Susanne B. Haga

Reconsidering the family history in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role of the family history in predictive genetic testing, describe how family history taking is practiced in adult primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate application of the family history, and outline the requirements for a new family history tool for primary care.DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family history, identifying key references in the medical literature and web-based family history tools through discussions with multiple content experts in clinical genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We conducted a Medline query using the search terms family history and primary care to identify references from the past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family history information, we calculated the predictive value of family history and genetic information for familial adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history tools through discussions with content experts. We also conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify resources for electronic medical record and family history.RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and promises to serve as a critical element in the use of predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional medical education about family history has often been unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive barriers. Although there are numerous paper and computer-based aides for taking the family history, none currently meets all the needs of adult primary care.CONCLUSIONS: The patient’s family history remains a critical element in risk assessment for many conditions, but substantive barriers impede application in primary care practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid primary care physicians in the efficient collection and application of patient family history in the era of genetic testing.

Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time

Genomic profiling has the potential to usher in a revolution of personalized healthcare and disease prevention. But evidence to support genomic profiling is inconsistent, and data on the health outcome benefits based on such testing are lacking. For genomic profiling to become valid and useful, well designed epidemiologic studies and thorough clinical evaluations of recommended interventions based on genotype are required.

Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing.

It is anticipated that as the range of drugs for which pharmacogenetic testing becomes available expands, primary care physicians (PCPs) will become major users of these tests. To assess their training, familiarity, and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing in order to identify barriers to uptake that may be addressed at this early stage of test use, we conducted a national survey of a sample of PCPs. Respondents were mostly white (79%), based primarily in community‐based primary care (81%) and almost evenly divided between family medicine and internal medicine. The majority of respondents had heard of PGx testing and anticipated that these tests are or would soon become a valuable tool to inform drug response. However, only a minority of respondents (13%) indicated they felt comfortable ordering PGx tests and almost a quarter reported not having any education about pharmacogenetics. Our results indicate that primary care practitioners envision a major role for themselves in the delivery of PGx testing but recognize their lack of adequate knowledge and experience about these tests. Development of effective tools for guiding PCPs in the use of PGx tests should be a high priority.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Biobanks for Genetics Research

The elucidation of the causes of complex diseases pivots on understanding the interaction between biological (genetic) and environmental factors that give rise to disease risk. The modest effects of genetic factors in complex diseases supports the need for large-scale studies of high-quality human biological materials, paired with detailed clinical data, to adequately detect these effects. To this end, biobanks or biorepositories have been developed around the world, by public and private entities alike, to provide researchers the opportunity to study collections of human biospecimens annotated with clinical and other health-related measurements. It has been estimated that more than 270 million tissue samples are stored in the U.S., expanding at a rate of approximately 20 million samples annually. In this chapter, we discuss several ethical, legal, and social issues that have been raised surrounding biobanks, including recruitment of vulnerable populations, informed consent, data disclosure to participants, intellectual property, and privacy and security. Throughout the chapter, we will highlight experiences of national biobanks in Iceland, the U.K., Sweden, and Estonia, and the proposal for a U.S. population cohort study. The dependence on public participation requires clear and transparent policies developed through inclusive processes.

Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.

To assess public attitudes and interest in pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, we conducted a random-digit-dial telephone survey of US adults, achieving a response rate of 42% (n=1139). Most respondents expressed interest in PGx testing to predict mild or serious side effects (73±3.29 and 85±2.91%, respectively), guide dosing (91%) and assist with drug selection (92%). Younger individuals (aged 18–34 years) were more likely to be interested in PGx testing to predict serious side effects (vs aged 55+ years), as well as Whites, those with a college degree, and who had experienced side effects from medications. However, most respondents (78±3.14%) were not likely to have a PGx test if there was a risk that their DNA sample or test result could be shared without their permission. Given differences in interest among some groups, providers should clearly discuss the purpose of testing, alternative testing options (if available) and policies to protect patient privacy and confidentiality.

Public Perspectives on Returning Genetics and Genomics Research Results

Background: The debate about returning research results has revealed different perspectives among researchers, participants and advisory groups with participants generally interested in obtaining their results. Given this preference, policies regarding return of individual research results may affect whether a potential subject chooses to participate in a study. Public attitudes, particularly those of African-Americans, toward this issue have been understudied. Methods: In 2008–2009, we convened 10 focus groups in Durham, N.C. to explore attitudes about returning research results and how different policies might influence their likelihood to participate in genetic/genomic studies. Transcripts were complimented by a short anonymous survey. Of 100 participants, 73% were female and 76% African-American with a median age of 40–49 years. Results: Although there was general interest in obtaining genetics research results, particularly individual results, discussants recognized many potential complexities. The option to obtain research results (individual or summary) was clearly valued and lack thereof was potentially a deterrent for genetic/genomic research enrollment. Conclusions: Providing the option to learn research results may help strengthen relationships between investigators and participants and thereby serve as a positive influencing factor for minority communities. Consideration of the broader implications of returning research results is warranted. Engaging diverse publics is essential to gain a balance between the interests and burdens of participants and investigators.

Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk profiling.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDGenomic risk profiling involves the analysis of genetic variations linked through statistical associations to a range of disease states. There is considerable controversy as to how, and even whether, to incorporate these tests into routine medical care.OBJECTIVETo assess physician attitudes and uptake of genomic risk profiling among an ‘early adopter’ practice group.DESIGNWe surveyed members of MDVIP, a national group of primary care physicians (PCPs), currently offering genomic risk profiling as part of their practice.POPULATIONAll physicians in the MDVIP network (N = 356)RESULTSWe obtained a 44% response rate. One third of respondents had ordered a test for themselves and 42% for a patient. The odds of having ordered personal testing were 10.51-fold higher for those who felt well-informed about genomic risk testing (p < 0.0001). Of those who had not ordered a test for themselves, 60% expressed concerns for patients regarding discrimination by life and long-term/disability insurers, 61% about test cost, and 62% about clinical utility. The odds of ordering testing for their patients was 8.29-fold higher among respondents who had ordered testing for themselves (p < 0.0001). Of those who had ordered testing for patients, concerns about insurance coverage (p = 0.014) and uncertain clinical utility (p = 0.034) were associated with a lower relative frequency of intention to order testing again in the future.CONCLUSIONSOur findings demonstrate that respondent familiarity was a key predictor of physician ordering behavior and clinical utility was a primary concern for genomic risk profiling. Educational and interpretive support may enhance uptake of genomic risk profiling.

Translating genomic biomarkers into clinically useful diagnostics

The landmark sequencing of the human genome has ushered in a new field of large-scale research. Advances in understanding the molecular basis of disease have opened up new opportunities to develop genomics-based tools to diagnose, predict disease onset or recurrence, tailor treatment options, and assess treatment response. Although still in the early stages of research and development, genomic biomarker research has the capability of providing a comprehensive insight into pathophysiological processes as well as more precise predictors of outcome not previously attainable with traditional biomarkers. Before genomic biomarkers are incorporated into clinical practice, several issues will need to be addressed in order to generate the necessary levels of evidence to demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and utility. In addition, efforts will be needed to educate health professionals and the public about genomics-based tools, revise regulatory oversight mechanisms, and ensure privacy safeguards of the information generated from these new tests.

BP1, a new homeobox gene, is frequently expressed in acute leukemias

Aberrant expression of homeobox genes has been described in primary leukemia blasts. We recently cloned a new cDNA, BP1, which is a member of the homeobox gene family. BP1 expression was investigated in bone marrow samples from acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute T cell lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and pre-B cell ALL. Expression levels of two apparent isoforms of BP1, DLX7 and DLX4, were measured in the same samples. They are weakly if at all detectable in normal bone marrow, PHA-stimulated T cells or B cells. BP1 RNA was highly expressed in 63% of AML cases, including 81% of the pediatric and 47% of the adult cases, and in 32% of T-ALL cases, but was not found in any of the pre-B ALL cases. Co-expression of BP1, DLX7 and DLX4 occurred in a significant number of leukemias. Our data, including co-expression of BP1 with c-myb and GATA-1, markers of early progenitors, suggest that BP1 expression occurs in primitive cells in AML. Analysis of CD34+ and CD34− normal bone marrow cells revealed BP1 is expressed in CD34− cells and virtually extinguished in CD34+ cells. Ectopic expression of BP1 in the leukemia cell line K562 increased clonogenicity, consistent with a role for BP1 in leukemogenesis. The presence of BP1 RNA in leukemic blasts may therefore be a molecular marker for primitive cells and/or may indicate that BP1 is an important upstream factor in an oncogenic pathway.

Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians

Purpose:Clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will result in a broad range of incidental findings, but clinicians’ obligations to identify and disclose such findings are a matter of debate. We sought legal cases that could offer insights into clinicians’ legal liability.Methods:We searched for cases in which incidental findings were related to the cause of action, using the search engines WestLaw, WestLaw Next, Lexis, and Lexis Advance.Results:We found no case law related to incidental findings from genetic testing but identified eight cases involving incidental findings in medical imaging. These cases suggest that clinicians may face liability for failing to disclose incidental findings that would have offered an opportunity for interventions to improve health outcome, if under the applicable standard of care, they fail to identify or appreciate the significance of the incidental finding or they negligently fail to notify other clinicians and/or the patient of the identified incidental finding. Other cases support liability for failure to refer appropriately to a clinician with greater expertise.Conclusions:Clinicians may face liability if they fail to disclose incidental information that could inform interventions to improve health outcome; information lacking clinical actionability is likely to have less import.Genet Med 2013:15(8):624–629