Search

The availability of raw DNA and genetic interpretation tools allow individuals to access genetic health risk information, where analytical false-positives exist. Little is known about the experience of individuals who receive pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant(s) through raw DNA interpretation and follow-up with clinical confirmatory genetic testing. This qualitative study set out to describe the experiences of individuals who pursued clinical confirmatory genetic testing, including their perception of the process. Participants were recruited from social media and eligible if they discovered a potential pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a raw DNA interpretation report, completed clinical confirmatory genetic testing in the U.S., and provided documentation of those results. Individuals participated in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 12 participants, 3 received clinical genetic testing results that confirmed pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants noted in raw DNA interpretation reports (confirmation positive), and 9 were not confirmed. Nearly all (n = 11) participants described emotional distress and information-seeking behavior as a coping mechanism after discovering a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in raw DNA interpretation. When pursuing confirmatory genetic testing, many (n = 9) faced challenges with finding knowledgeable healthcare providers and obtaining insurance coverage. Despite reporting concerns over raw DNA interpretation and a desire for more safeguards, almost all (n = 10) participants stated interest in using the service again. Overall, participants' experiences reveal they find personal utility in raw DNA interpretation results and provide insight into opportunities for patient and provider education.The availability of raw DNA data and online genetic interpretation tools allow individuals to access genetic health risk information, where false-positive results exist. Little is known about the experience of individuals who discover disease-causing variant(s) through raw DNA interpretation and follow-up with medical-grade confirmatory genetic testing. This qualitative study describes the experiences of individuals who pursued medical-grade confirmatory genetic testing in the U.S. after they discovered a potential disease-causing variant in a raw DNA interpretation report. Individuals participated in semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Of the 12 participants, 3 received medical-grade genetic testing results that confirmed disease-causing variants noted in raw DNA interpretation reports, and 9 were not confirmed. Nearly all participants described emotional distress and information-seeking behavior after discovering a disease-causing variant in raw DNA interpretation. When pursuing confirmatory genetic testing, many faced challenges with finding knowledgeable healthcare providers and obtaining insurance coverage. Despite reporting concerns over raw DNA interpretation and a desire for more safeguards, almost all participants stated interest in using the service again. Overall, participants’ experiences reveal they find personal utility in raw DNA interpretation results and provide insight into opportunities for patient and provider education.

Exome sequencing (ES) enhanced the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, but has also increased the possibility of uncertain findings. Prenatal ES is increasingly being offered after a fetal abnormality is detected through ultrasound. It is important to know how to handle uncertainty in this particularly stressful period. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of guidelines available for addressing uncertainty related to prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and ES. Ten uncertainty types associated with prenatal ES and CMA were identified and defined by an international multidisciplinary team. Medline (all) and Embase were systematically searched. Laboratory scientists, clinical geneticists, psychologists, and a fetal medicine specialist screened the papers and performed the data extraction. Nineteen papers were included. Recommendations generally emphasized the importance of trio analysis, clinical information, data sharing, validation and re‐analysis, protocols, multidisciplinary teams, genetic counselling, whether to limit the possible scope of results, and when to report particular findings. This systematic review helps provide a vocabulary for uncertainties, and a compass to navigate uncertainties. Prenatal CMA and ES guidelines provide a strong starting point for determining how to handle uncertainty. Gaps in guidelines and recommendations were identified and discussed to provide direction for future research and policy making., Guidelines for prenatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) and Exome Sequencing (ES) were identified through a systematic review and summarized within a framework of ten defined uncertainty types associated with this prenatal genetic testing. This paper aimed to provide a vocabulary for prenatal genetic uncertainty, as well as a compass to navigate these uncertainties.

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population’s experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30–60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues’ taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han’s taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians’ uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

Objectives To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). Methods Semi‐structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. Results There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. Conclusion Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches., Key points What's already known about this topic? Chromosome microarray analysis and exome sequencing have increased diagnostic yield over karyotyping but have increased the incidence of uncertain results. What does this study add? Our findings highlight variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, although there is broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings.International guidelines may help to standardise how we define and categorise variants, however, global uniformity on the management of uncertain results may not be a realistic or desirable goal.

Objective We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. Methods Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. Results Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. Conclusion Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable., Prenatal Diagnosis, 42 (7), ISSN:0197-3851, ISSN:1097-0223

Genomic technologies such as chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing are increasing the number of genetic diagnoses made during pregnancy. However, there remain numerous challenges in interpreting results in a way that is meaningful for prospective parents. A key challenge is how to deal with uncertain results such as variants of unknown or uncertain significance and secondary findings. In this chapter, we explore the different types of uncertainties that arise in prenatal genomics and explore parents and health professionals’ experiences of receiving or returning these results. We also make suggestions about how health professionals can manage uncertainty in the clinical setting.

Purpose: Informed consent for genetic testing has historically been acquired during pretest genetic counseling, without specific guidance defining which core concepts are required. Methods: The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations Workgroup (CADRe) used an expert consensus process to identify the core concepts essential to consent for clinical genetic testing. A literature review identified 77 concepts that are included in informed consent for genetic tests. Twenty-five experts (9 medical geneticists, 8 genetic counselors, and 9 bioethicists) completed two rounds of surveys ranking concepts’ importance to informed consent. Results: The most highly ranked concepts included: (1) genetic testing is voluntary; (2) why is the test recommended and what does it test for?; (3) what results will be returned and to whom?; (4) are there other types of potential results, and what choices exist?; (5) how will the prognosis and management be impacted by results?; (6) what is the potential family impact?; (7) what are the test limitations and next steps?; and (8) potential risk of genetic discrimination and legal protections. Conclusion: Defining the core concepts necessary for informed consent for genetic testing provides a foundation for quality patient care across a variety of healthcare providers and clinical indications.

Purpose: Informed consent for genetic testing has historically been acquired during pretest genetic counseling, without specific guidance defining which core concepts are required. Methods: The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations Workgroup (CADRe) used an expert consensus process to identify the core concepts essential to consent for clinical genetic testing. A literature review identified 77 concepts that are included in informed consent for genetic tests. Twenty-five experts (9 medical geneticists, 8 genetic counselors, and 9 bioethicists) completed two rounds of surveys ranking concepts’ importance to informed consent. Results: The most highly ranked concepts included: (1) genetic testing is voluntary; (2) why is the test recommended and what does it test for?; (3) what results will be returned and to whom?; (4) are there other types of potential results, and what choices exist?; (5) how will the prognosis and management be impacted by results?; (6) what is the potential family impact?; (7) what are the test limitations and next steps?; and (8) potential risk of genetic discrimination and legal protections. Conclusion: Defining the core concepts necessary for informed consent for genetic testing provides a foundation for quality patient care across a variety of healthcare providers and clinical indications.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a blood disorder with few treatment options currently available. However, in recent years, there has been much progress toward developing new therapies and curative treatments to help patients with SCD. Stem cell transplant remains the only approved curative treatment for SCD, but new clinical trials are being initiated using gene therapy and gene editing. We surveyed patients with sickle cell disease (N=9) about attitudes toward stem cell transplant, gene therapy to add a new healthy gene, gene editing to up-regulate fetal hemoglobin, or gene editing to correct the point mutation. The participants read a fact sheet that included objective information on each curative treatment. When asked which curative treatment each participant would choose, all four options were selected at least once. The most highly selected treatment was gene correction gene editing (N=4). Participants generally agreed that the four treatment options are beneficial but were more mixed in their thoughts on whether the options are dangerous. Reasons for selecting a particular curative treatment were variable, but the most selected reasons were perception of a cure (N=4) or decreased severity (N=4), and not needing a donor (N=4). We are at the beginning stages of understanding how patients with SCD make decisions about curative treatments. Currently, patients may be interested in any of the four possibilities for curative treatments, with gene correction gene editing as the most popular choice. Reasons for choosing one treatment over another are mixed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12687-021-00562-z.

In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians. We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics. Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a “typical” patient. We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

Increased usage of exome and genome sequencing has made uncertainties associated with genomic sequencing methods more prevalent within medicine. Current research focuses on patients' perceptions of uncertainty related to genomic sequencing, but there is limited knowledge of the perspectives of providers. The aim of this study was to explore how professionals in genomics perceive uncertainties involved in genomic sequencing, and if or how this impacts their approach to pretest counseling. We performed 20 semi-structured interviews with genetic counselors in the United States and Canada who provide pretest genetic counseling for genomic sequencing. Interviews explored participating genetic counselors' views of uncertainty regarding genomic sequencing, how they classify it, how it manifests, and how they manage it during pretest counseling. Thematic analysis showed that genetic counselors acknowledge concepts of uncertainty that map to existing frameworks of uncertainty for genomic sequencing. Genetic counselors also perceived incongruencies between patients' and providers' expectations of genomic sequencing, which prompted them to modify patients' perceptions of uncertainty related to genomic sequencing. All genetic counselors agreed that guidance and strategies for genomic sequencing pretest counseling would be helpful, particularly for novice genetic counselors and non-genetics providers. These findings highlight the need and potential for conceptual models of uncertainty and uncertainty management strategies to facilitate patient-centered pretest counseling for genomic sequencing.

Parents of children with undiagnosed conditions struggle to obtain information about how to treat and support their children. It can be particularly challenging to find communities and other parents who share their experiences and can provide emotional and informational support. This study sought to characterize how parents use social media, both throughout the diagnostic odyssey and post-diagnosis, to meet their informational, social, and emotional support needs. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 14 parents from the Stanford site of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), including five whose children had received a diagnosis through study participation. Interview recordings were analyzed using inductive, team-based coding and thematic analysis based in grounded theory using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Through this process, we identified four key themes related to social media use. First, parents struggled to find the "right" community, often seeking out groups of similar patients based on symptoms or similar conditions. Second, though they found much valuable information through social media about caring for their child, they also struggled to interpret the relevance of the information to their own child's condition. Third, the social support and access to other patients' and families' lived experiences were described as both highly valued and emotionally challenging, particularly in the case of poor outcomes for similar families. Finally, parents expressed the need to balance concerns about their child's privacy with the value of transparency and data sharing for diagnosis. Our results suggest that the needs and experiences of undiagnosed patients and families differ from those with diagnosed diseases and highlight the need for support in best utilizing social media resources at different stages of the diagnostic odyssey.

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS), often aggregating the results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between the initial variant discovery efforts and disease risk estimation for clinical applications. However, there is remarkable heterogeneity in the reporting of these risk scores due to a lack of adherence to reporting standards and no accepted standards suited for the current state of PRS development and application. This lack of adherence and best practices hinders the translation of PRS into clinical care. The ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group, in a collaboration with the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, have developed a novel PRS Reporting Statement (PRS-RS), updating previous standards to the current state of the field and to enable downstream utility. Drawing upon experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation, and policy, this 23-item reporting framework defines the minimal information needed to interpret and evaluate a PRS, especially with respect to any downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of the study population (recruitment method, key demographics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and phenotype definition), statistical methods for both PRS development and validation, and considerations for potential limitations of the published risk score and downstream clinical utility. Additionally, emphasis has been placed on data availability and transparency to facilitate reproducibility and benchmarking against other PRS, such as deposition in the publicly available PGS Catalog (www.PGScatalog.org). By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds upon existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRS will facilitate translation of PRS into clinical care and progress towards defining best practices.SummaryIn recent years, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have become an increasingly studied tool to capture the genome-wide liability underlying many human traits and diseases, hoping to better inform an individual’s genetic risk. However, a lack of tailored reporting standards has hindered the translation of this important tool into clinical and public health practice with the heterogeneous underreporting of details necessary for benchmarking and reproducibility. To address this gap, the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group and Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog have collaborated to develop the 23-item Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Statement (PRS-RS). This framework provides the minimal information expected of authors to promote the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of PRS by requiring authors to detail the study population, statistical methods, and potential clinical utility of a published score. The widespread adoption of this framework will encourage rigorous methodological consideration and facilitate benchmarking to ensure high quality scores are translated into the clinic.

Members of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community experience significant health disparities. Widespread preferences for heterosexual over homosexual people among healthcare providers are believed to contribute to this inequity, making recognition (and ultimately reduction) of healthcare providers’ sexual prejudices of import. The present study sought to characterize North American genetic counselors’ and genetic counseling students’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward homosexuality. During January 2017, 575 participants completed a Web-based survey and Sexuality Implicit Association Test (SIAT). A majority of participants (60.2%) harbored implicit preferences for heterosexual over homosexual people. Mean implicit attitude score (0.24) indicated a slight automatic preference for heterosexual over homosexual people, while mean explicit attitude score (0.033) indicated no preference for either group. Although participants’ implicit and explicit attitudes were positively correlated (p

Purpose To determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections. Methods We conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian and non-Hispanic White on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research. Results Our study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data. Conclusion Considering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great, if not greater than for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in either setting. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (N=448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Objective: This study explores the experiences of adolescents and young adults with craniofacial microsomia, including the impact of growing up with this craniofacial condition on daily life and sense of self. The results may guide future research on optimally supporting individuals with craniofacial microsomia during this critical life phase. Design and Setting: Participants were recruited through a craniofacial center, online patient support groups, and social media sites. Eleven individual semistructured interviews with participants between 12 and 22 years old were conducted by a single interviewer, transcribed, iteratively coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Five themes were evident in the data: (1) impact on personal growth and character development, (2) negative psychosocial impact, (3) deciding to hide or reveal the condition, (4) desire to make personal surgical decisions, and (5) struggles with hearing loss. Conclusions: We identified both medical and psychosocial concerns prevalent among adolescents with craniofacial microsomia. Although adolescents with craniofacial microsomia exhibit considerable resilience, the challenges they face impact their sense of self and should be addressed through psychosocial support and counseling. Further research should investigate the potential benefit of the wider use of hearing aids, as well as the involvement of patients in decision-making about reconstructive ear surgery.

With the growth of precision medicine research on health data and biospecimens, research institutions will need to build and maintain long-term, trusting relationships with patient-participants. While trust is important for all research relationships, the longitudinal nature of precision medicine research raises particular challenges for facilitating trust when the specifics of future studies are unknown. Based on focus groups with racially and ethnically diverse patients, we describe several factors that influence patient trust and potential institutional approaches to building trustworthiness. Drawing on these findings, we suggest several considerations for research institutions seeking to cultivate long-term, trusting relationships with patients: (1) Address the role of history and experience on trust, (2) engage concerns about potential group harm, (3) address cultural values and communication barriers, and (4) integrate patient values and expectations into oversight and governance structures.

The genetic counseling profession is continuing to develop globally, with countries in various stages of development. In some, the profession has been in existence for decades and is increasingly recognized as an important provider of allied health, while in others it is just beginning. In this article, we describe the current global landscape of the genetic counseling specialty field's professional development. Using examples of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and various countries in Asia, we highlight the following: (a) status of genetic counseling training programs, (b) availability of credentialing through government and professional bodies (certification, registration, and licensure), and potential for international reciprocity, (c) scope of clinical practice, and (d) health-care system disparities and cultural differences impacting on practice. The successful global implementation of precision medicine will require both an increased awareness of the importance of the profession of "genetic counselor" and flexibility in how genetic counselors are incorporated into each country's health-care market. In turn, this will require more collaboration within and across nations, along with continuing engagement of existing genetic counseling professional societies.

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.Genet Med 19 2, 249-255.

Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.