Search

Costs of implementing genomic testing innovations extend beyond the cost of sequencing, affecting personnel and infrastructure for which little data are available. We developed a time and motion (T&M) study within the Clinical Sequencing Evidence‐Generating Research (CSER) consortium to address this gap, and herein describe challenges of conducting T&M studies within a research consortium and the approaches we developed to overcome them. CSER investigators created a subgroup to carry out the T&M study (authors). We describe logistical and administrative challenges associated with resource use data collection across heterogeneous projects conducted in real‐world clinical settings, and our solutions for completing this study and harmonizing data across projects. We delineate processes for feasible data collection on workflow, personnel, and resources required to deliver genetic testing innovations in each CSER project. A critical early step involved developing detailed project‐specific process flow diagrams of innovation implementation in projects' clinical settings. Analyzing diagrams across sites, we identified common process‐step themes, used to organize project‐specific data collection and cross‐project analysis. Given the heterogeneity of innovations, study design, and workflows, which affect resources required to deliver genetic testing innovations, flexibility was necessary to harmonize data collection. Despite its challenges, this heterogeneity provides rich insights about variation in clinical processes and resource implications for implementing genetic testing innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter‐mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patient's ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow‐up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters' strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters' transmission of complex genetic concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed‐methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self‐identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in‐depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biallelic mutations in POLR3A have been associated with childhood‐onset hypomyelinating leukodystrophies and adolescent‐to‐adult‐onset spastic ataxia, the latter of which has been linked to the intronic variant c.1909 + 22G>A. We report a case of adult‐onset spastic ataxia in a 75‐year‐old man, being a compound heterozygous carrier of this variant, whose brain and spinal cord were for the first time investigated by neuropathological examination. We describe prominent degeneration of the posterior columns, spinocerebellar tracts, and anterior corticospinal tracts of the spinal cord in a pattern resembling Friedreich's ataxia, with a notable lack of significant white matter pathology throughout the brain, in marked contrast with childhood‐onset cases. Immunohistochemical examination for the POLR3A protein demonstrated no apparent differences in localization or staining intensity between the proband and an age‐matched control subject. We demonstrate the clinicopathologic description of POLR3A‐related neurodegenerative disease and also mention the differential diagnosis of the childhood‐onset hypomyelinating leukodystrophy and late‐onset spastic ataxia phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing has become routine for many inherited conditions; however, little is known about the unique issues that arise when offering genetic testing for inherited forms of dementia. To better understand the patient perspective, we surveyed study participants about their experiences as they underwent genetic counseling and genetic testing for dementia. We recruited 50 pairs of subjects. Each pair was comprised of one person with cognitive impairment and a cognitively intact co‐participant. Study participants received pre‐ and post‐test genetic counseling and comprehensive genetic testing for dementia. During the study, participant pairs completed four surveys which asked about their experience. Testing began with a 38 gene dementia panel. Participants with negative panel results or variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were reflexed to exome sequencing (ES). Twenty‐nine participants (58%) reported that their primary motivation to join the study was for the benefit to their families. Fifty‐two percent of participants initially planned to use their test results to make health and wellness changes, but, six months after disclosure, only 31% had done so. Six months after result disclosure, approximately 90% of participant pairs accurately recalled their genetic test results. Overall satisfaction with testing was high, and decision regret was negligible. This observational study describes the experiences of study participants undergoing genetic counseling and genetic testing for dementia and found that most participant pairs accurately recalled their results up to six months following disclosure while also maintaining high levels of satisfaction without decision regret. These findings suggest that, in the context of genetic counseling, genetic testing can be effectively used in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence‐Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice‐based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]