Search

Purpose: Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research., Methods: We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation., Results: Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships., Conclusion: Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Amid calls for greater diversity in precision medicine research, the perspectives of Indigenous people have been underexplored. Our goals were to understand tribal leaders' views regarding the potential benefits and risks of such research, explore its priority for their communities, and identify the policies and safeguards they consider essential. This article reports on the participants' perspectives regarding governance and policy, stewardship and sharing of information and biospecimens, and informed consent., Methods: After informal local dialogs with 21 tribal leaders, we convened a 2.5-day deliberation with tribal leaders (N = 10) in Anchorage, Alaska, in June 2019 using a combination of small group and plenary discussion, ranking, and voting exercises to explore the perspectives on precision medicine research., Results: Tribal sovereignty was central to participants' ideas about precision medicine research. Although views were generally positive, provided that the appropriate controls were in place, some kinds of research were deemed unacceptable, and the collection of certain biospecimens was rejected by some participants. Differences were observed regarding the acceptability of broad consent., Conclusion: Tribal leaders in this study were generally supportive of precision medicine research, with the caveat that tribal oversight is essential for the establishment of research repositories and the conduct of research involving Indigenous participants., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

•Metastatic invasive ductal carcinoma.•IDC metastasis to cervix.•Unusual metastasis to cervix., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

•Immature teratomas are rare in pregnancies.•Surgical and chemotherapeutic considerations during pregnancy.•Growing teratoma syndrome treated with surgical management., Competing Interests: The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The evolving evidence base for the interpretation of variants identified in genetic and genomic testing has presented the genetics community with the challenge of variant reinterpretation. In particular, it is unclear whether an ethical duty of periodic reinterpretation should exist, who should bear that duty, and what its dimensions should be. Based on an analysis of the ethical arguments for and against a duty to reinterpret, we conclude that a duty should be recognized. Most importantly, by virtue of ordering and conducting tests likely to produce data on variants that cannot be definitively interpreted today, the health-care system incurs a duty to reinterpret when more reliable data become available. We identify four elements of the proposed ethical duty: data storage, initiation of reinterpretation, conduct of reinterpretation, and patient recontact, and we identify the parties best situated to implement each component. We also consider the reasonable extent and duration of a duty, and the role of the patient's consent in the process, although we acknowledge that some details regarding procedures and funding still need to be addressed. The likelihood of substantial patient benefit from a systematic approach to reinterpretation suggests the importance for the genetics community to reach consensus on this issue.

We present a case report of a patient with uterine primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). The patient underwent surgical management followed by pelvic radiation and intravaginal brachytherapy. Following a stable interval, the patient was found to have new onset spinal, pulmonary, and adrenal metastatic disease. She was subsequently started on high dose carboplatin and etoposide. An interval reduction of her metastatic disease was observed after three cycles. We conclude that a multimodal approach, including platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy with etoposide, can be effective in patients who present with residual or recurrent disease after surgical and radiation therapy. However, more robust studies with longer follow-up periods will be needed to establish a consensus regarding effective treatment options., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Genomic sequencing and multigene panel tests are moving rapidly into clinical practice for a range of indications, but the evidence to guide appropriate use is currently limited. Well-crafted advice is needed to reduce unjustified practice variation, minimize risk of error and harm to patients, and encourage best practices. In the absence of definitive evidence, provisional advice can be helpful if it clarifies the potential benefits and risks of different courses of action and identifies the knowledge gaps most important to address in future research. This paper proposes an evolutionary process starting with clinical practice advisory documents (CPADs) and culminating in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), using two case examples to illustrate the need for this process. When evidence is limited, CPADs can clarify current practice options and identify key knowledge gaps. Added evidence can then support updates to the CPADs over time. Ultimately CPADs can provide the foundation for definitive CPGs as the evidence base matures. This approach addresses an important challenge in genomics and may be applicable to other fields in which technology and practice are outpacing evidence generation.

Background: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES., Purpose: To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT)., Methods: The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year., Results: Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

•Serous endometrial carcinomas rarely involve the renal system.•Stage IVB serous endometrial carcinoma with confirmed renal metastasis.•Paclitaxel/carboplatin treating serous endometrial carcinoma with renal metastasis.

Purpose: This study examined challenges faced by families and health providers related to genetic testing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD)., Methods: This qualitative study of 14 parents and 15 health providers identified an unstandardized three-step process for families who pursue ASD genetic testing., Results: Step 1 is the clinical diagnosis of ASD, confirmed by providers practicing alone or in a team. Step 2 is the offer of genetic testing to find an etiology. For those offered testing, step 3 involves the parents' decision whether to pursue testing. Despite professional guidelines and recommendations, interviews describe considerable variability in approaches to genetic testing for ASD, a lack of consensus among providers, and questions about clinical utility. Many families in our study were unaware of the option for genetic testing; testing decisions by parents appear to be influenced by both provider recommendations and insurance coverage., Conclusion: Consideration of genetic testing for ASD should take into account different views about the clinical utility of testing and variability in insurance coverage. Ideally, policy makers from the range of clinical specialties involved in ASD care should revisit policies to clarify the purpose of genetic testing for ASD and promote consensus about its appropriate use.

PurposeThe Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium encompasses nine National Institutes of Health-funded U-award projects investigating translation of genomic sequencing into clinical care. Previous literature has distinguished norms and rules governing research versus clinical care. This is the first study to explore how genomics investigators describe and navigate the research-clinical interface.MethodsA CSER working group developed a 22-item survey. All nine U-award projects participated. Descriptive data were tabulated and qualitative analysis of text responses identified themes and characterizations of the research-clinical interface.ResultsSurvey responses described how studies approached the research-clinical interface, including in consent practices, recording results, and using a research versus clinical laboratory. Responses revealed four characterizations of the interface: clear separation between research and clinical care, interdigitation of the two with steps to maintain separation, a dynamic interface, and merging of the two. All survey respondents utilized at least two different characterizations. Although research has traditionally been differentiated from clinical care, respondents pointed to factors blurring the distinction and strategies to differentiate the domains.ConclusionThese results illustrate the difficulty in applying the traditional bifurcation of research versus clinical care to translational models of clinical research, including in genomics. Our results suggest new directions for ethics and oversight.

PurposeLynch syndrome cases are underidentified, and universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (UTS) has been recommended. UTS implementation is challenging and few successful examples exist to date, and colorectal cancer patients and at-risk family members exhibit low uptake of genetic services. This study sought to identify the elements that could guide the choice of specialties to implement UTS through three main stages: initiating the screen, returning positive screen results, and providing follow-up.MethodsTo understand stakeholder views on the UTS process, 20 semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians from six medical specialties crucial for implementing UTS. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and additional thematic analysis across content categories.ResultsSeveral clinical specialties could fill necessary roles at each of the main stages of UTS implementation. Participants suggested owners based on attributes of specialty roles, clinical settings, and the routes patients take through the system.ConclusionUTS is considered possible in a range of health-care settings, with tailoring. Health systems need to choose who best fills the role's needs based on local resources and processes. These results offer implementation guidance based on role needs, not clinical specialty, in resolving the issue of UTS "ownership."

Carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1 isoform A (CPT1A) is a crucial enzyme for the transport of long-chain fatty acids into the mitochondria. The CPT1A p.P479L variant is found in high frequencies among indigenous populations residing on the west and north coasts of Alaska and Canada and in northeast Siberia and Greenland. Epidemiological studies have reported a statistical association between P479L homozygosity and infant death in Alaska Native and Canadian Inuit populations. Here, we review the available evidence about the P479L variant and apply to these data the epidemiological criteria for assessing causal associations. We found insufficient evidence to support a causal association with infant death and, further, that if a causal association is present, then the genotype is likely to be only one of a complex set of factors contributing to an increased risk of infant death. We conclude that additional research is needed to clarify the observed association and to inform effective preventative measures for infant death. In light of these findings, we discuss the policy implications for public health efforts because policies based on the observed association between P479L homozygosity and infant death data are premature.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Purpose: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.Genet Med 19 2, 176-181.

Purpose: Concerns about patient safety and the potential for medical error are largely unexplored for genetic testing, despite the expansion of test use. In this preliminary qualitative study, we sought the views of genetics professionals about error and patient safety concerns in genomic medicine and factors that might mitigate them., Methods: Twelve semistructured interviews with experienced genetics professionals were conducted. Transcripts were analyzed using selective coding for issues related to error definition, mitigation, and communication. Additional thematic analysis captured themes across content categories., Results: Key informants suggested that the potential for adverse events exists in all phases of genetic testing, from ordering to analysis, interpretation, and follow-up. A perceived contributor was lack of physician knowledge about genetics, resulting in errors in test ordering and interpretation. The limitations and uncertainty inherent to rapidly evolving technology were also seen as contributing factors. Strategies to prevent errors included physician education, availability of genetic experts for consultation, and enhanced communication such as improved test reports and electronic decision support., Conclusion: Genetic testing poses concerns for patient safety due to errors and the limitations of current tests. As genomic tests are integrated into medical care, anticipating and addressing patient safety concerns identified by these key informants will be crucial.Genet Med 18 11, 1136-1142., Competing Interests: The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Healthcare is an information business with expanding use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Current ICT tools are immature, but a brighter future looms. We examine 7 areas of ICT in healthcare: electronic health records (EHRs), health information exchange (HIE), patient portals, telemedicine, social media, mobile devices and wearable sensors and monitors, and privacy and security. In each of these areas, we examine the current status and future promise, highlighting how each might reach its promise. Steps to better EHRs include a universal programming interface, universal patient identifiers, improved documentation and improved data analysis. HIEs require federal subsidies for sustainability and support from EHR vendors, targeting seamless sharing of EHR data. Patient portals must bring patients into the EHR with better design and training, greater provider engagement and leveraging HIEs. Telemedicine needs sustainable payment models, clear rules of engagement, quality measures and monitoring. Social media needs consensus on rules of engagement for providers, better data mining tools and approaches to counter disinformation. Mobile and wearable devices benefit from a universal programming interface, improved infrastructure, more rigorous research and integration with EHRs and HIEs. Laws for privacy and security need updating to match current technologies, and data stewards should share information on breaches and standardize best practices. ICT tools are evolving quickly in healthcare and require a rational and well-funded national agenda for development, use and assessment., (Copyright © 2016 Southern Society for Clinical Investigation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing analyze and return pathogenic variants for 56 specific genes it considered medically actionable. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of returning these results., Methods: We developed a decision-analytic policy model to project the quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs associated with returning ACMG-recommended incidental findings in three hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 patients., Results: Returning incidental findings to cardiomyopathy patients, colorectal cancer patients, or healthy individuals would increase costs by $896,000, $2.9 million, and $3.9 million, respectively, and would increase quality-adjusted life-years by 20, 25.4, and 67 years, respectively, for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $44,800, $115,020, and $58,600, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, returning incidental findings cost less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 85, 28, and 91%, respectively, of simulations. Assuming next-generation sequencing costs $500, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for primary screening of healthy individuals was $133,400 (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 10% of simulations). Results were sensitive to the cohort age and assumptions about gene penetrance., Conclusion: Returning incidental findings is likely cost-effective for certain patient populations. Screening of generally healthy individuals is likely not cost-effective based on current data, unless next-generation sequencing costs less than $500.

Background: Olaparib (Lynparza) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in cancers with homologous recombination defects., Patients and Methods: In this phase I, dose-escalation trial, patients with advanced solid tumours received olaparib (50-200 mg capsules b.i.d.) continuously or intermittently (days 1-14, per 28-day cycle) plus gemcitabine [i.v. 600-800 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycle 1), days 1, 8, and 15 (subsequent cycles)] to establish the maximum tolerated dose. A separate dose-escalation phase evaluated olaparib in tablet formulation (100 mg o.d./b.i.d.; days 1-14) plus gemcitabine (600 mg/m(2)). In an expansion phase, patients with genetically unselected locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to the tolerated olaparib capsule combination dose or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg/m(2))., Results: Sixty-six patients were treated [dose-escalation phase, n = 44 (tablet cohort, n = 12); dose-expansion phase, n = 22 (olaparib plus gemcitabine, n = 15; gemcitabine alone, n = 7)]. In the dose-escalation phase, four patients (6%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities (raised alanine aminotransferase, n = 2; neutropenia, n = 1; febrile neutropenia, n = 1). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 38/47 patients (81%) treated with olaparib capsules plus gemcitabine; most common were haematological toxicities (55%). Tolerated combinations were olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. capsule (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) and olaparib 100 mg o.d. tablet (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2). There were no differences in efficacy observed during the dose-expansion phase., Conclusions: Olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. (intermittent dosing; capsules) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) is tolerated in advanced solid tumour patients, with no unmanageable/unexpected toxicities. Continuous dosing of olaparib or combination with gemcitabine at doses >600 mg/m(2) was not considered to have an acceptable tolerability profile for further study., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00515866., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)