a multidisciplinary approach that accounts for cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors in developing testing guidelines. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

Secondary findings in a large Pakistani cohort tested with whole genome sequencing.

Studies on genomic secondary findings (SFs) are diverse in participants' characteristics, sequencing methods, and versions of the ACMG SF list. Based on whole genome sequencing and the version 3.1 of the ACMG SF list, we studied SFs in 863 individuals from five different regions in Pakistan. We identified 24 ACMG SFs in 23 (2.7%) of 863 individuals: 18 of 24 were related to cardiovascular disease and four to cancer syndromes. In addition to ACMG SFs, we identified 16 (1.9%) participants with pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in genes that were not related to the participants' clinical conditions but with clear medical actionability (non-ACMG SFs): 4 of 16 were related to eye diseases, two to metabolic disorders, and two to urinary system disorders. By testing a large Pakistani cohort with whole genome sequencing, we concluded that in countries such as Pakistan, the ACMG SF list could be expanded, and our non-ACMG SF list is one example.

Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next-generation sequencing: "A great technology creating new dilemmas".

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While "medical actionability" is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

Establishing the Medical Actionability of Genomic Variants.

Actionability is an important concept in medicine that does not have a well-accepted standard definition, nor is there a general consensus on how to establish it. Medical actionability is often conflated with clinical utility, a related but distinct concept. This lack of clarity contributes to practice variation and inconsistent coverage decisions in genomic medicine, leading to the potential for systematic bias in the use of evidence-based interventions. We clarify how medical actionability and clinical utility are distinct and then discuss the spectrum of actionability, including benefits for the person, the family, and society. We also describe applications across the life course, including prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Current challenges in assessing the medical actionability of identified genomic variants include gaps in the evidence, limited contexts with practice guidelines, and subjective aspects of medical actionability. A standardized and authoritative assessment of medical actionability is critical to implementing genomic medicine in a fashion that improves population health outcomes and reduces health disparities.

EP442: Patients’ reaction to and interpretation of secondary genomic findings with limited or no medical actionability

Clinical genomic sequencing methods that produce a wide range of results are increasingly used in research and clinical settings. Some of these results are incidental or secondary findings, unrelated to the testing indication. The potential clinical significance of secondary findings varies, with some having limited to no medical actionability (hereafter referred to as LMA-SFs). Questions remain about whether and how to return LMA-SFs. Previous research found that patients had diverse responses to receiving secondary findings, including excitement, shock, and disbelief.

Genetic associations of protein-coding variants in human disease

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of genetic variants linked to the risk of human disease. However, GWAS have so far remained largely underpowered in relation to identifying associations in the rare and low-frequency allelic spectrum and have lacked the resolution to trace causal mechanisms to underlying genes1. Here we combined whole-exome sequencing in 392,814 UK Biobank participants with imputed genotypes from 260,405 FinnGen participants (653,219 total individuals) to conduct association meta-analyses for 744 disease endpoints across the protein-coding allelic frequency spectrum, bridging the gap between common and rare variant studies. We identified 975 associations, with more than one-third being previously unreported. We demonstrate population-level relevance for mutations previously ascribed to causing single-gene disorders, map GWAS associations to likely causal genes, explain disease mechanisms, and systematically relate disease associations to levels of 117 biomarkers and clinical-stage drug targets. Combining sequencing and genotyping in two population biobanks enabled us to benefit from increased power to detect and explain disease associations, validate findings through replication and propose medical actionability for rare genetic variants. Our study provides a compendium of protein-coding variant associations for future insights into disease biology and drug discovery.

Genomic medicine year in review: 2021

Genomic medicine year in review: 2021

Lessons learned from unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing of 16,482 individuals

Unsolicited findings (UFs) are uncovered unintentionally and predispose to a disease unrelated to the clinical question. The frequency and nature of UFs uncovered in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. We here evaluated UFs identified during a 5-year period in which 16,482 index patients received clinical whole-exome sequencing (WES). UFs were identified in 0.58% (95/16,482) of index patients, indicating that the overall frequency of UFs in clinical WES is low. Fewer UFs were identified using restricted disease-gene panels (0.03%) than when using whole-exome/Mendeliome analysis (1.03%). The UF was disclosed to 86 of 95 individuals, for reasons of medical actionability. Only 61% of these UFs reside in a gene that is listed on the “ACMG59”-list, representing a list of 59 genes for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends UF disclosure. The remaining 39% were grouped into four categories: disorders similar to “ACMG59”-listed disorders (25%); disorders for which disease manifestation could be influenced (7%); UFs providing reproductive options (2%); and UFs with pharmacogenetic implications (5%). Hence, our experience shows that UFs predisposing to medically actionable disorders affect a broader range of genes than listed on the “ACMG59”, advocating that a pre-defined gene list is too restrictive, and that UFs may require ad hoc evaluation of medical actionability. While both the identification and disclosure of UFs depend on local policy, our lessons learned provide general essential insight into the nature and odds of UFs in clinical exome sequencing.

ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

The 2021 FASEB virtual Catalyst Conference on Transplantation Genomics: Ethics of Research and Clinical Applications, January 27, 2021.

The 2021 FASEB virtual Catalyst Conference on Transplantation Genomics: Ethics of Research and Clinical Applications, January 27, 2021.

DNA-based screening and population health: a points to consider statement for programs and sponsoring organizations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

DNA-based screening and population health: a points to consider statement for programs and sponsoring organizations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Burden or benefit? Effects of providing education about and the option to request additional genomic findings from diagnostic exome sequencing: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveMany people prefer to learn secondary or “additional” findings from genomic sequencing, including findings with limited medical actionability. Research has investigated preferences for and effects of learning such findings, but not psychosocial and behavioral effects of receiving education about them and the option to request them, which could be burdensome or beneficial (e.g., causing choice overload or satisfying strong preferences, respectively). Methods335 adults with suspected genetic disorders who had diagnostic exome sequencing in a research study and were randomized to receive either diagnostic findings only (DF; n = 171) or diagnostic findings plus education about additional genomic findings and the option to request them (DF + EAF; n = 164). Assessments occurred after enrollment (Time 1), after return of diagnostic results and—for DF + EAF—the education under investigation (Time 2), and three and six months later (Times 3, 4). ResultsTime 2 test-related distress, test-related uncertainty, and generalized anxiety were lower in the DF + EAF group (ps = 0.025–0.043). There were no other differences. ConclusionsFindings show limited benefits and no harms of providing education about and the option to learn additional findings with limited medical actionability. Practice implicationsFindings can inform recommendations for returning additional findings from genomic sequencing (e.g., to research participants or after commercial testing).

Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child's future autonomy.

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1-15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre's UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children's preferences seriously and acknowledge the child's incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

Parental Views on Newborn Next Generation Sequencing: Implications for Decision Support.

This 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. We 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. Favorable 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. Interviews 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.