Genetic Counseling Practice in Next Generation Sequencing Research: Implications for the Ethical Oversight of the Informed Consent Process

The potential for next generation sequencing research (NGS) to generate individual genetic results could have implications for the informed consent process and the provision of genetic counseling. We undertook a content analysis of informed consent templates and guidelines produced by Canadian institutional review boards, purposively sampling documents used by researchers to obtain consent from participants in genetics studies. Our goal was to examine the extent to which the informed consent documents addressed genetic counseling and the return of individual genetic results. Our analysis reveals that the majority of informed consent documents did not mention genetic counseling while several did not mention the return of results. We found differences in the ways in which documents addressed availability of counseling, eligibility criteria for referral to a genetic counselor, genetic counselor involvement, provision of services to family members of participants and incidental findings. From an ethical standpoint, consent documents should provide appropriate information so that participants may make an informed decision about their participation in research. The need to ensure adequate counseling for study populations in an NGS research context will necessarily involve adapting values that underlie care in genetic counseling practice. If the interests of research participants are to be truly promoted, the drafting and review of informed consent documents should give proper due to genetic counseling.     

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in-person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in-person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in-person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3-months post viewing of at least one test report and post-completion of the study-specific follow-up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow-up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in-person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient-centered health outcomes.     

Impact of Genomic Counseling on Informed Decision-Making among ostensibly Healthy Individuals Seeking Personal Genome Sequencing: the HealthSeq Project

Personal genome sequencing is increasingly utilized by healthy individuals for predispositional screening and other applications. However, little is known about the impact of ‘genomic counseling’ on informed decision-making in this context. Our primary aim was to compare measures of participants’ informed decision-making before and after genomic counseling in the HealthSeq project, a longitudinal cohort study of individuals receiving personal results from whole genome sequencing (WGS). Our secondary aims were to assess the impact of the counseling on WGS knowledge and concerns, and to explore participants’ satisfaction with the counseling. Questionnaires were administered to participants (n = 35) before and after their pre-test genomic counseling appointment. Informed decision-making was measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS). DCS scores decreased after genomic counseling (mean: 11.34 before vs. 5.94 after; z = ?4.34, p < 0.001, r = 0.52), and SDS scores increased (mean: 27.91 vs. 29.06 respectively; z = 2.91, p = 0.004, r = 0.35). Satisfaction with counseling was high (mean (SD) = 26.91 (2.68), on a scale where 6 = low and 30 = high satisfaction). HealthSeq participants felt that their decision regarding receiving personal results from WGS was more informed after genomic counseling. Further research comparing the impact of different genomic counseling models is needed.     

Research Participants’ Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research

Secondary or incidental results can be identified in genomic research that increasingly uses whole exome/genome sequencing. Understanding research participants’ preferences for secondary results and what influences these decisions is important for patient education, counseling, and consent, and for the development of policies regarding return of secondary results. Two hundred nineteen research participants enrolled in genomic studies were surveyed regarding hypothetical preferences for specific types of secondary results, and these preferences were correlated with demographic information and psychosocial data. The majority of research participants (73%) indicated a preference to learn about all results offered, with no clear pattern regarding which results were not desired by the remaining participants. Participants who reported greater interest in genetic privacy were less likely to indicate a preference to learn all results, as were individuals who self-identified as Jewish. Although most research participants preferred to receive all secondary results offered, a significant subset preferred to exclude some results, suggesting that an all-or-none policy would not be ideal for all participants. The correlations between preferences to receive secondary results, religious identification, and privacy concerns demonstrate the need for culturally sensitive counseling and educational materials accessible to all education levels to allow participants to make the best choices for themselves.     

Decision Making with Uncertain Information: Learning from Women in a High Risk Breast Cancer Clinic

Patients and practitioners may believe that clinically validated laboratory tests provide definitive information. Genetic counselors know this is not always so, and the possibility of inconclusive genetic test results is often discussed in the pretest counseling session. This added discussion topic prolongs the process of genetic counseling, but if there is inadequate patient understanding, patient frustration may be high when receiving a result of uncertain significance, and patients may make decisions about subsequent medical management based on incorrect assumptions. For patients/participants in a research setting, where the clinical validity of testing may be unclear, some patients/participants may still want to use test results to influence their medical management. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study wherein 15 women from the High Risk Breast Cancer Clinic at Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute discussed how uncertainty regarding results affected their decision making. The women were randomly selected from 3 categories--women with test results of uncertain significance; women without cancer who have a mutation; and women who are members of high-risk families, but for whom no mutation was found. Study findings will be used in future studies to better understand how to improve communication regarding uncertain results, especially in a research environment.     

Factors Influencing Perceptions of Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling among Women in an Urban Health Care System

The study assessed perceptions of breast cancer genetic counseling. Focus groups were conducted with twenty women (ages < = 50 years) in a Midwestern, urban health system identified as at above average risk of developing hereditary breast cancer and referred for breast cancer genetic counseling following mammography. All participants associated the words “breast cancer” with fear. African American women who received breast cancer genetic counseling may have channeled their fear into increased vigilance related to breast health. African American women who did not receive breast cancer genetic counseling were most knowledgeable about it. In contrast, Caucasian women who did not receive it reported uncertainty about the role of genetic counseling and testing in assessing breast cancer risk, mistrust in medical professionals, and lack of trust in the accuracy of genetic tests. The results could be used to help develop interventions to improve informed decision-making regarding breast cancer genetic counseling.     

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

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.     

Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results

As exome and whole genome sequencing become clinically available, the potential to receive a large number of clinically relevant but incidental results is a significant challenge in the provision of genomic counseling. We conducted three focus groups of a total of 35 individuals who were members of ASHG and/or NSGC, assessing views towards the return of genomic results. Participants stressed that patient autonomy was primary. There was consensus that a mechanism to return results to the healthcare provider, rather than patient, and to streamline integration into the electronic health record would ensure these results had the maximal impact on patient management. All three focus groups agreed that pharmacogenomic results were reasonable to return and that they were not felt to be stigmatizing. With regard to the return of medically relevant results, there was much debate. Participants had difficulty in consistently assigning specific diseases to ‘bins’ that were considered obligatory versus optional for disclosure. Consensus was reached regarding the importance of informed consent and pretest counseling visits to clarify what the return of results process would entail. Evidence based professional guidelines should continue to be developed and regularly revised to assist in consistently and appropriately providing genomic results to patients.     

Acceptability of,and Information Needs Regarding,Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Next generation sequencing (NGS) for patients at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes can also identify non-cancer related mutations, as well as variants of unknown significance. This study aimed to determine what benefits and shortcomings patients perceive in relation to NGS, as well as their interest and information preferences in regards to such testing. Eligible patients had previously received inconclusive results from clinical mutation testing for cancer susceptibility. Semi-structured telephone interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis guided by the approach developed by Miles and Huberman. The majority of the 19 participants reported they would be interested in panel/genomic testing. Advantages identified included that it would enable better preparation and allow implementation of individualized preventative strategies, with few disadvantages mentioned. Almost all participants said they would want all results, not just those related to their previous diagnosis. Participants felt that a face-to-face discussion supplemented by an information booklet would be the best way to convey information and achieve informed consent. All participants wanted their information stored and reviewed in accordance with new developments. Although the findings indicate strong interest among these individuals, it seems that the consent process, and the interpretation and communication of results will be areas that will require revision to meet the needs of patients.     

A Survey of Genetic Counselors' Use of Informed Consent Documents for Prenatal Genetic Counseling Sessions

Thirty six members of the Prenatal Diagnosis Special Interest Group of the National Society of Genetic Counselors were interviewed about their use of informed consent documents for the genetic counseling component of their prenatal genetic counseling sessions and their perceptions of the utility and feasibility of such documents. Major findings include (1) None of the genetic counselors currently used a consent document describing the genetic counseling component of the session itself; (2) Only three participants stated that they had ever used an informed consent document for this component of the session; (3) They disagreed about the importance and usefulness of such a document; (4) There was variability in their reported likelihood of using a document if one were available; (5) There was a fair amount of agreement about the types of information to include on an informed consent document for genetic counseling; over half of the sample endorsed 8 of 10 topics; and (6) Participants identified 10 obstacles to using such a document. Recommendations for genetic counseling practice, policy, and research are given.     

Low Rates of African American Participation in Genetic Counseling and Testing for BRCA1/2 Mutations: Racial Disparities or Just a Difference?

Low rates of genetic counseling among African American women have generated concerns about disparities; however, to the extent that women's decisions to accept or decline counseling are consistent with their values, then lower participation may reflect preferences and not disparities. We evaluated the extent to which women were satisfied with their decision about participating in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 mutations and identified variables that were associated significantly with satisfaction. Prospective study of decision satisfaction with 135 African American women who had a minimum 5% prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation. Decision satisfaction was evaluated one month after women were offered participation in genetic counseling using a structured questionnaire. Women were satisfied with their participation decision; more than 80% reported that their decision was consistent with their family values. However, women who declined pre-test counseling had significantly lower satisfaction scores. Our findings highlight the importance ensuring that racial differences that are due to preferences and values are not misclassified as disparities in order to identify and address the root causes of disparate treatment.     

Informed Decision-Making in the Context of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray

The introduction of chromosomal microarray (CMA) into the prenatal setting has involved considerable deliberation due to the wide range of possible outcomes (e.g., copy number variants of uncertain clinical significance). Such issues are typically discussed in pre-test counseling for pregnant women to support informed decision-making regarding prenatal testing options. This research study aimed to assess the level of informed decision-making with respect to prenatal CMA and the factor(s) influencing decision-making to accept CMA for the selected prenatal testing procedure (i.e., chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis). We employed a questionnaire that was adapted from a three-dimensional measure previously used to assess informed decision-making with respect to prenatal screening for Down syndrome and neural tube defects. This measure classifies an informed decision as one that is knowledgeable, value-consistent, and deliberated. Our questionnaire also included an optional open-ended question, soliciting factors that may have influenced the participants’ decision to accept prenatal CMA; these responses were analyzed qualitatively. Data analysis on 106 participants indicated that 49% made an informed decision (i.e., meeting all three criteria of knowledgeable, deliberated, and value-consistent). Analysis of 59 responses to the open-ended question showed that “the more information the better” emerged as the dominant factor influencing both informed and uninformed participants’ decisions to accept prenatal CMA. Despite learning about the key issues in pre-test genetic counseling, our study classified a significant portion of women as making uninformed decisions due to insufficient knowledge, lack of deliberation, value-inconsistency, or a combination of these three measures. Future efforts should focus on developing educational approaches and counseling strategies to effectively increase the rate of informed decision-making among women offered prenatal CMA.     

Comparison of Informed Consent Preferences for Multiplex Genetic Carrier Screening among a Diverse Population

Multiplex genetic carrier screening is increasingly being integrated into reproductive care. Obtaining informed consent becomes more challenging as the number of screened conditions increases. Implementing a model of generic informed consent may facilitate informed decision-making. Current Wayne State University students and staff were invited to complete a web-based survey by blast email solicitation. Participants were asked to determine which of two generic informed consent scenarios they preferred: a brief versus a detailed consent. They were asked to rank the importance of different informational components in making an informed decision and to provide demographic information. Comparisons between informational preferences, demographic variables and scenario preferences were made. Six hundred ninety three participants completed the survey. When evaluating these generic consents, the majority preferred the more detailed consent (74.5 %), and agreed that it provided enough information to make an informed decision (89.5 %). Those who thought it would be more important to know the severity of the conditions being screened (p?=?.002) and range of symptoms (p?=?.000) were more likely to prefer the more detailed consent. There were no significant associations between scenario preferences and demographic variables. A generic consent was perceived to provide sufficient information for informed decision making regarding multiplex carrier screening with most preferring a more detailed version of the consent. Individual attitudes rather than demographic variables influenced preferences regarding the amount of information that should be included in the generic consent. The findings have implications for how clinicians approach providing tailored informed consent.     

Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients

Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.     

Genetic Counseling in the Era of Genomics: What’s all the Fuss about?

As genomic sequencing becomes more widely available in clinical settings for diagnostic purposes, a number of genetic counseling issues are gaining precedence. The ability to manage these issues will be paramount as genetic and non-genetic healthcare professionals navigate the complexities of using genomic technologies to facilitate diagnosis and inform patient management. Counseling issues arising when counseling for diagnostic genomic sequencing were identified by four genetic counselors with 10 years of collective experience providing genetic counseling in this setting. These issues were discussed and refined at a meeting of genetic counselors working in clinical genomics settings in Melbourne, Australia. Emerging counseling issues, or variations of established counseling issues, were identified from the issues raised. Illustrative cases were selected where pre- and post-test genetic counseling was provided in clinical settings to individuals who received singleton or trio WES with targeted analysis. Counseling issues discussed in this paper include a reappraisal of how genetic counselors manage hope in the genomic era, informed consent for secondary use of genomic data, clinical reanalysis of genomic data, unexpected or unsolicited secondary findings, and trio sequencing. The authors seek to contribute to the evolving understanding of genetic counseling for diagnostic genomic sequencing through considering the applicability of existing genetic counseling competencies to managing emerging counseling issues and discussing genetic counseling practice implications.     

Clinical and Counseling Experiences of Early Adopters of Whole Exome Sequencing

Currently, there are limited data regarding the practice of genetic counseling for whole exome sequencing (WES). Improved understanding of how genetic counselors and other providers are educating, counseling, and communicating results may identify practice trends, and patient or provider needs. Between April 2013 and December 2014, we surveyed providers who ordered WES testing from GeneDx, a CLIA-certified laboratory. Forty-nine respondents completed the survey; 41 % of participants reported board certification in genetic counseling. Pre-test and post-test counseling was completed in all but one case each. Pre-test counseling lasted less than 1 h for 53 % of cases and 1 to 2 h for 43 %. Topics discussed with all patients included consent for testing, and incidental findings; other topics were variable. In contrast to pre-test counseling, 59 % reported post-test counseling lasting 1 to 2 h and 33 % less than an hour; post-testing counseling was significantly longer in cases with a definitive diagnosis than those without (p?=?0.0129). The survey findings indicate some variability regarding the amount of time spent on counseling and the topics discussed during pre-test counseling. Additional exploration, patient and provider educational resources, and potentially more specific guidelines regarding counseling for WES may be warranted.     

Development and Evaluation of a Telephone Communication Protocol for the Delivery of Personalized Melanoma Genomic Risk to the General Population

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants’ satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n?=?117) were aged 22–69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.     

Talking about Disability in Prenatal Genetic Counseling: A Report of Two Interactive Workshops

Women are commonly offered testing in pregnancy to determine the health of their baby. An important component of informed decision-making about prenatal testing is provision of relevant, accurate, meaningful information concerning the conditions that are being tested for—many of which, such as Down syndrome, are associated with a varying degree of physical and intellectual disability. A range of health professionals, including genetic counselors, may provide information and support throughout the testing process, but available data suggest that discussion of disability is frequently absent or limited. To investigate genetic counselors’ perceptions of this situation and identify potential barriers to discussion we facilitated interactive workshops at the 2007 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference (NSGC) and the 2008 European Meeting on Psychosocial Aspects of Genetics (EMPAG). Working groups identified relevant psychosocial issues and impediments to discussion (NSGC) or used a two-part scenario to promote discussion (EMPAG) and reported findings in notes and a closing plenary discussion. Inductive content analysis revealed that participants considered informed decision making to be a major reason for presenting information about disabilities in prenatal genetic counseling and endorsed the value of including information about daily life with Down syndrome and other disabilities. However, they identified three broad types of impediments to such discussion: counseling issues concerning the most appropriate manner to discuss disability under the complex circumstances of prenatal genetic counseling, less than optimal training and experience in addressing these issues, and perceived limitations in the participants’ knowledge and understanding of life with disability. Our analysis of the responses from the workshop participants and additional thoughts on these issues have led us to develop recommendations for further research, training and clinical practice.     

Patient Motivation, Satisfaction, and Coping in Genetic Counseling and Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2

Women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer can now have genetic testing, that may identify mutations associated with increased cancer predisposition. Within the context of a clinical trial evaluating printed educational materials, we examined motivation, satisfaction, coping, and perceptions of genetic counseling and testing among 159 women who underwent pretest counseling and made a testing decision. Ninety-six percent of the participants elected to have BRCA1/2 testing. When making a decision about genetic testing, study participants were concerned less about the potential negative effects that could result from testing than the potential benefits. After counseling, participants said that they felt better able to make decisions that were right for them and that their questions and concerns were adequately addressed during the session. Ninety-five percent of the women were satisfied with their test decision. Participants used a range of strategies to cope with thoughts and feelings about cancer and/or genetic testing immediately following test decision. Results suggest that the genetic counseling session helped women make decisions about testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, even in the setting of a trial in which all women also received detailed educational materials. Further, the results indicate that future research focusing on perceptions of risks and benefits of testing and of coping strategies immediately following test decision may be warranted.