The purpose of this study was to develop a family genomic laboratory report designed to communicate genome sequencing results to parents of children who were participating in a whole genome sequencing clinical research study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with parents of children who participated in a whole genome sequencing clinical research study to address the elements, language and format of a sample family‐directed genome laboratory report. The qualitative interviews were followed by two focus groups aimed at evaluating example presentations of information about prognosis and next steps related to the whole genome sequencing result. Three themes emerged from the qualitative data: (i) Parents described a continual search for valid information and resources regarding their child's condition, a need that prior reports did not meet for parents; (ii) Parents believed that the Family Report would help facilitate communication with physicians and family members; and (iii) Parents identified specific items they appreciated in a genomics Family Report: simplicity of language, logical flow, visual appeal, information on what to expect in the future and recommended next steps. Parents affirmed their desire for a family genomic results report designed for their use and reference. They articulated the need for clear, easy to understand language that provided information with temporal detail and specific recommendations regarding relevant findings consistent with that available to clinicians.

This study reports on the responses of physicians who reviewed provider and patient versions of a genomic laboratory report designed to communicate results of whole genome sequencing. Semi‐structured interviews addressed concept communication, elements, and format of example genome reports. Analysis of the coded transcripts resulted in recognition of three constructs around communication of genome sequencing results: (1) Providers agreed that whole genomic sequencing results are complex and they welcomed a report that provided supportive interpretation information to accompany sequencing results; (2) Providers strongly endorsed a report that included active clinical guidance, such as reference to practice guidelines, if available; and (3) Providers valued the genomic report as a resource that would serve as the basis to facilitate communication of genome sequencing results with their patients and families. Providers valued both versions of the report, though they affirmed the need for a provider‐oriented report. Critical elements of the report included clear language to explain the result, as well as consolidated yet comprehensive prognostic information with clear guidance over time for the clinical care of the patient. Most importantly, it appears a report with this design has the potential not only to return results but also serves as a communication tool to help providers and patients discuss and coordinate care over time. © 2016 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PurposeThe clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility.MethodsWhole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient–participants and their clinicians. We queried patient–participants’ electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient–participants of eligible age who had begun risk management.ResultsThirty-seven MyCode patient–participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer—including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer—via these procedures.ConclusionScreening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

“The objective of this study was to” test the effectiveness of an enhanced genomic report on patient-centered outcome domains including communication, engagement and satisfaction. “Study design utilized” a prospective, randomized, mixed-methods desctiptive study of a whole genome sequencing results report, GenomeCOMPASS™, that was accessed by providers through the electronic health record and by patients through the associated patient portal. “The study was set in” an integrated healthcare delivery system in central Pennsylvania. “Eighty-four” parents of 46 children with undiagnosed Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or multiple congenital anomalies who had participated in a previous study offering whole genome sequencing for their affected child were invited to enroll. Fifty-two parents enrolled. Following a traditional genetics results informing visit, the study coordinator stratified families by diagnostic result and uninformative result and then randomized families within each group to an intervention arm to receive the GenomeCOMPASS™ report or to the usual care arm to receive a summary letter from the medical geneticist. A letter inviting enrollment included a baseline survey, which once returned, constituted enrollment. Surveys were administered at 3 months post-genetics visit. At 6 months, the usual care arm crossed over to receive the intervention and were administered an additional survey at 3 months. Qualitative interviews were conducted following survey completion to augment the survey data regarding the patient centered outcomes of interest. Patient reported outcomes including communication, engagement, empowerment and satisfaction. In the intervention arm, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 14 families (N = 28 parents) and of those 21 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. In the usual care arm, 12 families (N = 24 parents) received usual care summary letters and of those 20 (83%) returned 3 month surveys. At crossover, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 20 individuals and 15 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 5 individuals. Use of the GenomeCOMPASS™ report was reported by this small group of parents to improve communication with providers and non-health professionals such as educators and therapists and led to increased engagement and high satisfaction. Providers and others involved in the children’s care also endorsed the report’s effectiveness. Reports that addressed negative findings, i.e. uninformative results, were not found to be useful. Although the number of users was small, this study supports that customizable template reports may provide a useful and durable source of information that can support and enhance the information provided by genetics professionals in traditional face-to-face encounters. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (Record 2013–0594).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10897-017-0176-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Increasingly, for a variety of indications, patients have their genomes sequenced and actionable results returned. A subset of returned results is pharmacogenomic (PGx) variants involved in the metabolism or action of medications. Although the impact of these variants on health is well‐documented, little research exists on how to communicate these findings to patients and clinicians. We conducted semistructured interviews with end users to understand how best to communicate PGx results. Overall, patients and clinicians had similar opinions regarding report content, delivery, and application. Unique concerns specific to each stakeholder group were also expressed. Patients wanted an easy‐to‐understand individualized report that clinicians utilized to guide their care. Clinicians wanted reports that were easy‐to‐use, actionable, and integrated into their workflow. Implementation of these reports in a clinical setting will allow for broader user feedback and iterative improvement.