Outcomes of Returning Medically Actionable Genomic Results in Pediatric Research

Purpose: The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III study was undertaken to assess clinical utility of returning medically actionable genomic screening results. We assessed pediatric clinical outcomes following return of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in autosomal dominant conditions with available effective interventions. Methods: The two eMERGE III pediatric sites collected outcome data and assessed changes in medical management at 6 and 12 months. Results: We returned P/LP results to 29 participants with outcome data. For 23 of the 29 participants, the P/LP results were previously unknown. Five of the 23 participants were already followed for conditions related to the P/LP variant. Of those receiving novel results and not being followed for the condition related to the P/LP result (n = 18), 14 (77.8%) had a change in healthcare after return of results (RoR). Following RoR, cascade testing of family members occurred for 10 of 23 (43.5%). Conclusions: The most common outcomes post-RoR included imaging/laboratory testing and health behavior recommendations. A change in healthcare was documented in 77.8% of those receiving results by 6 months. Our findings demonstrate how return of genomic screening results impacts healthcare in pediatric populations.

[1]  Melissa L. Habrat,et al.  Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: the eMERGE study. , 2023, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[2]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network. , 2022, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[3]  M. Myers,et al.  Experiences of adolescents and their parents after receiving adolescents’ genomic screening results , 2021, Journal of genetic counseling.

[4]  W. Chung,et al.  ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  Penetrance of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes From the eMERGE III Network , 2021, JNCI cancer spectrum.

[6]  eMERGE Consortium.  Lessons learned from the eMERGE Network: balancing genomics in discovery and practice , 2020, HGG advances.

[7]  S. Kingsmore,et al.  A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants. , 2020, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  N. Brown,et al.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic sequencing in a prospective versus historical cohort of complex pediatric patients , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  John J. Connolly,et al.  Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  Laney K. Jones,et al.  Clinical outcomes of a genomic screening program for actionable genetic conditions , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[11]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network , 2020, Journal of personalized medicine.

[12]  Lisa J. Martin,et al.  Adolescents' and Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions: Associations With Age, Race, and Sex. , 2020, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[13]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. , 2019, American journal of human genetics.

[14]  Heidi L. Rehm,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing And Interpretation For The Emerge III Network , 2018, bioRxiv.

[15]  M. Myers,et al.  Giving adolescents a voice: the types of genetic information adolescents choose to learn and why , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  N. Spinner,et al.  Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  Laney K. Jones,et al.  Healthcare Utilization and Patients’ Perspectives After Receiving a Positive Genetic Test for Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Pilot Study , 2018, Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine.

[18]  R. Green,et al.  The BabySeq project: implementing genomic sequencing in newborns , 2018, BMC Pediatrics.

[19]  John J. Connolly,et al.  Harmonizing Outcomes for Genomic Medicine: Comparison of eMERGE Outcomes to ClinGen Outcome/Intervention Pairs , 2018, Healthcare.

[20]  Iftikhar J. Kullo,et al.  Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience , 2018, Journal of personalized medicine.

[21]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[22]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  Melissa A. Basford,et al.  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[24]  S. Lalani,et al.  Clinical Application of Genome and Exome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for Pediatric Patients: a Scoping Review of the Literature , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.