search
Back to results

A Pilot Project Exploring the Impact of Whole Genome Sequencing in Healthcare

Primary Purpose

Healthy Adults (Full Study and Extension Phase), Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy or Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Family History + Whole Genome Sequencing
Family History Only
Sponsored by
Brigham and Women's Hospital
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional health services research trial for Healthy Adults (Full Study and Extension Phase) focused on measuring Primary Care, Cardiology, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Whole Genome Sequencing

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 90 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Note for Age Eligibility:

  • Cardiology patients 18 Years to 90 Years OR
  • Primary Care Patients 40 Years to 65 Years (Adult, Senior)

Inclusion Criteria:

Primary Care

  • Generally healthy (as defined by the primary care provider) adult patients at Brigham and Women's Hospital ages 40-65. All patients must be fluent in English.

Cardiology

  • Patients in the Partners Healthcare System who are 18 years or older with a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a family history of HCM or DCM who previously had or who are candidates for targeted HCM or DCM genetic testing through routine clinical practice within Partners. All patients must be fluent in English.

Exclusion Criteria:

Primary Care

  • Patients who do not meet the above criteria. Patients with cardiac disease or a progressive debilitating illness. Patients who are pregnant or patients whose spouses/significant others are pregnant. Patients with untreated clinical anxiety or depression (as measured by a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score > 11 administered at the baseline study visit.)

Cardiology

  • Patients who do not meet the above criteria. Patients with a progressive debilitating illness. Patients who are pregnant or patients whose spouses/significant others are pregnant. Patients with untreated clinical anxiety or depression (as measured by a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score > 11 administered at the baseline study visit.)

Extension Phase - Additional Inclusion Criteria

Part 1:

  • Above inclusion and exclusion criteria PLUS:
  • Inclusion: Self-identify as African or African American.

Part 2:

Inclusion Criteria

  • MedSeq participants determined to have a monogenic finding

Exclusion Criteria

  • Participants not previously enrolled in MedSeq Project
  • Participants not identified to have a monogenic finding

Sites / Locations

  • Brigham and Women's Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Family History + Whole Genome Sequencing

Family History Only

Arm Description

Doctors and their patients receive a Genome Report and an Annotated Family History Report.

Doctors and their patients receive an Annotated Family History Report only.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Change in Attitudes and Trust
Adapted measures (Hall, MA, et al. 2006) assessed participants' attitudes toward genetic information, trust of their physicians and the medical system regarding interpretation and use of genetic information. Higher scores on a 12-60 scale represent more positive attitudes and greater trust.
Change in Self Efficacy
Assessed through a scale developed for the Multiplex Initiative (Kaphingst, K.A., et al. 2012). Higher scores on a 0-24 scale indicate greater confidence in participants' abilities to understand genetic information.
Change in Preferences for WGS Information
Through nine novel survey items, participants were asked about their preferences for the types of genetic testing results they would like to receive from their whole genome sequence. Scores on an 0-9 scale represent the change in the number of categories of types of genetic testing results out of 9 that participants wanted to learn about from Baseline to 6-weeks follow-up.
Change in Perceived Health
A single-item measure assessed how participants perceived their own health on a 1-5 scale. Adapted from the SF-12 (DeSalvo KB, Qual Life Res, 2006). Higher scores indicate more positive perceptions of health at follow-up
Change in Shared Decision Making
Changes in shared decision making were assessed through a single item adapted from the Control Preferences Scale, a measure designed to ascertain the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment. Higher scores on a scale of 1-3 indicate preferences towards more equally shared decision making (Heisler et al 2003). Higher mean changes over time indicate a change in preference towards more equally shared decision making at follow-up.
Change in Intolerance of Uncertainty
Changes in participants' tolerance for uncertainty were assessed through a short 12-item version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (Carleton, 2007). Total summed scale range is 12-60, with higher scores indicating increased negative feelings about uncertainty from baseline to follow-up.
Change in General Anxiety and Depression
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scale was administered through a survey. This is a validated scale designed to assess the participants' level of depression and anxiety through Likert-type questions. Total ranges for each summed subscale, anxiety and depression, is 0-21. Any participant scoring >14 on the anxiety subscale or >16 on the depression subscale were contacted by study staff for evaluation. Higher scores indicate increased anxiety or depression from baseline to follow-up.
Change in Health Behaviors
Novel items that asked whether participants changed vitamin use, supplement use, medication use, diet, exercise, or "other" health behaviors. Counts and percentages represent participants who reported any health behavior changes.
Information Sharing
Sharing of information was assessed by asking patients if they intended to share results with others (at the end of the disclosure visit) and if they had shared their results with others (6 months after disclosure) adapted from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).
Changes in Genomic Literacy
Changes in participants' genomic literacy were measured with an 11-item measure adapted from the ClinSeq Study (Kaphingst K.A. et al. 2012) administered at baseline and 6 months post-disclosure. Items are marked as correct (1) or incorrect (0) and summed for a total scale range of 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating higher genomic literacy.
Changes in Health Care Utilization
Participants' health care utilization was assessed through a combination of medical record reviews and novel and adapted measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Changes are assessed by comparing the number of services and procedures received in 6 months following disclosure against the number of services and procedures received in the 6 months prior to disclosure.
Change in Perceived Utility
A novel survey item asked participants to rate the usefulness of whole genome sequencing results for managing health on a 1-10 scale. Scores at 6 months were compared to scores at baseline.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Psychological Impact
Psychological impact was assessed by a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Higher scores indicated more distress related to study results.
Decisional Regret
Participants' satisfaction with their decision to participate in the MedSeq Project through a 5-item validated scale (Brehaut 2003). Average score computed after reversing scores of 2 negatively phrased items and converting score to range from 0-100 by subtracting 1 and multiplying by 25. Higher scores indicate greater regret.
Understanding
A novel item assessed participants' subjective understanding of their study results on a 1-5 scale, where higher scores indicate greater subjective understanding.
Expectations
Novel survey items asked participants about whether or not their genetic test results would be useful for specific reasons. Response options were "no," "probably not", "probably yes," and "yes." Responses of "probably yes" and "yes" were combined to simplify presentation of data.

Full Information

First Posted
August 17, 2012
Last Updated
January 4, 2021
Sponsor
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Collaborators
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01736566
Brief Title
A Pilot Project Exploring the Impact of Whole Genome Sequencing in Healthcare
Official Title
The MedSeq Project Pilot Study: Integrating Whole Genome Sequencing Into the Practice of Clinical Medicine
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
January 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
December 2011 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
November 4, 2016 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
August 28, 2022 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Collaborators
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The MedSeq™ Project seeks to explore the impact of incorporating information from a patient's whole genome sequence into the practice of clinical medicine. In the extension phase of MedSeq we are attempting increase our participant diversity by increasing targeted enrollment of African/African American patient participants.
Detailed Description
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) services are currently available to and are being utilized by physicians and their patients in both research and clinical settings. The widespread availability and use of WGS and WES in the practice of clinical medicine is imminent. In the very near future, sequencing of individual genomes will be inexpensive and ubiquitous, and patients will be looking to the medical establishment for interpretations, insight and advice to improve their health. Developing standards and procedures for the use of WGS information in clinical medicine is an urgent need, but there are numerous obstacles related to integrity and storage of WGS data, interpretation and responsible clinical integration. MedSeq™ seeks to develop a process to integrate WGS into clinical medicine and explore the impact of doing so. We believe that WGS will be used in many ways, including two distinct and complementary situations. In generally healthy patients, physicians will use the results of WGS to derive insight into future health risks and inform prevention and surveillance efforts, a category we refer to as General Genomic Medicine. In patients presenting with a family history or symptoms of a disease, physicians will use the results of WGS to interrogate particular sets of genes known to be associated with the disease in question, a category we refer to as Disease-Specific Genomic Medicine. Beginning in fall 2012, we will enroll 10 primary care physicians and 100 of their healthy middle-aged patients to evaluate the use of General Genomic Medicine, and 10 cardiologists and 100 of their patients presenting with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) to evaluate the use of Disease-Specific Genomic Medicine. We will randomize physicians and their patients within each of the above models to receive clinically meaningful information derived from WGS versus current standard of care without the use of WGS. MedSeq™ is comprised of three distinct but highly collaborative projects. Project 1 will enroll physicians and patients into the protocol, educate the physicians on basic genomic principles and safely monitor the use of genomic information in clinical practice. Project 2 will use a WGS analysis/interpretation pipeline to generate a genome report on each patient randomized to receive WGS in this protocol. Project 3 will examine preferences and motivations of physicians and patients enrolled, evaluate the flow and utilization of genomic information within the clinical interactions, and assess understanding, behavior, medical consequences and healthcare costs associated with the use of WGS in these models of medical practice. In an extension phase of the study, we will 1) recruit approximately 10-15 patient-participants who self-identify as African or African American, whose physicians deem to be healthy. All will be placed in the whole genome-sequencing arm of the study. They will undergo the same activities as traditional MedSeq participants except for randomization. 2) We will conduct a targeted phenotype assessment on MedSeq Project patient-participants who are identified to have a monogenic finding. We plan to perform additional analysis by reviewing their medical records and looking specifically with their variant in mind to see if features associated with the variants were known prior to the study or were identified by further testing or by their physical during the course of the study. This initiative will significantly accelerate the use of genomics in clinical medicine by creating and safely testing novel methods for integrating information from WGS into physicians' care of patients.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Healthy Adults (Full Study and Extension Phase), Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy or Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Keywords
Primary Care, Cardiology, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Whole Genome Sequencing

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
213 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Family History + Whole Genome Sequencing
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Doctors and their patients receive a Genome Report and an Annotated Family History Report.
Arm Title
Family History Only
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Doctors and their patients receive an Annotated Family History Report only.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Family History + Whole Genome Sequencing
Intervention Description
Doctors and their patients receive a Genome Report and a Family History report. There are two sections of the Genome Report: The General Genome Report, which include highly penetrant disease mutations, carrier status for recessive disease, and pharmacogenetic associations. The Cardiac Risk Supplement, which contain genetic information found in the genome regarding cardiac diseases or a risk of cardiovascular diseases that can help with the care of the patient. Extension Phase: Experimental: Family History + Whole Genome Sequencing *In the main study participants are randomized to either the Experimental or Other Arm, in the Extension phase of the study all participants are in the Experimental Arm.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Family History Only
Intervention Description
Doctors and their patients receive a Family History report.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Change in Attitudes and Trust
Description
Adapted measures (Hall, MA, et al. 2006) assessed participants' attitudes toward genetic information, trust of their physicians and the medical system regarding interpretation and use of genetic information. Higher scores on a 12-60 scale represent more positive attitudes and greater trust.
Time Frame
Change at 6-weeks post-results disclosure relative to baseline, administered approx.12.5 months after baseline
Title
Change in Self Efficacy
Description
Assessed through a scale developed for the Multiplex Initiative (Kaphingst, K.A., et al. 2012). Higher scores on a 0-24 scale indicate greater confidence in participants' abilities to understand genetic information.
Time Frame
Baseline and 6-months post-results disclosure (6 mos. follow-up administered approx. 17 months after baseline)
Title
Change in Preferences for WGS Information
Description
Through nine novel survey items, participants were asked about their preferences for the types of genetic testing results they would like to receive from their whole genome sequence. Scores on an 0-9 scale represent the change in the number of categories of types of genetic testing results out of 9 that participants wanted to learn about from Baseline to 6-weeks follow-up.
Time Frame
Baseline and 6-weeks post-disclosure (6 wks follow-up administered approx. 12.5 mos. after baseline)
Title
Change in Perceived Health
Description
A single-item measure assessed how participants perceived their own health on a 1-5 scale. Adapted from the SF-12 (DeSalvo KB, Qual Life Res, 2006). Higher scores indicate more positive perceptions of health at follow-up
Time Frame
Baseline, at the disclosure visit (about 1 hour after results disclosure, avg. 11 mos. after baseline) and 6-months post-disclosure (6 mos. follow-up follow-up administered approx. 17 months after baseline)
Title
Change in Shared Decision Making
Description
Changes in shared decision making were assessed through a single item adapted from the Control Preferences Scale, a measure designed to ascertain the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment. Higher scores on a scale of 1-3 indicate preferences towards more equally shared decision making (Heisler et al 2003). Higher mean changes over time indicate a change in preference towards more equally shared decision making at follow-up.
Time Frame
Baseline and 6-weeks post-disclosure (6 wks follow-up administered approx. 12.5 mos. after baseline)
Title
Change in Intolerance of Uncertainty
Description
Changes in participants' tolerance for uncertainty were assessed through a short 12-item version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (Carleton, 2007). Total summed scale range is 12-60, with higher scores indicating increased negative feelings about uncertainty from baseline to follow-up.
Time Frame
Baseline and 6-months post-disclosure (6 mos. follow-up administered approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Change in General Anxiety and Depression
Description
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scale was administered through a survey. This is a validated scale designed to assess the participants' level of depression and anxiety through Likert-type questions. Total ranges for each summed subscale, anxiety and depression, is 0-21. Any participant scoring >14 on the anxiety subscale or >16 on the depression subscale were contacted by study staff for evaluation. Higher scores indicate increased anxiety or depression from baseline to follow-up.
Time Frame
Baseline, at the disclosure visit (about 1 hour after results disclosure, avg. 11 mos. after baseline), 6-weeks post-disclosure and 6-months post-disclosure (6 wks. follow-up administered approx. 12.5 mos and 6 mos follow-up approx 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Change in Health Behaviors
Description
Novel items that asked whether participants changed vitamin use, supplement use, medication use, diet, exercise, or "other" health behaviors. Counts and percentages represent participants who reported any health behavior changes.
Time Frame
6-weeks post-disclosure and 6-months post-disclosure (6 wks. follow-up administered approx. 12.5 mos. and 6 mos. follow-up approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Information Sharing
Description
Sharing of information was assessed by asking patients if they intended to share results with others (at the end of the disclosure visit) and if they had shared their results with others (6 months after disclosure) adapted from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).
Time Frame
At the disclosure visit (about 1 hour after results disclosure, avg. 11 mos. after baseline) and 6-months post-disclosure (approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Changes in Genomic Literacy
Description
Changes in participants' genomic literacy were measured with an 11-item measure adapted from the ClinSeq Study (Kaphingst K.A. et al. 2012) administered at baseline and 6 months post-disclosure. Items are marked as correct (1) or incorrect (0) and summed for a total scale range of 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating higher genomic literacy.
Time Frame
Assessing Genomic Literacy at baseline and 6-months post-disclosure (approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Changes in Health Care Utilization
Description
Participants' health care utilization was assessed through a combination of medical record reviews and novel and adapted measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Changes are assessed by comparing the number of services and procedures received in 6 months following disclosure against the number of services and procedures received in the 6 months prior to disclosure.
Time Frame
6 months prior to disclosure and 6-months post-disclosure (approx. 17 mos. after baseline) and 5-years post-disclosure
Title
Change in Perceived Utility
Description
A novel survey item asked participants to rate the usefulness of whole genome sequencing results for managing health on a 1-10 scale. Scores at 6 months were compared to scores at baseline.
Time Frame
At baseline and 6-months post-disclosure (approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Psychological Impact
Description
Psychological impact was assessed by a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Higher scores indicated more distress related to study results.
Time Frame
6-weeks post-disclosure and 6-months post-disclosure (6wks. follow-up administered approx. 12.5 mos. and 6 mos. follow-up approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Decisional Regret
Description
Participants' satisfaction with their decision to participate in the MedSeq Project through a 5-item validated scale (Brehaut 2003). Average score computed after reversing scores of 2 negatively phrased items and converting score to range from 0-100 by subtracting 1 and multiplying by 25. Higher scores indicate greater regret.
Time Frame
At post-disclosure visit (about 1 hour after results disclosure, avg. 11 mos. after baseline), at 6-weeks post-disclosure, and at 6-months post-disclosure (6 wks follow-up approx. 12.5 mos. and 6 mos. follow-up approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Understanding
Description
A novel item assessed participants' subjective understanding of their study results on a 1-5 scale, where higher scores indicate greater subjective understanding.
Time Frame
At post-disclosure visit (about 1 hour after results disclosure, avg. 11 mos. after baseline), at 6-weeks post-disclosure, and at 6-months post-disclosure (6 wks follow-up approx. 12.5 mos. and 6 mos. follow-up approx. 17 mos. after baseline)
Title
Expectations
Description
Novel survey items asked participants about whether or not their genetic test results would be useful for specific reasons. Response options were "no," "probably not", "probably yes," and "yes." Responses of "probably yes" and "yes" were combined to simplify presentation of data.
Time Frame
Baseline

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
90 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Note for Age Eligibility: Cardiology patients 18 Years to 90 Years OR Primary Care Patients 40 Years to 65 Years (Adult, Senior) Inclusion Criteria: Primary Care Generally healthy (as defined by the primary care provider) adult patients at Brigham and Women's Hospital ages 40-65. All patients must be fluent in English. Cardiology Patients in the Partners Healthcare System who are 18 years or older with a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a family history of HCM or DCM who previously had or who are candidates for targeted HCM or DCM genetic testing through routine clinical practice within Partners. All patients must be fluent in English. Exclusion Criteria: Primary Care Patients who do not meet the above criteria. Patients with cardiac disease or a progressive debilitating illness. Patients who are pregnant or patients whose spouses/significant others are pregnant. Patients with untreated clinical anxiety or depression (as measured by a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score > 11 administered at the baseline study visit.) Cardiology Patients who do not meet the above criteria. Patients with a progressive debilitating illness. Patients who are pregnant or patients whose spouses/significant others are pregnant. Patients with untreated clinical anxiety or depression (as measured by a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score > 11 administered at the baseline study visit.) Extension Phase - Additional Inclusion Criteria Part 1: Above inclusion and exclusion criteria PLUS: Inclusion: Self-identify as African or African American. Part 2: Inclusion Criteria MedSeq participants determined to have a monogenic finding Exclusion Criteria Participants not previously enrolled in MedSeq Project Participants not identified to have a monogenic finding
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Robert C Green, MD, MPH
Organizational Affiliation
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Brigham and Women's Hospital
City
Boston
State/Province
Massachusetts
ZIP/Postal Code
02115
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
22344227
Citation
Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):393-8. doi: 10.1038/gim.2011.78. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21307933
Citation
Green ED, Guyer MS; National Human Genome Research Institute. Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature. 2011 Feb 10;470(7333):204-13. doi: 10.1038/nature09764.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16835427
Citation
Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA. 2006 Jul 12;296(2):212-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.2.212. No abstract available. Erratum In: JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1466.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18997217
Citation
Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008 Nov-Dec;27(6):1600-11. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1600.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20505183
Citation
Varmus H. Ten years on--the human genome and medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 27;362(21):2028-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe0911933. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21330519
Citation
Evans JP, Meslin EM, Marteau TM, Caulfield T. Genomics. Deflating the genomic bubble. Science. 2011 Feb 18;331(6019):861-2. doi: 10.1126/science.1198039. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17063137
Citation
Hall MA, Camacho F, Lawlor JS, Depuy V, Sugarman J, Weinfurt K. Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11):1048-53. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000228023.37087.cb.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22694298
Citation
Kaphingst KA, Facio FM, Cheng MR, Brooks S, Eidem H, Linn A, Biesecker BB, Biesecker LG. Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet. 2012 Nov;82(5):408-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01909.x. Epub 2012 Aug 7.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16647833
Citation
Carleton RN, Norton MA, Asmundson GJ. Fearing the unknown: a short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. J Anxiety Disord. 2007;21(1):105-17. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014. Epub 2006 May 2.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17873259
Citation
Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):696-713. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307271. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17641137
Citation
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):672-80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449. Epub 2007 Jul 19.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11932123
Citation
Roter D, Larson S. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Apr;46(4):243-51. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00012-5.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12926578
Citation
Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24814192
Citation
Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, Brothers K, Clayton EW, Chung W, Evans BJ, Evans JP, Fullerton SM, Gallego CJ, Garrison NA, Gray SW, Holm IA, Kullo IJ, Lehmann LS, McCarty C, Prows CA, Rehm HL, Sharp RR, Salama J, Sanderson S, Van Driest SL, Williams MS, Wolf SM, Wolf WA; eMERGE Act-ROR Committee and CERC Committee; CSER Act-ROR Working Group; Burke W. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet. 2014 Jun 5;94(6):818-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 May 8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24941179
Citation
Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 19;370(25):2418-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1312543. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24717670
Citation
Arndt AK, MacRae CA. Genetic testing in cardiovascular diseases. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014 May;29(3):235-40. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000055.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24829188
Citation
Hwang KB, Lee IH, Park JH, Hambuch T, Choe Y, Kim M, Lee K, Song T, Neu MB, Gupta N, Kohane IS, Green RC, Kong SW. Reducing false-positive incidental findings with ensemble genotyping and logistic regression based variant filtering methods. Hum Mutat. 2014 Aug;35(8):936-44. doi: 10.1002/humu.22587. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24478219
Citation
Lee IH, Lee K, Hsing M, Choe Y, Park JH, Kim SH, Bohn JM, Neu MB, Hwang KB, Green RC, Kohane IS, Kong SW. Prioritizing disease-linked variants, genes, and pathways with an interactive whole-genome analysis pipeline. Hum Mutat. 2014 May;35(5):537-47. doi: 10.1002/humu.22520. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24129030
Citation
Vassy JL, Green RC, Lehmann LS. Genomic medicine in primary care: barriers and assets. Postgrad Med J. 2013 Nov;89(1057):615-6. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132093. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24195999
Citation
Berg JS, Amendola LM, Eng C, Van Allen E, Gray SW, Wagle N, Rehm HL, DeChene ET, Dulik MC, Hisama FM, Burke W, Spinner NB, Garraway L, Green RC, Plon S, Evans JP, Jarvik GP; Members of the CSER Actionability and Return of Results Working Group. Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Genet Med. 2013 Nov;15(11):860-7. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.133. Epub 2013 Oct 24. Erratum In: Genet Med. 2014 Feb;16(2):203.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23788249
Citation
Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, McGuire AL, Nussbaum RL, O'Daniel JM, Ormond KE, Rehm HL, Watson MS, Williams MS, Biesecker LG; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013 Jul;15(7):565-74. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73. Epub 2013 Jun 20. Erratum In: Genet Med. 2017 May;19(5):606.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23686340
Citation
McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, Biesecker BB, McCullough LB, Blumenthal-Barby JS, Caulfield T, Terry SF, Green RC. Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science. 2013 May 31;340(6136):1047-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1240156. Epub 2013 May 16. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23571582
Citation
McGuire AL, McCullough LB, Evans JP. The indispensable role of professional judgment in genomic medicine. JAMA. 2013 Apr 10;309(14):1465-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.1438. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23478348
Citation
Rehm HL. Disease-targeted sequencing: a cornerstone in the clinic. Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Apr;14(4):295-300. doi: 10.1038/nrg3463. Epub 2013 Mar 12.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23595601
Citation
Krier JB, Green RC. Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2013;Chapter 9:Unit9.23. doi: 10.1002/0471142905.hg0923s77.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23250897
Citation
MacRae CA. Action and the actionability in exome variation. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2012 Dec;5(6):597-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.112.965152. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22730434
Citation
Song T, Hwang KB, Hsing M, Lee K, Bohn J, Kong SW. gSearch: a fast and flexible general search tool for whole-genome sequencing. Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 15;28(16):2176-7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts358. Epub 2012 Jun 23.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22422049
Citation
Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT, Biesecker LG, Dimmock DP, Evans JP, Grody WW, Hegde MR, Kalia S, Korf BR, Krantz I, McGuire AL, Miller DT, Murray MF, Nussbaum RL, Plon SE, Rehm HL, Jacob HJ. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med. 2012 Apr;14(4):405-10. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.21. Epub 2012 Mar 15.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Green RC, Rehm H, Kohane I. Clinical Genome Sequencing. Genomic and Personalized Medicine 2nd Edition: 102- 122, 2012.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25614766
Citation
Blumenthal-Barby JS, McGuire AL, Green RC, Ubel PA. How behavioral economics can help to avoid 'The last mile problem' in whole genome sequencing. Genome Med. 2015 Jan 22;7(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0132-8. eCollection 2015.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25629736
Citation
Green RC, Lautenbach D, McGuire AL. GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29;372(5):397-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1404776. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24645908
Citation
Vassy JL, Lautenbach DM, McLaughlin HM, Kong SW, Christensen KD, Krier J, Kohane IS, Feuerman LZ, Blumenthal-Barby J, Roberts JS, Lehmann LS, Ho CY, Ubel PA, MacRae CA, Seidman CE, Murray MF, McGuire AL, Rehm HL, Green RC; MedSeq Project. The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine. Trials. 2014 Mar 20;15:85. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-85.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
25612602
Citation
Vassy JL, McLaughlin HM, MacRae CA, Seidman CE, Lautenbach D, Krier JB, Lane WJ, Kohane IS, Murray MF, McGuire AL, Rehm HL, Green RC. A one-page summary report of genome sequencing for the healthy adult. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(2):123-9. doi: 10.1159/000370102. Epub 2015 Jan 21. Erratum In: Public Health Genomics. 2015 Apr;18(3):191. McLaughlin, Heather L [corrected to McLaughlin, Heather M].
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
29030401
Citation
Cirino AL, Lakdawala NK, McDonough B, Conner L, Adler D, Weinfeld M, O'Gara P, Rehm HL, Machini K, Lebo M, Blout C, Green RC, MacRae CA, Seidman CE, Ho CY; MedSeq Project*. A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017 Oct;10(5):e001768. doi: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001768.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
28654958
Citation
Vassy JL, Christensen KD, Schonman EF, Blout CL, Robinson JO, Krier JB, Diamond PM, Lebo M, Machini K, Azzariti DR, Dukhovny D, Bates DW, MacRae CA, Murray MF, Rehm HL, McGuire AL, Green RC; MedSeq Project. The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 27;167(3):159-169. doi: 10.7326/M17-0188. Print 2017 Aug 1.
Results Reference
derived
Links:
URL
http://www.genome.gov/
Description
NHGRI

Learn more about this trial

A Pilot Project Exploring the Impact of Whole Genome Sequencing in Healthcare

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs