Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications
Gupta, P.; Park, M. S.; Kao, E. Y.; McEwen, A. E.; Kumar, R. D.; Horike-Pyne, M.; Fowler, D. M.; Starita, L. M.; Knerr, S.; Stergachis, A. B.
Show abstract
Purpose: Genetic variant reclassification is increasingly common in clinical genomics, yet limited data describe how patients experience re-contact and variant reclassification in routine clinical care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 adult patients who received a variant reclassification following routine clinical genetic testing. Interviews explored emotional responses, communication experiences, and perceived value of genetic testing. Data were analyzed using Template Analysis, a form of thematic analysis. Results: Three overarching themes were identified. Participants identified a need for improved communication of reclassified results, particularly with respect to timing, modality, and contextualization (Theme 1). Experiences with reclassification also shaped perceptions of the value of genetic testing, with most participants viewing testing as worthwhile despite its evolving nature (Theme 2). Finally, many participants interpreted reclassification as evidence of personalized and ongoing care, reinforcing trust in genetic testing and biomedical research (Theme 3). Participants generally preferred to be informed of reclassified results regardless of reclassification type, although the direction of reclassification influenced emotional responses and preferred modes of communication. Downgrades from variants of uncertain significance to benign or likely benign were widely viewed as meaningful by participants. Conclusion: Variant reclassification was experienced as a signal of personalized, ongoing care. Timely, contextualized, patient-centered re-contact practices may reduce uncertainty, strengthen trust, and help patients not feel forgotten.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores 94%
- Distinct rates of VUS reclassification are observed when subclassifying VUS by evidence level 94%
- Systematic assessment of outcomes following a genetic diagnosis identified through a large-scale research study into developmental disorders 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 94%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 92%
- Early Diagnosis of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Through AI-Powered Facial Analysis: Results from the Montalcino Aortic Consortium 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization 93%
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists 93%
- Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 96%
- A Qualitative Study Exploring the Consumer Experience of Receiving Self-Initiated Polygenic Risk Scores from a Third-Party Website 95%
- Benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: results of a national physician survey 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 92%
- Concordance of whole-genome long-read sequencing with standard clinical testing for Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes 90%
- Clinical Validation and Diagnostic Utility of Optical Genome Mapping in Prenatal Diagnostic Testing 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.