Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants’ reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site’s research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10–261 days, 0–11, and 11–90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs.

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the “real world” of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common major congenital anomaly and causes significant morbidity and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence supports a role of genetics in the development of CHD. Genetic diagnoses can inform prognosis and clinical management. However, genetic testing is not standardized among individuals with CHD. We sought to develop a list of validated CHD genes using established methods and to evaluate the process of returning genetic results to research participants in a large genomic study. Methods: Two-hundred ninety-five candidate CHD genes were evaluated using a ClinGen framework. Sequence and copy number variants involving genes in the CHD gene list were analyzed in Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium participants. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic results were confirmed on a new sample in a clinical laboratory improvement amendments-certified laboratory and disclosed to eligible participants. Adult probands and parents of probands who received results were asked to complete a post-disclosure survey. Results: A total of 99 genes had a strong or definitive clinical validity classification. Diagnostic yields for copy number variants and exome sequencing were 1.8% and 3.8%, respectively. Thirty-one probands completed clinical laboratory improvement amendments-confirmation and received results. Participants who completed postdisclosure surveys reported high personal utility and no decision regret after receiving genetic results. Conclusions: The application of ClinGen criteria to CHD candidate genes yielded a list that can be used to interpret clinical genetic testing for CHD. Applying this gene list to one of the largest research cohorts of CHD participants provides a lower bound for the yield of genetic testing in CHD.