Background: An estimated 1 in 12 individuals across the world have a rare disease. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network International (UDNI) recommend Undiagnosed Disease Programs (UDPs) as the best approach to facilitate diagnosis and support for those affected. The Australian Undiagnosed Disease Network (UDN-Aus) is the first National Australian UDP initiative funded by the Medical Research Future Fund’s Genomic Health Futures Mission (GNT2007567). Aims: UDN-Aus brings together an unprecedented national collaborative network for rare disease, aiming to improve the rate of genomic diagnoses for those with undiagnosed rare genetic conditions, enabling precise, personalised care to individuals throughout Australia. Methods: The research program recruited Australians who have been seen through a clinical genetics service and remained undiagnosed following clinically available genomic testing. This paper outlines the approach taken to establish a national research project at 12 clinical recruitment sites. The methods detail the funding, aims, governance, study design, population and participation process, health economic research and preliminary results, and recommendations for future sustainability and implementation. Results: The study was approved by the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee on 19 November 2021 (RCH79712), with relevant site-specific approvals at local recruitment sites. Key benefits and barriers in the establishment of UDN-Aus are outlined. Conclusion: The successful establishment of this program required several components, including meaningful and ongoing community and stakeholder engagement, strategic appointment of key operational staff, and a tailored approach to facilitate more equitable enrolment. It also highlighted several imperative areas for consideration to ensure future sustainable implementation of a national UDP. These include continued investment in Australia’s national genomic data transfer policy and infrastructure, and research ethics and governance procedures is imperative for the sustainable delivery of genomic research for rare disease.

Purpose: Families of children in pediatric acute care who are offered ultrarapid genomic sequencing are making complex decisions during a high-stress period. To reduce complexity for families and clinicians, we offered genomic screening for the child and parents after the completion of diagnostic testing. We evaluated uptake, understanding, and service delivery preferences. Methods: A cohort of 235 families who had completed ultrarapid diagnostic genomic sequencing at 17 Australian hospitals were offered up to 3 screens on their genomic data: pediatric-onset, adult-onset, and expanded couple carrier screening. We investigated decision making, understanding, and service delivery preferences using surveys at 3 time points (pre counseling, post counseling, and post result) and performed inductive content analysis of pretest genetic counseling transcripts. Results: A total of 119 families (51%) attended genetic counseling with 115 (49%) accepting genomic screening. Survey respondents were more likely to fi nd decisions about couple carrier screening easy (87%) compared with adult (68%; P = .002) or pediatric (71%; P = .01) screening decisions. All respondents with newly detected pathogenic variants accurately recalled this 1 month later. A delayed offer of screening was acceptable to most respondents (78%). Conclusion: Separating genomic screening from the stressful diagnostic period is supported by families who demonstrate good knowledge and recall. Our results suggest delaying genomic screening should be trialed more widely. (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

PURPOSE:To develop and evaluate a scalable national program to build confidence, competence and capability in the use of rapid genomic testing (rGT) in the acute pediatric setting. METHODS:We used theory-informed approaches to design a modular, adaptive program of blended learning aimed at diverse professional groups involved in acute pediatric care. The program comprised 4 online learning modules and an online workshop and was centered on case-based learning. We evaluated the program using the Kirkpatrick 4-level model of training evaluation and report our findings using the Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation (RISE2) guidelines for genomics education and evaluation. RESULTS:Two hundred and two participants engaged with at least 1 component of the program. Participants self-reported increased confidence in using rGT, (P < .001), and quiz responses objectively demonstrated increased competence (eg, correct responses to a question on pretest counseling increased from 30% to 64%; P < .001). Additionally, their capability in applying genomic principles to simulated clinical cases increased (P < .001), as did their desire to take on more responsibility for performing rGT. The clinical interpretation of more complex test results (such as negative results or variants of uncertain significance) appeared to be more challenging, indicating a need for targeted education in this area. CONCLUSION:The program format was effective in delivering multidisciplinary and wide-scale genomics education in the acute care context. The modular approach we have developed now lends itself to application in other medical specialties or areas of health care.

PURPOSE Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. METHODS This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes. RESULTS One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.

International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents’ decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language (p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners (p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified (p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher’s country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients’ willingness to share their data – and value of the resulting research – should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

Genetic counselors (GCs) face unique challenges in the acute care setting. Acute care environments—such as neonatal and pediatric intensive care units—are characterized by urgency, complexity, and rapid decision making. These settings require GCs to navigate a delicate balance between addressing the immediate clinical needs of patients and providing comprehensive genetic information to families, while demanding adaptation of existing skills for practice.Rapid genomic testing (rGT) is increasingly becoming standard of care in acute care. GCs are well placed to support families through the rGT process. Despite this, there is a lack of consistency in the provision of comprehensive acute care genetic counseling globally and a subsequent need for professional guidance in this area.The Acute Care Genomics study piloted a national approach to delivering rGT for infants and children admitted to intensive care units in Australia with suspected genetic conditions between 2018 and 2022. GCs from across Australia were involved in both pre- and post-test counseling for the families of these critically unwell children. Based on our collective experience of delivering this national rGT program, this article provides a discussion of common challenges for health professionals new to delivering rGT in intensive care. We share some practical solutions and make recommendations for supporting families in this area of practice.

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Bone marrow failure (BMF) related to hypoplasia of hematopoietic elements in the bone marrow is a heterogeneous clinical entity with a broad differential diagnosis including both inherited and acquired causes. Accurate diagnostic categorization is critical to optimal patient care and detection of genomic variants in these patients may provide this important diagnostic and prognostic information. We performed real-time, accredited (ISO15189) comprehensive genomic characterization including targeted sequencing and whole exome sequencing in 115 patients with BMF syndrome (median age 24 years, range 3 months - 81 years). In patients with clinical diagnoses of inherited BMF syndromes, acquired BMF syndromes or clinically unclassifiable BMF we detected variants in 52% (12/23), 53% (25/47) and 56% (25/45) respectively. Genomic characterization resulted in a change of diagnosis in 30/115 (26%) including the identification of germline causes for 3/47 and 16/45 cases with pre-test diagnoses of acquired and clinically unclassifiable BMF respectively. The observed clinical impact of accurate diagnostic categorization included choice to perform allogeneic stem cell transplantation, disease-specific targeted treatments, identification of at-risk family members and influence of sibling allogeneic stem cell donor choice. Multiple novel pathogenic variants and copy number changes were identified in our cohort including in TERT, FANCA, RPS7 and SAMD9. Whole exome sequence analysis facilitated the identification of variants in two genes not typically associated with a primary clinical manifestation of BMF but also demonstrated reduced sensitivity for detecting low level acquired variants. In conclusion, genomic characterization can improve diagnostic categorization of patients presenting with hypoplastic BMF syndromes and should be routinely performed in this group of patients.

Introduction As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting. Methods and analysis Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3–6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals’ perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews. Ethics and dissemination This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

Aim: To develop and evaluate genomics education programs for health professionals to expedite the translation of genomics into healthcare. Methods: Our co-design team of genetic specialists, expert medical specialist peers, and genomics educators developed two continuing genomics education programs for health professionals: stand-alone, specialty-specific workshops and a generic blended learning course, combining online learning with workshops. Both programs referenced adult learning theories; workshops included case-based learning and expert peer-led discussion. Longitudinal surveys evaluated changes in confidence and understanding of genomic testing processes and clinical practice. Results: We delivered eleven specialty workshops (414 attendees) and a blended learning course comprising four self-directed online modules (61 users) and workshops (71 attendees) for mixed-specialty groups with adult, pediatric, or oncology cases. Surveys (214 workshops; 63 blended) showed that both programs significantly increased confidence and understanding of genomic testing processes. Blended learning participants showed additional gains in confidence after attending a workshop following online learning. Workshop discussions with experts were valued, particularly regarding interpreting and applying results. At follow-up, gains in confidence and understanding were maintained for both programs and 81% of respondents had performed a new genomics activity in clinical practice. Conclusion: Scalable education is needed. Our results suggest that specialty-specific genomics education may not be required to meet the needs of multiple specialties across a health system. Online learning can meet foundational learning needs but may not be sufficient to apply learning to practice. Blended learning offers flexible, continuing education pathways for dispersed national audiences as genomics becomes increasingly used across varied specialties.

There is growing evidence that education based on clear theoretical foundations is most effective. The role of learning theories is well established in health professional education. Behavior change theories are also relevant: incorporating genomic medicine into practice is not purely an educational challenge; it also requires change to familiar practices. Currently, adoption of genomics by individual clinicians is occurring in the context of efforts to address the many implementation barriers to genomics in health systems; theories of adoption of innovation in health care can also inform education to support broader change. Theories provide a foundation from which educators can develop educational strategies, but not all clinicians require the same level of mastery of genomics. The goals of an education program depend on whether an awareness of key genomics concepts is sufficient or if, for example, the intention is to educate early adopters who will themselves lead change. Tools linking theory and practice can assist. Learning designs help articulate specific activities that will be used to achieve an educational goal, and how these activities align with the chosen theory/s. Program logic models help processes of planning, developing, delivering, and evaluating genomics education, to ensure activities and intended outcomes align with goals and theories. Models of education consider the extent to which education is structured (or not) and the location in which education occurs (e.g., workplace). While structured genomics education is a common response to meet education needs, opportunities to learn in the workplace can be deliberately exploited to maximize change. This chapter provides an introduction to theories, models, and tools to assist genomics educators to design impactful education to achieve different goals. We hope it will serve to support effective genomics education through a broader understanding of how education can be deliberately designed to achieve change.

Background The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (the Alliance) is a collaboration of leading hospitals, research and academic organisations, supported by its member organisations and the Victorian Government. The Alliance was set up by its members in 2013 to steer the translation of genomics, making it an integral part of health care in Victoria, Australia. The Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed soon after, to give input and advice across the program. This was to ensure consideration of community values, perspectives and priorities, and knowledge translation for patient care. The CAG was charged with providing a strong community voice for the duration of the program. Appointed members were experienced consumer advocates with developed connections to the community. Main body The Alliance progressed from an initial Demonstration Project (2013–2015) to a multifaceted program (2016–2020). The CAG worked strategically to help address complex issues, for example, communication, privacy, informed consent, ethics, patient experience, measurement and evaluation standards and policies, data storage and re-use of genomic data. Many aspects of translating genomics into routine care have been tackled, such as communicating with patients invited to have genomic testing, or their caregivers, and obtaining informed consent, clinical questions across 16 areas of health care, training and education of health and laboratory professionals, genomic data management and data-sharing. Evidence generated around clinical utility and cost-effectiveness led to government funding of testing for complex genetic conditions in children. Conclusion The CAG activities, recorded in a CAG-inspired Activity register, span the full spectrum of information sharing and consultation to co-design and partnership. The CAG were involved at multiple levels of participation and in all tiers of activity including governance, development of policies and procedures, program planning and evaluation. Working relationships were built up and a level of trust instilled to advance the Alliance work program in ensuring an effective patient-care model of delivery of genomics. CAG input into project deliverables has been tangible. Less tangible contributions included presentations at external meetings and conferences, direct interactions at meetings with Alliance members, interactions with visitors and external experts, taking part in consultations with experts, state and federal government.

The use of social media has become a ubiquitous form of communication. Little is known about whether social media is used in families to assist with the communication of genetic information. This study aimed to understand if and why individuals use social media to communicate genetic information to at-risk relatives. Individuals with either a pathogenic variant in a cancer-predisposing gene or a heterozygous pathogenic variant in an autosomal or X-linked recessive gene were surveyed about communicating genetic information to their at-risk relatives and their use of social media to assist this process. Surveys were sent to 323 individuals from a reproductive carrier screening program and 250 individuals from a familial cancer center. The 128 responses (response rate 25.2%) showed that while most participants (79.0%) did not use social media to communicate genetic information, those that did use social media (21.0%) found it to be helpful as it was easy, accessible and allowed individuals to overcome communication barriers. Genetic professionals should be aware that social media is being used by individuals to assist family communication about genetic information and should discuss this method of communication with individuals who are faced with communicating genetic information with their family.

Congenital hearing impairment (HI) is the most common sensory impairment and can be isolated or part of a syndrome. Diagnosis through newborn hearing screening and management through early intervention, hearing aids and cochlear implantation is well established in the Australian setting; however understanding the genetic basis of congenital HI has been missing. This population-derived cohort comprised infants with moderate-profound bilateral HI born in the 2016–2017 calendar years, detected through newborn hearing screening. Participants were recruited through an integrated paediatric, otolaryngology and genetics HI clinic and offered whole exome sequencing (WES) on a HiSeq4000 or NextSeq500 (Illumina) platform with a targeted average sequencing depth of 100x and chromosome microarray on the Illumina Infinium core exome-24v1.2 platform. Of those approached, 68% (106/156) consented to participate. The rate of genetic diagnosis was 56% (59/106), significantly higher than standard of care ( GJB2/6 sequencing only), 21% (22/106). There were clinical implications for the 106 participants: 36% required no further screening, 9% had tailored screening initiated, 2% were offered treatment and 4% had informed care for a complex neurodevelopmental syndrome. WES in this cohort demonstrates the range of diagnoses associated with congenital HI and confirms the genetic heterogeneity of congenital HI. The high diagnostic yield and clinical implications emphasises the need for genomic sequencing to become standard of care.

2033 Background: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting CGP in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. Barriers include low patient understanding, unmet patient expectations related to low utility, clinician concerns over cost-effectiveness, perceived value, and discomfort in management of complex genomic results. Methods: This prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGP in the care of adult and paediatric advanced cancer pts, incorporating pt reported outcomes (PROMs), discrete choice experiment (DCE), ongoing process optimization and clinician evaluations. DNA sequencing of FFPE tumor and matched blood was completed with CGP (PMCC Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes) via central laboratory. A tumor board reported results weekly with emphasis on therapeutic relevance. Oncologists performed consent and results delivery. Pts completed pre-and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions, DCE and if eligible, semi-structured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians and laboratory staff to evaluate processes. Results: 86% (315) of 365 enrolled pts had successful CGP; of these 63% (199) had relevant therapeutic, diagnostic or germline results. 50 (16%) had treatment change at 6m, 49 (16%) had germline mutations. 293 (88% of adult pts) completed PROMs. 17 of 19 clinicians/laboratory staff approached consented to an interview. At consent pts cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test pts remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGP; valuing research contribution, taking opportunities and information for family. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret following participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Pt-elicited preferences (via DCE) indicated priority for high rates of clinical utility and timeliness. Clinicians sited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery of CGP. Conclusions: Pts undergoing CGP are generally satisfied, and derive value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGP with value to pts and investing institution, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy and decision-making support.

Purpose To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. Methods We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Results ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%). Conclusion In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.

Purpose: Genomic newborn screening raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence is required to build a framework to introduce this technology safely and effectively. We investigated the choices made by a diverse group of parents with newborns when offered tiered genomic information from exome sequencing. Methods: This population-derived cohort comprised infants with congenital deafness. Parents were offered exome sequencing and choice regarding the scope of analysis. Options were choice A, diagnostic analysis only; choice B, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with medical actionability; or choice C, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with or without medical actionability. Results: Of the 106 participants, 72 (68%) consented to receive additional findings with 29 (27.4%) selecting choice B and 43 (40.6%) opting for choice C. Family size, ethnicity, and age of infant at time of recruitment were the significant predictors of choice. Parents who opted to have additional findings analysis demonstrated less anxiety and decisional conflict. Conclusions: These data provide evidence from a culturally diverse population that choice around additional findings is important and the age of the infant when this choice is offered impacts on their decision. We found no evidence that offering different levels of genomic information to parents of newborns has a negative psychological impact.

PURPOSE:To evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.METHODS:Data from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.RESULTS:For the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375-US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794-US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41-51%.CONCLUSION:Resources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.