Search

Mental illnesses are common and highly heritable. Patients and their families want and benefit from receiving psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC). Though the pGC workforce is among the smallest of genetic counseling (GC) specialties, genetic counselors (GCs) want to practice in this area. A major barrier to the expansion of the pGC workforce is limited availability of advertised positions, but it remains unclear why this is the case. We used a qualitative approach to explore drivers for and barriers to the creation of GC positions (including pGC) at large centralized genetic centers in the United States and Canada that offer multiple specialty GC services. Individuals with responsibilities for making decisions about creating new clinical GC positions were interviewed using a semi-structured guide, and an interpretive description approach was used for inductive data analysis. From interviews with 12 participants, we developed a theoretical model describing how the process of creating new GC positions required institutional prioritization of funding, which was primarily allocated according to physician referral patterns, which in turn were largely driven by availability of genetic testing and clinical practice guidelines. Generating revenue for the institution, improving physician efficiency, and reinforcing institutional mission were all regarded as valued outcomes that bolstered prioritization of funding for new GC positions. Evidence of patient benefit arising from new GC positions (e.g., pGC) seemed to play a lesser role. These findings highlight the tension between how institutions value GC (generating revenue, reacting to genetic testing), and how the GC profession sees its value (providing patient benefit, focus on counseling).

Genomic medicine holds great promise for improving health care, but integrating searchable and actionable genetic data into electronic health records (EHRs) remains a challenge. Here we describe Neptune, a system for managing the interaction between a clinical laboratory and an EHR system during the clinical reporting process. We developed Neptune and applied it to two clinical sequencing projects that required report customization, variant reanalysis, and EHR integration. Neptune has been applied for the generation and delivery of over 15,000 clinical genomic reports. This work spans two clinical tests based on targeted gene panels that contain 68 and 153 genes respectively. These projects demanded customizable clinical reports that contained a variety of genetic data types including single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy-number variants (CNVs), pharmacogenomics, and polygenic risk scores. Two variant reanalysis activities were also supported, highlighting this important workflow. Methods are needed for delivering structured genetic data to EHRs. This need extends beyond developing data formats to providing infrastructure that manages the reporting process itself. Neptune was successfully applied on two high-throughput clinical sequencing projects to build and deliver clinical reports to EHR systems. The software is open source and available at https://gitlab.com/bcm-hgsc/neptune .

The Genetic Counselor SARS‐CoV‐2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal‐ and state‐level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors. The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic‐related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents. The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal‐ and state‐level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority‐female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts.

Assessing the risk of common, complex diseases requires consideration of clinical risk factors as well as monogenic and polygenic risks, which in turn may be reflected in family history. Returning risks to individuals and providers may influence preventive care or use of prophylactic therapies for those individuals at high genetic risk.To enable integrated genetic risk assessment, the eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) network is enrolling 25,000 diverse individuals in a prospective cohort study across 10 sites. The network developed methods to return cross-ancestry polygenic risk scores (PRS), monogenic risks, family history, and clinical risk assessments via a Genome Informed Risk Assessment (GIRA) report and will assess uptake of care recommendations after return of results.GIRAs include summary care recommendations for 11 conditions, education pages, and clinical laboratory reports. The return of high-risk GIRA to individuals and providers includes guidelines for care and lifestyle recommendations. Assembling the GIRA required infrastructure and workflows for ingesting and presenting content from multiple sources. Recruitment began in February 2022.Return of a novel report for communicating monogenic, polygenic, and family history based risk factors will inform the benefits of integrated genetic risk assessment for routine health care.

Population-based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life-altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and "lessons learned" across institutions. A 60-item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open-ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.

Background While there have been published reports detailing technical challenges of incorporating genetic test results into the electronic health record (EHR) with proposed solutions, less has been published about unanticipated sociotechnological or practical communication challenges involved in this process. Objectives This study was aimed to describe unanticipated issues that arose returning genetic research results through the EHR as part of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) 3 consortium, and provide lessons learned for future implementations Methods We sequenced 3,000 participants on a 109-gene panel and returned genetic results initially in person and/or by letter, with a later release directly into the EHR and patient portal. Results When results were returned through the EHR, multiple participants expressed confusion and contacted the health system, resulting in our institution temporarily freezing our return of research results. Discussion We determined the likely causes of this issue to be (1) the delay between enrollment and results return, (2) inability to personalize mass e-mail messages announcing new research test results in the EHR, (3) limited space for description of test results in the EHR, and (4) the requirement to list an ordering physician for research results in the EHR. For future return of results, we propose sending preparatory e-mails to participants, including screenshots of how they can expect to see their results presented in the EHR portal. Conclusion We hope our lessons learned can provide helpful guidance to other sites implementing research genetic results into the EHR and can encourage EHR developers to incorporate greater flexibility in the future.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution’s internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant’s disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

The advancement of precision medicine requires new methods to coordinate and deliver genetic data from heterogeneous sources to physicians and patients. The eMERGE III Network enrolled >25,000 participants from biobank and prospective cohorts of predominantly healthy individuals for clinical genetic testing to determine clinically actionable findings. The network developed protocols linking together the 11 participant collection sites and 2 clinical genetic testing laboratories. DNA capture panels targeting 109 genes were used for testing of DNA and sample collection, data generation, interpretation, reporting, delivery, and storage were each harmonized. A compliant and secure network enabled ongoing review and reconciliation of clinical interpretations, while maintaining communication and data sharing between clinicians and investigators. A total of 202 individuals had positive diagnostic findings relevant to the indication for testing and 1,294 had additional/secondary findings of medical significance deemed to be returnable, establishing data return rates for other testing endeavors. This study accomplished integration of structured genomic results into multiple electronic health record (EHR) systems, setting the stage for clinical decision support to enable genomic medicine. Further, the established processes enable different sequencing sites to harmonize technical and interpretive aspects of sequencing tests, a critical achievement toward global standardization of genomic testing. The eMERGE protocols and tools are available for widespread dissemination.

Background Unbiased estimates of penetrance are challenging, but are critically important to make informed choices about strategies for risk management through increased surveillance and risk reducing interventions. Methods We studied the penetrance and clinical outcomes of seven breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2 and PTEN) in almost 13,458 participants unselected for personal or family history of breast cancer. We identified 242 female participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in one of the seven genes for penetrance analyses, and 147 women did not previously know their genetic results. Results Out of the 147 women, 32 women were diagnosed with breast cancer at an average age of 52.8 years. Estimated penetrance by age 60 years ranged from 17.8%-43.8%, depending on the gene. In clinical-impact analysis, 42.3% (95% confidence interval = 31.3% to 53.3%) of women had taken actions related to their genetic results and two new breast cancer cases were identified within the first twelve months after genetic results disclosure. Conclusions Our study provides population-based penetrance estimates for the understudied genes, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2, and highlights the importance of using unselected populations for penetrance studies. It also demonstrates the potential clinical impact of genetic testing to improve healthcare through early diagnosis and preventative screening.

We studied the penetrance and clinical outcomes of seven breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2 and PTEN) in almost 25,000 participants unselected for personal or family history of breast cancer. We identified 420 participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and 147 were women who did not previously know their genetic results. Out of these 147 women, 32 women were diagnosed with breast cancer at an average age of 52.8 years. Estimated penetrance by age 60 years ranged from 18-44%, depending on the gene. Within the first twelve months after genetic results disclosure, 42% of women had taken actions related to their genetic results and two new breast cancer cases were identified. Our study provides population-based penetrance estimates for the understudied genes, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2, and highlights the importance of using unselected populations for penetrance studies. It also demonstrates the potential clinical impact of genetic testing to improve healthcare through early diagnosis and preventative screening.

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium. METHODS: Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices. RESULTS: Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes. CONCLUSION: Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

Genomic medicine is moving from research to the clinic. There is a lack of evidence about the impact of genomic medicine interventions on health outcomes. This is due in part to a lack of standardized outcome measures that can be used across different programs to evaluate the impact of interventions targeted to specific genetic conditions. The eMERGE Outcomes working group (OWG) developed measures to collect information on outcomes following the return of genomic results to participants for several genetic disorders. These outcomes were compared to outcome intervention pairs for genetic disorders developed independently by the ClinGen Actionability working group (AWG). In general, there was concordance between the defined outcomes between the two groups. The ClinGen outcomes tended to be from a higher level and the AWG scored outcomes represented a subset of outcomes referenced in the accompanying AWG evidence review. eMERGE OWG outcomes were more detailed and discrete, facilitating a collection of relevant information from the health records. This paper demonstrates that common outcomes for genomic medicine interventions can be identified. Further work is needed to standardize outcomes across genomic medicine implementation projects and to make these publicly available to enhance dissemination and assist in making precision public health a reality.

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the &ldquo, real world&rdquo, of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

BackgroundThe eMERGE III Network was tasked with harmonizing genetic testing protocols linking multiple sites and investigators.MethodsDNA capture panels targeting 109 genes and 1551 variants were constructed by two clinical sequencing centers for analysis of 25,000 participant DNA samples collected at 11 sites where samples were linked to patients with electronic health records. Each step from sample collection, data generation, interpretation, reporting, delivery and storage, were developed and validated in CAP/CLIA settings and harmonized across sequencing centers.ResultsA compliant and secure network was built and enabled ongoing review and reconciliation of clinical interpretations while maintaining communication and data sharing between investigators. Mechanisms for sustained propagation and growth of the network were established. An interim data freeze representing 15,574 sequenced subjects, informed the assay performance for a range of variant types, the rate of return of results for different phenotypes and the frequency of secondary findings. Practical obstacles for implementation and scaling of clinical and research findings were identified and addressed. The eMERGE protocols and tools established are now available for widespread dissemination.ConclusionsThis study established processes for different sequencing sites to harmonize the technical and interpretive aspects of sequencing tests, a critical achievement towards global standardization of genomic testing. The network established experience in the return of results and the rate of secondary findings across diverse biobank populations. Furthermore, the eMERGE network has accomplished integration of structured genomic results into multiple electronic health record systems, setting the stage for clinical decision support to enable genomic medicine.