Background Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in asymptomatic adults might prevent disease but increase healthcare utilization without clinical value. Objective Describe the effect on clinical care and outcomes of adding WGS to standardized family history assessment in primary care. Design Pilot randomized trial. Setting Academic primary care practices. Participants Nine primary care physicians (PCPs) and 100 generally healthy patients aged 40–65. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive a family history report alone (FH arm) or in combination with an interpreted WGS report including monogenic disease risk (MDR) results (associated with Mendelian disorders), carrier variants, pharmacogenomic associations, and polygenic risk estimates for cardiometabolic traits (FH+WGS arm). Each patient met with his or her PCP to discuss the reports. Measurements Clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization through six months were obtained from audio-recorded PCP-patient discussions and medical records. Patients’ health behavior changes were surveyed six months after receiving results. A panel of clinician-geneticists rated the appropriateness of how PCPs managed MDR results. Results Mean age was 55 years; 58% were female. Eleven FH+WGS patients (22%, 12%–36%) had new MDR results. Only two (4%, 0.01%–14%) had evidence of the phenotypes predicted by an MDR result (fundus albipunctatus due to RDH5 and variegate porphyria due to PPOX). PCPs recommended new clinical actions for 16% (8%–30%) of FH patients and 34% (22%–49%) of FH+WGS patients. Thirty (17%–45%) and 41% (27%–56%) of FH and FH+WGS patients, respectively, reported making a health behavior change after six months. Geneticists rated PCP management of eight MDR results (73%, 39%–99%) as appropriate and two (18%, 3%–52%) as inappropriate. Limitations Limited sample size and ancestral and socioeconomic diversity. Conclusions Adding WGS to primary care reveals new molecular findings of uncertain clinical utility. Non-geneticist providers may be able to manage WGS results appropriately, but WGS may prompt additional clinical actions of unclear value. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01736566 Funding National Institutes of Health

National Human Genome Research Institute, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Health Service Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust.

Background Although the integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) into standard medical practice is rapidly becoming feasible, physicians may be unprepared to use it. Methods Primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of WGS received genomics education before completing semi-structured interviews. Themes about preparedness were identified in transcripts through team-based consensus-coding. Results Data from eleven PCPs and nine cardiologists suggested that physicians enrolled in the trial primarily to prepare themselves for widespread use of WGS in the future. PCPs were concerned about their general genomic knowledge, while cardiologists were concerned about how to interpret specific types of results and secondary findings. Both cohorts anticipated preparing extensively before disclosing results to patients by using educational resources with which they were already familiar, and both cohorts anticipated making referrals to genetics specialists as needed. A lack of laboratory guidance, time pressures, and a lack of standards contributed to feeling unprepared. Discussion Physicians had specialty-specific concerns about their preparedness to use WGS. Findings identify specific policy changes that could help physicians feel more prepared, and highlight how providers of all types will need to become familiar with interpreting WGS results. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT01736566.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

On April 24, 2018, a suspect in California’s notorious Golden State Killer cases was arrested after decades of eluding the police. Using a novel forensic approach, investigators identified the suspect by first identifying his relatives using a free, online genetic database populated by individuals researching their family trees. In the wake of the case, media outlets reported privacy concerns with police access to personal genetic data generated by or shared with genealogy services. Recent data from 1,587 survey respondents, however, provide preliminary reason to question whether such concerns have been overstated. Still, limitations on police access to genetic genealogy databases in particular may be desirable for reasons other than current public demand for them.