In this explainer episode, we’ve asked Jamie Ellingford, Lead Genomic Data Scientist for Rare Disease, to explain how genomics is helping us better understand rare conditions.

You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel.

If you’ve got any questions, or have any other topics you’d like us to explain, let us know on [email protected].

You can download the transcript or read it below.

[00:00:00] Florence: How can genomics help us better understand rare conditions? My name is Florence Cornish, and today I am joined by our Lead Genomic Data Scientist for Rare Disease, Jamie Ellingford, and he is going to be sharing lots more insights about the topic with us.  

So, I guess before we begin, Jamie, it might be useful if you could explain what we actually mean by the term 'rare condition'? 

[00:00:25] Jamie: Sure. Hi, Florence. So, a rare condition we define as something that impacts one in less than two thousand people, and so that's something that occurs really infrequently in the population. But we know that collectively there's lots of different rare diseases. And so, the estimates are that it's about one in seventeen people in the population that are impacted by some sort of rare disease, of which we think there's over seven thousand.  

But research that uses data that we have here at Genomics England as well as other sources is starting to uncover more and more of these individual rare disorders. So collectively, as I just said, one in seventeen individuals, we think, is impacted by a rare disease, and that equates to almost three and a half million people here in the UK. 

[00:01:15] Most of these rare conditions, we think, have a genetic basis, and perhaps we'll explain a little bit more about what that means.  

[00:01:22] Florence: Yeah, no, it would be great to talk a little bit more about that actually. So as you said, most rare conditions we think have a genetic cause, but I think it might be helpful if you could explain what we mean when we say that something 'has a genetic cause'. 

[00:01:35] Jamie: Of course. So maybe we go back to kind of the basics and kind of how a person is first formed. So, at that point of fertilisation, where the sex cells from mum and dad join, we inherit one copy of our genome from mum and one copy from dad, and it's the order and the composition of these letters in our genome which makes it unique to us. 

Most of that genome is absolutely identical to anyone else in the human population. And a small fraction of it is unique to us and is a combination of things that we've inherited from our mothers and our fathers. And when we think about genetic causes, largely, we look at those differences. And so, what is it that's different in individuals compared to the wider population that could be driving these rare conditions? 

[00:02:23] Florence: So could you maybe explain a little bit more about how people's genetic material, how people's genomes differ from one another? 

[00:02:30] Jamie: So there's lots of different ways that we can observe these genetic differences. So some of them impact individual letters, and we, we may swap a single letter for another.  

[00:02:41] We can also remove small sections, so it may be that a run of three or four of these letters is deleted from someone's genome. But on the opposite end of the scale, we can also see huge changes in how that genetic material looks.  

So perhaps a good way to think about this is as a story. And so if our, if our genome is like any kind of good fiction story that you would read, then we can have spelling mistakes that impact single words, 

[00:03:09] that impact whole paragraphs, or some which impact whole chapters. Lots of these different types of genetic causes can give rise to genetic conditions. And so even the smallest changes, the smallest spelling mistakes in words, can still give rise to rare genetic conditions. 

[00:03:26] Florence: We actually have a previous podcast episode that explores that topic in a lot more detail. So if listeners want to check that out, it's called "Are genetic conditions always inherited from parents?"  

So obviously, Jamie, we spoke quite a lot about DNA and genetic changes there, and this episode is all about how genomics specifically can help us better understand rare conditions. 

[00:03:47] Um, but what actually is genomics as a field of study?  

[00:03:53] Jamie: So simply put, genomics is the study of the whole genome, or at least as complete a picture of the genome as we can possibly represent. And so in the case of rare disorders, we use genomics to try and understand what the genome looks like from an affected child. 

[00:04:12] And, um, in some cases, we're also able to look at the whole genomes of their relatives, so perhaps their mother and their father. And we use this information to best detect and best prioritise variants that we think are giving rise to their genetic condition. But how we've done that has evolved and advanced a lot over time, has gone hand in hand with these remarkable developments in technology. 

[00:04:37] And so a decade ago, maybe 15 years ago, the state-of-the-art technologies were to look for single spelling mistakes or to be able to survey complete genes. Nowadays, we can generate data for the whole genome, and we can do that fairly cheaply, we can do it quickly. And we rely on computational algorithms and the development of bioinformatic resources to be able to properly make sense of that data. And so there's, there's three key aspects of bioinformatics, this discipline of integrating informatics, computational technology, with biology. 

[00:05:17] And so the first is, having generated some data, can we appropriately find where in the human genome that data should map to? Having done that, can we detect these differences, these small or large changes in the human genome, for that individual? And finally, can we start to make sense of those changes? Can we understand whether they exist frequently in a population or they're unique to this family and predict what potential consequence they have on a gene's function?  

[00:05:47] Florence: Mm. So there's obviously lots of different components of genomics, but how can all of them help us better understand rare conditions specifically? 

[00:05:59] Jamie: So as we've already touched upon, most rare diseases have a genetic basis, and we think that that estimate could be something like 80% of rare diseases have a genetic component to them. And what we've seen over the past decade and further, is that genomics has really transformed the discovery of new genomic conditions. 

[00:06:20] And so being able to look at data from the whole genome has allowed us to understand new genetic, types of genetic changes, changes in new genes, which could cause these rare conditions. And what we've seen recently is that move and that transformation from genomics as a discovery tool to a tool that we use routinely and so essentially, we've moved this technology from research laboratories into the NHS and the UK healthcare system. We've really come a long way, and so, whilst we see that the amount of genetic diagnoses that we can find is really dependent on the specific disorders, broadly, we find genetic diagnoses for somewhere between a quarter and half of the individuals that are referred. 

[00:07:10] What that does mean is that there's still 50% of individuals out there that get referred to these services with a rare condition where we don't find an obvious genetic answer through the implementation of genomics within healthcare.  

[00:07:24] Florence: Do you have, um, a specific example you could share of where genomics has had a real impact in our understanding of rare conditions? 

[00:07:33] Jamie: So I think all of us that have worked in this space for, for a long time have our own individual examples. We're recording this in 2026, and over the past two years, there's been a flurry of discoveries of genes which don't directly encode proteins, that cause a certain type of rare conditions, and so we call these non-coding genes. 

[00:07:54] These genes have recently been described as a cause of kind of wide neurodevelopmental disorders, as a cause of genetic blindness, and there's ten at the time of recording, distinct rare conditions another example that I wanted to elaborate on is something that was really personal to me because it happened really early during my development as a, as a researcher and as a, somebody who looks at genomic data very early in my career, and really kind of had a profound impact on how I think about genomics and how it can be applied. 

[00:08:28] And so this was an individual who was referred with a certain type of rare condition. And through the analysis of their genomic data, we identified a genetic variant in a certain gene. At the time of testing, they were in their early teenage years, and when we looked at the scientific literature, what this suggested is that other symptoms were going to develop before the age of 20. 

[00:08:52] And so at this point, genomic testing had been done in a really critical window for that individual and allowed them to be referred to specialist centres, and to be managed appropriately, and that's really ended up in a good outcome. 

And what's becoming more and more frequent is the opportunity for genomics to inform enrolment to clinical trials, the development of targeted treatments, and we hope that in the next decade or so we'll see an increased flurry of those activities.  

[00:09:22] Florence: Yeah. So I guess, would the headline be that genomics allows us to see changes in the genome that maybe more traditional genetic tests wouldn't have allowed us to see, and then that in turn helps us with our approaches to rare conditions? 

[00:09:37] Would you say that that's accurate?  

[00:09:40] Jamie: So it certainly gives us that opportunity.  

[00:09:42] Florence: So I think we'll finish there, Jamie. Thank you so much for coming on, for taking the time to speak with us. It's been very insightful.  

[00:09:50] Thank you very much. A pleasure to chat.  

[00:09:52] Florence: If listeners want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts. 

[00:10:03]

When people think of midwives, they often think about pregnancy and birth, but the reality of modern midwifery is far broader. 

In this episode of Behind the Genes, our guests explore the many different roles midwives play across healthcare, from clinical care and safety improvement to research and genomics. 

The conversation looks at how midwives are helping shape the future of maternity care through research, supporting families to make informed decisions about genomic testing, and contributing to studies like the Generation Study. 

Our host, Sharon Jones is joined by: 

You can find out more about the Generation Study via the study’s official website. 

 “ The more brave we are as midwives, and the more that we're willing to be curious about what we can do to improve our care, the better we're going to be at our profession. All midwives want to do is to provide safe, effective care that is what is in the best interest of that woman. We are advocates for women and for their families.”

You can download the transcript or read it below.

[00:00:00] Sharon Jones: Welcome to Behind the Genes. How is genomics changing midwifery, and what role are midwives playing in shaping the future of genomic healthcare? Also, do midwives just deliver babies, or is their role much broader than many people realise?

[00:00:16] My name is Sharon Jones, and in this podcast we cover everything from cutting-edge research to real life stories in genomic healthcare.

[00:00:23] Joining me today are Katie Handley, Fiona Smith, and Jess Fletcher. Katie is Maternal and Child Health Clinical Lead for the Generation Study, Fiona is a research midwife for the Generation Study at Rosie Hospital in Cambridgeshire, and Jess is a safety and quality midwife at the Rosie Hospital, and a participant on the Generation Study.

[00:00:42] Together, we'll be exploring how midwifery's evolving, where research fits into clinical practice, and what genomics mean for maternity care now and in the future. We kicked off this one by asking Katie what roles midwives play day to day.

[00:00:56] Kate Handley: I think when people think of midwives, they think of helping a lady to have a baby.

[00:01:01] We're there for the birth, we're there to catch the baby, but it is so, so much more than that. We're there from the moment a woman becomes pregnant or even before that. We can help with prenatal, uh, preconception care. We're there all the way through the pregnancy, for the birth, and then afterwards as well, we'll look after the lady, her family, until, until we hand the baby and, and her over to the health visitor or to whoever's next in her care pathway.

[00:01:25] But that's just looking at clinical midwives for the... that are involved directly in that particular pregnancy. There's midwives doing all sorts of other roles. I think I'm a really good example of that. So I am a clinic- I was a clinical midwife. I am a registered midwife, but now I work as a clinical lead, so I'm using my midwifery background and my midwifery skills in a research environment, but to help people who don't know as much about midwifery to implement a research study, and how we can make a research study real in a clinical environment.

[00:01:59] So that's one example, but there are so many other things, and we have midwives doing screening roles and lots and lots of midwives working in research as well.

[00:02:08] Sharon Jones: That's interesting. I've got a couple of friends who are midwives, and I would never have known, like, the extent and scope of their role.

[00:02:14] Kate Handley: Yeah, I think people might be surprised to hear that you can be a midwife but never actually even see a pregnant person. So we have midwives that are academics, for example, or midwives that are lecturing at universities, midwives that are working behind the scenes in risk and governance and looking after the safety aspect.

[00:02:30] Sharon Jones: That's amazing. I would never have known that. So Fiona, how has your role as a midwife changed over the years? Because you've gone through quite a bit of a transition, haven't you?

[00:02:39] Fiona Smith: I have. Before I even became a midwife, I was, I was nursing. That nursing pathway was not academic, as we now have to undertake academic training to become a midwife.

[00:02:50] So we... the training was very different. It was very hospital-based, and this is what you do, this is what we do. You would do some observation. You'd have a go. You'd get signed off. That really was my nursing background, and then when I started to explore midwifery, and it was much more academic, and that I was going to do the university pathway, I doubted that that would be something that I could actually even contemplate.

[00:03:15] Moving forward 20 years, here I am. I've had various roles: community midwife, running birth centres, and then more recently, the last six years, joining a university hospital which has a, a, a big emphasis on research and academic training, brought in lots of students, medical students, and others. I saw some research that was happening at the hospital and became quite curious, took the plunge, and the last two years I've been working as a research midwife, which was a real surprise to me to find that this is where I am, and to actually be working on a genomic study is an even bigger surprise.

[00:03:57] If you'd asked me 20 years ago that this is where I'd be, I'd probably have laughed and said, "No, that's not something that I could even be contemplating."

[00:04:07] Sharon Jones: That's fascinating. It's fascinating, the journey you've been on and how midwifery and nursing training has evolved more broadly. So Jess, how does that compare with your own journey in midwifery?

[00:04:19] Jess Fletcher: Similarly, actually, like off the back of what Katie and Fiona are saying, you do kind of go into midwifery thinking that your career is going to very much look like providing labour care and catching babies, which is a wonderful part of the job. And that is very much my background, is that I have been, like, a labour and delivery midwife, usually on the birth centre or in the community doing home birth.

[00:04:43] So, and never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would pivot and go into something specialist. I think you k- ... Well, in my case, certainly, I kind of fell into it, quite literally, uh, because I broke my ankle and then had- ... to work from home for quite some time. I was offered to be off sick, and I was working at a new trust, and I kind of wanted to, so to speak, keep my foot in the door.

[00:05:05] And I said, "Oh, I, there must be something I can do from home." And they set me up to do some auditing, which quite frankly, a few years prior I would've ... Yeah, you couldn't have paid me all the money in the world to do auditing. And then, lo and behold, I found it so fascinating, not just the process, but kind of seeing how that then would kind of implement us in clinical practice.

[00:05:28] And now I'm a safety and quality improvement midwife. My office is on a birth centre though, so it does mean that I still very much work clinically. So yeah, so a similar story.

[00:05:38] We're such a highly skilled profession that we can apply it in so many different ways. And now of course, I'm on maternity leave with my third baby.

[00:05:46] Sharon Jones: Congratulations.

[00:05:47] Jess Fletcher: And so taking a little, a little break, but really lovely to talk about it all today actually.

[00:05:52] Sharon Jones: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that.

[00:05:53] So as mentioned, alongside clinical care, midwives are, are playing this increasingly important role in research.

[00:06:00] And though it's something that people might not necessarily realise and they might not associate with the profession, I'd love to explore what that actually means in practice and how midwives have become involved in this space. So Katie, where does research fit in with midwifery today, and how do midwives get involved in that space, and is that something that all midwives are engaged with?

[00:06:21] Or is it a more specialist kind of pathway?

[00:06:23] Kate Handley: It can be a specialist pathway, but I think what's really, really important to realise here is that every single midwife is involved in, in research, whether they realise it or not, or midwifery care, has got to be evidence-based. Everything we do is evidence-based, um, because that's what keeps midwifery care as safe as it possibly can be, and we can only get that evidence base from doing research.

[00:06:46] So even if midwives aren't taking part in a research study themselves, if they're not, you know, getting consent from people to do research studies, the care that they are giving comes from research that has been done in some space. Even if that's not within the UK, it's research that has been done. So research is incredibly important.

[00:07:03] That's how we evolve, um, our care, how we evolve our pathways, evolve our guidelines is through that, through that research.

[00:07:11] Sharon Jones: So can you talk to the audience about what is a research midwife versus a clinical midwife?

[00:07:16] Kate Handley: So a clinical midwife generally is somebody that will have hands-on care during the antenatal and intrapartum or, or postnatal period.

[00:07:24] A research midwife, often that will be someone who still works on a ward, in a hospital, but is helping to put research into place. So that may be running a study and taking consent from women to take to be part of that study, and then doing whatever the study needs. Or it can be actually conducting their own research, it can be writing, it can be an academic form of, of midwifery as well.

[00:07:49] It's really, really important, and it really depends on the hospital and on the trust how much that research is incorporated into the clinical care, and sometimes it can be quite separate. But both very, very important. And the Royal College of Midwives are really, really trying to work on making research part of general midwifery care.

[00:08:09] It's something that undergraduates need to do now as part of their, their degree, which all midwives have to do a degree to become a midwife. They have to do research. They have to be involved in research. Midwives in their first year of being qualified should still be having a research role and looking at how research can broaden their clinical skills, and it's something that should be going on throughout their entire career

[00:08:32] Sharon Jones: Yeah, that's great.

[00:08:33] Fiona, what does a typical day look like in your kind of research-focused role?

[00:08:38] Fiona Smith: Firstly, just to say, when I moved from a clinical role into the research role, I thought I was going to miss that kind of adrenaline rush that does come with being a clinical midwife. And so I thought, it-- this is so quiet, it's just a really very different pace.

[00:08:54] But actually, there are deadlines and things like that. So yeah, on a daily basis, it is really... it's a really busy day.

[00:09:02] So we can be answering our emails and inquiries about research. We're liaising with the clinical team, so I'm involved in a screening study, so we, we need to collect samples. So we go and collect samples, we register those samples.

[00:09:19] We're then approaching our patients or ladies that come in to have scans, or they might be in the antenatal ward. We liaise with the community midwives who might have people that want to take part in the study, so we do a lot of communication with the women through that way.

[00:09:38] And having the background as a midwife, having that holistic approach has really, really broadened, you know, and really helped support my role as a midwife. Having-- transferring those skills has been incredible.

[00:09:53] Sharon Jones: So what kind of studies do midwives support?

[00:10:03] Fiona Smith: So apart from the genomic studies, uh, because a, a lot of genetic-based studies are going on within our trust. Where they're looking at trying to understand why things happen and see if there's a genomic h- component that might be attributed to conditions. We've got observational studies where we use lots of questionnaires to ask patients about their experiences. We've got interventional studies, so that could be testing a new drug or an interventions, just testing something that might work and, and might build that into that evidence base to -

[00:10:32] You know, to put into practice. I'm really surprised at the portfolio of, of studies that is available. So they could be, um, not just maternity-based, but the obviously obstetric-based and studies, and we do a lot of gynae studies as well, so we work alongside the gynecologists.

[00:10:51] Sharon Jones: So Katie, genomics is becoming more visible in healthcare. How is that showing up in maternity care more broadly?

[00:10:58] Kate Handley: So I think what's really important to note here is that genomics has always been really important in, um, maternity care.

[00:11:04] It's just that midwives potentially didn't know that they were doing it. Um, so from the very moment that we book a pregnancy, so when, when a woman has her first appointment at, you know, 8-10 weeks, we're already using genomics to plan her, her care. So we're asking about family history. We're asking about a predisposition to, um, heart disease, for example, or heart conditions or diabetes, or things that we will then use to plan a, a pregnancy going forwards.

[00:11:30] We're looking at, yeah, family history. Uh, we're doing screening, antenatal screening, which, uh, some of the tests there are genomic based. And then after the 20-week scan, for example, if we find some sorts of congenital abnormalities, we can use genomic testing then to find out what, what is potentially wrong with the baby and what we can do about it.

[00:11:50] And then moving forward throughout that pregnancy, genomics is also really important in bereavement care. So if there's a history of multiple miscarriages, for example, or if a baby is stillborn, we can use genomic testing to find out any reasons for that and to hopefully improve, um, care for that woman going forwards as well.

[00:12:08] The big thing that's going on at the moment for genomics in maternity and midwifery is, uh, newborn screening At the moment, our newborn screening is looking for, uh, nine or 10 different conditions, um, which are very rare, but do have some treatment if they are caught early. What we're doing with whole genome sequencing, where genomic testing is looking to see whether we can find a much larger range of conditions much earlier in the baby's life to see if we can improve outcomes for those babies.

[00:12:38] And so that's a huge role of genetics. Yeah, absolutely.

[00:12:41] Sharon Jones: So Fiona, how confident do midwives generally feel about discussing genomics with families, even though Katie's just said it's not sort of nothing new and it's always sort of been there, maybe badged differently. How do you feel that midwives feel about talking about it when they are talking to families?

[00:12:59] Fiona Smith: They probably don't feel, you know, very confident speaking about it. And I definitely wouldn't have been able to speak confidently in a comm- as a community midwife, uh role. But what, what is great about the hospital is that we know that they're where to refer to. So we've got the fetal medicine midwives who are available at any point to talk us through what to say to women or to help us, and the screening team are really useful and are on hand to, again, help us navigate that and what to, you know, what to say to parents.

[00:13:36] We've got a really good patient record system as well, so we should, we, you know, the notes are very accurate. We should be able to, uh, follow through from what the parents have been told already, what their journey looks like. So although we're not 100% confident, but I think the students coming through, they're going to have res- acquire a lot more knowledge.

[00:13:59] And also our midwifery standards imply that genomics should be part of that everyday conversation that midwives are having. So although it isn't something that's familiar within our parlance. I think going forward, I think it definitely will become much more mainstay, if you like, just-

[00:14:20] something that we will be naturally talking about because you know, let's face it, genomics is here. I want to say being part of the Generation Study team, because I'm quite visible and everybody seems to know me because I've, I've transitioned from one role to the other, you know, we are visible. I'm stopped quite a lot, and midwives are asking the questions and, "Well, why?"

[00:14:43] You know, "Why is it important?" Just even to be able to talk about, you know, that we've, we're building up a database, data that's going to be used for future reference. Being able to have those conversations with, with the midwives now will really help that confidence. It's something that I didn't think I'd ever have a conversation with.

[00:15:02] I don't have very deep conversations, but I know where there are people if I do need to get those answers.

[00:15:09] Kate Handley: No, um, I think going with what, what Fiona says, I think it's really interesting that pregnancies generally now are becoming a lot more complex. Um, we're seeing a lot more high-risk pregnancies, and I think that we will find that, that women and their families, their knowledge of genomics is probably going to increase as well because we're going to see genomic testing more widely in, in healthcare, and that's going to have to then flow through into maternity and into midwifery knowledge because women are coming in with more of a baseline knowledge as well.

[00:15:40] And when we're dealing with more complex pregnancies and more high-risk pregnancies, genomics is a huge part of that. We, you know- Mm ... because we're going to be looking at things like pharmacogenetics, where we can see what kind of treatments are going to be best for these women and how that can then impact on their pregnancies.

[00:15:56] I think epigenetics is becoming more and more talked about and more interesting in maternity, you know, and it's really important that midwives are aware that we've been speaking for years about the impact of smoking, alcohol, all of the outside factors on a pregnancy. But when we actually consider that from a genetic point of view, and that these genetic changes could potentially then be feeding down through generations, it brings a whole new level to the, to that aspect of maternity that, that midwives do need to know about.

[00:16:27] So I, I think Fiona's right. I think that there is a lack of confidence when you hear the word genomics, but as soon as you explain what genomics actually means, then that confidence can be boosted. And I think that as we go forwards, there's so much work being done in the training and education systems for universities, for midwives that are already practicing.

[00:16:53] We're really trying to, to improve that confidence and competence. Within the Generation Study, that's something that we're working really, really hard on, is to make sure that we're giving all the really appropriate training to the midwives that are involved in it, and that's not just the research teams that are, uh, that are asking consent from the participants, but that's for the wider team as well to, to help the, the midwives who are taking samples, for example, understand why they need to take that particular blood sample, the importance of taking it at the time, and what that means for the family and how that can impact on, on the future.

[00:17:26] Sharon Jones: So it's kind of a whole literacy raising across the piece, isn't it? Just to sort of go back to a couple of things you said there, for those who might not know who are listening, would you mind just explaining about, um, pharmacogenomics and epigenetics? Because I just wanted to make sure that we put it across for everyone who might not know those terms.

[00:17:44] Katie Handley: So epigenetics, for example, that's looking at how environmental factors can influence gene expression. So how the impact of something on the outside can impact what's going on in the inside. And we do know now that, that environmental factors can change the way that your genes in your body work. So that can not only impact the individual, those gene changes can be passed down through to the next generations as well.

[00:18:12] And we know that this can happen across the placenta, so what a mum does in her pregnancy can then change the gene expression of the baby as well. And then we've got pharmacogenetics, which is looking at how certain drugs and certain treatments can be individualised for personal care. So looking at a person's genome, looking at the way their individual genes all work together, and then seeing how specific drugs, specific treatments can be used for that individual rather than as a population level.

[00:18:43] Sharon Jones: That's really helpful. Thank you. So Jess, did being a participant on the Generation study change how you approach conversations as a midwife? 'Cause you're kind of like in both camps, which is a quite rare and interesting position to be in.

[00:18:58] Jess Fletcher: Yeah, it's been a really amazing insight actually. Um, it definitely will, and I think this will kind of, uh, piggyback off of what, uh, Fiona was, and Katie was saying about how confident are midwives when, when they're counselling for studies.

[00:19:10] So, you know, I'm, I'm particularly passionate about, and I mean mostly all midwives are, but I'm very passionate about making sure, ensuring that the people that we're providing care for are making truly fully informed decisions. Like very informed, you know, not, not just signposting, but making sure that they understand, you know, what does this mean for you?

[00:19:31] Like what could these results mean for you and your family? Because I think the, I mean, this is a wonderful approach in some ways, but very often we'll be met with people under our care that go, "Yes, of course. Like sign me up for absolutely everything." Like the, the more we know, the better. Mm. And actually, I think it's- Then having that discussion about, well, actually, knowing things can be very complex because it then opens up a lot more questions for you and your family, and I'm not, not suggesting that ignorance is bliss, but actually, you know, really ensuring that they truly understand what this could mean for them and for their babies.

[00:20:09] And the positives of that as well, what this could, you know, how this could really optimise your, your child's health throughout their life. And so for me, you know, I've always been very passionate about discussing studies with, with the people that I'm caring for. But it was really amazing actually being on the other side and applying that to me and my family and my baby.

[00:20:32] What I talk about this, you know, every day, and actually Fiona's right, they're a very visible team, and it's, and it's amazing because, well, for Fiona, because often if she's on the birth centre and a bell goes, she's often having to get stuck in clinically in emergencies anyway. So you get a little touch of that every now and then, don't you, Fiona?

[00:20:49] But it means that they are very accessible. I felt I had a really good understanding, but suddenly it felt very personal. And I can't quite remember how it went, whether Fiona approached me or I approached her, because we see each other so frequently at work. I think that when my pregnancy became, you know, common knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, Fiona, it was more of a like,

[00:21:11] "Oh, here we are again meeting in a corridor. Oh, yay, I can do the study," type of thing.

[00:21:16] Fiona Smith: I think you came and sat in my office to do the consent.

[00:21:19] Jess Fletcher: And that was a really interesting part for me because, of course, as a midwife, you know, you don't get to see behind the curtain, so to speak, as much as what I got to do as a participant. So I got to come and sit with Fiona in the office with the team.

[00:21:33] It was wonderful from the perspective as a pregnant person, but also as a midwife, I've learnt quite a lot, and I think that, of course, I'm not at work, you know, currently, but when I return, um, certainly the way in which I signpost and, and the way that I talk about research and this, and the Generation Study in particular, all of that will still be there.

[00:21:54] But I, I do wonder if there's going to be, there's a much deeper understanding on my side And yeah, I think undoubtedly that's probably going to, uh, I will adapt how I then, um, talk to people about the study because I've, you know, had more of an opportunity to delve into, you know, some of the great stories that have come out of it

[00:22:15] and some of the real successes that have been shared from the team. I think there was very recently a case where a genetic condition was found, but it was found so early that actually his quality of life is now going to be, you know, really optimal. And I just found the whole story really fascinating. So I suppose it's opened a bit more of a door for me on a personal side and a professional side to read more, and I found it, you know, that much more intriguing, I suppose.

[00:22:41] Sharon Jones: Yeah, I suppose it piques that curiosity and also just hearing those good news stories. Yeah, kind of showing how, you know, a family's life has been impacted in such a, sort of the early part instead of having that massive journey of finding out what possibly could be the challenges a child is facing and not knowing, having that result so much early on makes such a difference to, to a family.

[00:23:03] Jess Fletcher: Absolutely. And, and also just I think as well, because I work in safety and quality, you know, the, a huge part of my role is looking at patient experience. It's been great to be on the other, I mean, yes, this is third time around, but this was the first time that I had a baby at this current trust that I'm working at.

[00:23:18] So, you know, it was really great being on the other side of that and actually seeing how streamlined it was, how the communication between the research team and myself as the pregnant person, how efficient it was that I was receiving various things in the post and through the kind of patient portal that we use.

[00:23:36] And then how swift the results were as well.

[00:23:39] I mean, that, I'm sure that can vary between participants, but for me, you know, you're so caught up in the, in the newborn weeks that you can almost forget you were part of a study. And then I, and then I got the results through and I went, "Oh my gosh, of course. I mean, what a wonderful thing to participate in."

[00:23:54] And the fact that we're still a part of it really until he's 16 years old and beyond, if he consents. So I just think, yeah, it's been a really great experience to participate, but it will undoubtedly change how I then talk about it moving forward because I've had this personal experience.

[00:24:11] Sharon Jones: Yeah, yeah. Kind of hearing that seamless experience kind of builds on the trust that, you know, you have in the study and, and, you know, the sort of people behind it essentially, which is, is really important when you're kind of giving your genomic data essentially.

[00:24:25] So it's, it's really good to hear that. Yeah. So looking to the future, it's clear that genomics is going to play a growing role in healthcare, so I'm really interested in what that means for midwifery. How might the role evolve, and what does that mean in terms of supporting midwives who need to feel confident in this space?

[00:24:43] Kate Handley: I think that genomics is going to have a huge impact on maternity care, and I think it's going to be really great to see how we can really improve the personalised care that we give to individuals that come through the maternity system. We try really hard as midwives to treat every single woman that comes through our care as an individual, to personalise her care plan, and the more information that we've got about somebody, the more information they want to share, the better we can look after them and the better care plan we can actually put in place.

[00:25:17] So by using any genomic data that we have, we can really improve that, that care. If whole genome sequencing does become part of newborn screening in the future, we can potentially find these babies every day that we think may have a rare condition, and we can do something to improve their quality of life.

[00:25:37] Sharon Jones: Yeah. That's, that's incredible. If the study continues and, and rolls out into healthcare, that will be, um, such an impactful and, like, really game-changing Sort of effect for everyone.

[00:25:49] Kate Handley: It will be really impactful and game-changing as long as we do it properly, and I think what Jessica was saying is really, really important about genomics can have huge implications for families and for people.

[00:26:00] So it is so important that people understand what they're signing up for in any kind of genomic testing, not just in the Generation study. And because of that, the training that we give to midwives in the future, and I say we, I mean that as universities, as midwives teaching each other, as all education bodies, the information and the education that we give to midwives is so important because the only way that we can ensure that the individual signing up for any kind of genomic testing are giving informed consent is by making sure the people taking that consent are fully informed as well.

[00:26:34] As us going forwards, if all midwives can just embrace genomics, everybody will help each other build to a position where we can provide really, really good care.

[00:26:44] Jess Fletcher: From the perspective of, yes, a midwife, but also someone that's fairly freshly postnatal, you know, decision-making during a pregnancy is actually really complex.

[00:26:53] There's a lot of grey areas, and I think that decision-making, that can be really tough if it's your first experience or if you're suddenly dealing with something in a pregnancy that is more complex than you anticipated, and there's no right or wrong answer, and you're having to make decisions with perhaps not quite all of the information.

[00:27:14] I mean, Katie touched on the non-invasive prenatal testing when we are, yes, we're, we're screening in, in early pregnancy for a number of conditions, but the non-invasive prenatal testing, it's not 100%, but it, it gives us a lot more to work with. And I think everyone interprets risk differently, don't they?

[00:27:34] So if you're given a one in something chance that your baby might have a condition, it's very, can be really difficult and, and a very emotional process to make decisions around that. What's my next move going to be? So if we have the ability with genomics to actually provide a lot more information and kind of broaden the decision-making process, then -

[00:27:59] that can only, I think, be a positive thing, or give them the opportunity to then opt out of any further testing, which is equally as important.

[00:28:08] Sharon Jones: Giving you as much agency to choose without pressure and just giving you as much knowledge that you need to make the best decision that you can in that, in that situation.

[00:28:17] Jess Fletcher: Yeah, the situation that's right for, for you and for your family, which is going to look different for every family, isn't it?

[00:28:23] Kate Handley: And midwives are in such a privileged position because of the amount of time that we potentially spend with a woman and to get to know that woman. We have got the ability to actually explain things in a way that, that woman may be able to understand as well, as long as we've got the knowledge.

[00:28:40] So, you know, genomics can be really, really complex. Mm. And it can be really difficult for people to understand, even if we do have all that information. So by using the relationships that we can build with those women, I'm thinking particularly community midwives or people during the labour room that are building these really intense relationships really, really quickly.

[00:28:58] We really need to be able to use that to our advantage when it comes to actually information given to, to patients as well, and to women and their families.

[00:29:06] Jess Fletcher: We're in a really unique position in our profession because we're very highly skilled at having to explain something quickly and under pressure, and try and capture and provide all of the information possible.

[00:29:18] But also we work as part of a multidisciplinary team, so we've got access to a lot of professionals that can provide input and help with educating the patient, but also educating us. So our knowledge is always growing, especially around kind of research and genomics in, in particular. Yes, it's becoming so much more a part of midwifery.

[00:29:41] So I think, yeah, I, I feel really lucky that, you know, we're not just in a profession that, it, you know, we do this day to day and that's it. It just feels like that there's always a chance to learn and to grow as a professional, and then impart that on the people that we're caring for

[00:29:57] Sharon Jones: So coming to my final question, if you could leave our listeners with one message about midwives and research, what would it be?

[00:30:05] Fiona Smith: I'd say even though it does sound like it's a scary subject, I think we need to embrace it. The technology that's there, you know, we've got it. It's here to stay. Yeah, just don't be scared. Be curious and excited.

[00:30:22] Jess Fletcher: Yeah, and I, I do think... I, I think midwives in general, I feel like when we qualify, we also qualify with a bit of an inferiority complex, you know?

[00:30:30] That we worry about what we don't know, and actually, you're right, Fiona, we really mustn't be scared of this. We, we carry so much knowledge. Our profession is, as we've already spoken about, it's so... It's amazing how much we actually do as midwives and, and how broadly we practice, that actually it's absolutely okay if we're not confident in delivering this information, or we're not confident about, you know, where research is going.

[00:30:55] The most important thing is, is, is accessing support so that we can make sure that we are, for ourselves and for the people that we're looking after, we have a- as deep of an understanding as we possibly can.

[00:31:06] Sharon Jones: Definitely, and, and talking about sort of multi-skilling and, and being kind of pretty amazing, Jessica, I'm, I'm very impressed with our guest that has joined us on, on your shoulder

[00:31:26] Jess Fletcher: The generation study baby!

[00:31:28] Sharon Jones: A newborn baby. A Generation Study baby, that you've, uh, done this entire podcast with your baby.

[00:31:32] Jess Fletcher: He's done amazingly well, hasn't he?

[00:31:35] Sharon Jones: Yeah, he's done very well, and that really does, uh, sort of show the power of your, of your skills, not just a midwife, also as a mum, as we know.

[00:31:43] Jess Fletcher: Always a juggle.

[00:31:45] Sharon Jones: It certainly is. Katie, did you want to add any more about leaving our listeners with a, a message about midwives and, and research?

[00:31:50] Kate Handley: Yeah. I, um... Fiona used the word curious, which I think is, is brilliant. I think if we can all be curious about research, we're already onto a winner. And Jessica said about being brave. The more brave we are as midwives, and the more that we're willing to be curious about what we can do to improve our care, the better we're going to be at our profession. All midwives want to do is to provide safe, effective care that is what is in the best interest of that woman.

[00:32:07] We are advocates for women and for their families. We want what they want. But in order to do that, we have to embrace research, along with safeguarding and health and safety, I feel like it needs to be everyone's responsibility. You know, we all have this responsibility to improve care for, for the women that we're looking after, and research is at the heart of that.

[00:32:30] And the more research that we can do, that we can be part of and that we can implement, the better that our profession will be and the safer that our women will be.

[00:32:39] Sharon Jones: Thank you. Thank you to our guests, Katie, Fiona, and Jessica, and Jessica's newborn baby, for joining me today and sharing your insights into the evolving role of midwives.

[00:32:50] It's been fascinating to hear how midwives are not only supporting families day-to-day, but also contributing to research and helping to bring genomic medicine into routine care. If you'd like to hear more like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. Thank you for listening.

[00:33:06] I've been your host, Sharon Jones. Behind the Genes is produced by Deanna Barac, Florence Cornish, Sophie McLachlan, and Patrick Wallace at Bespoken Media.

In this explainer episode, we’ve asked Kate Stanbury, research midwife on the Generation Study, to tell us more about the vital role that midwives play.

You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel.

If you’ve got any questions, or have any other topics you’d like us to explain, let us know on [email protected].

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Florence: What does a midwife do? My name is Florence Cornish, and today I'm joined by Kate Stanbury, who is a research midwife working on the Generation Study, and she is going to be explaining the vital role that midwives play.

So, to start off with Kate, I'm sure that most of our listeners will have heard of midwives before or maybe even like come across them in healthcare settings, but it would be good to hear from you more about what a midwife actually does.

Kate: Yeah, absolutely. So, a midwife is someone who provides care and support to birthing people and their families during pregnancy, labour, and after birth as well. A lot of people just think of midwives as delivering babies, but we do a lot of other stuff around that as well.

There are lots of different types of midwives as well, so we've got community midwives that might come out to your home and see you and your baby. We've got specialist midwives who might have a certain medical condition that they're experts in. And then we also have people like myself who are research midwives as well.

Florence: So, you talked about a couple of different types of midwives there. Could you tell me more about the specific type of midwife that you are?

Kate: Yeah, so a research midwife, as the name suggests, does research, so I also look after women during their pregnancy as well. A lot of the research that we do relates to sort of high-risk pregnancies, and so we approach women for specific research studies that might have a particular characteristic that we are investigating.

We also recruit patients to these studies. We look after them during their pregnancies when they're taking part in the studies, and then we follow them up after their birth as well to collect data and see if what we've done as part of the research has had an impact.

Florence: And so you are working on the Generation Study, and if any listeners want to learn more about that, then they can check out our previous Genomics 101 episode, What is the Generation Study?

Kate, could you tell me a little bit more about what led you to become a midwife? Like what was the journey that you took to get to this point?

Kate: Yeah, so I started my degree in midwifery straight out of college. So, I was quite young at the time, I was 18. I went to university, did a three-year degree to get a bachelor's of midwifery.

That is probably the most common route that people go through in terms of to become a midwife, but some people choose to do adult nursing first, and then they can do a conversion course into midwifery, which is about 18 months long as well. So that's usually the most common route.

I was sort of drawn to the occupation because one of my close friends, her mum was a midwife, so I used to see her in their lounge. They used to have lots of cards and things that she would display from patients that she'd looked after, which was really nice.

Florence: And so what makes you passionate about working in the Generation Study and what motivates you in your role?

Kate: I think being able to have an impact on how we can improve care, I think that's really important. Obviously everything that we do is evidence-based, so that's what really drew me to become a research midwife and being able to take part in research studies that we can look back on in the future and say, “oh, I was part of that, and because of that we've been able to improve the lives of families and babies going forward.”

That's really important to me.

Florence: Yeah. And, and just building off of that, have there been any specific moments that have like stood out to you during your time working on the study?

Kate: Yeah, I think being able to see it from its starting point, so as a research midwife as well as working on the Generation Study. I sort of see people in clinics, I tell them about the study and then they might sign up to it.

 But then the other half of my role is a re regional results coordinator for the Generation Study. So I might then see that patient come through to me with a condition suspected result, and being able to follow that family through their sort of patient journey, from consent taking part in the study to getting their baby into NHS care, that potentially we might be able to give treatments really quickly for a baby that might have a really rare genetic problem.

And being able to see that that process works really well and improves those outcomes for that baby and that family. That's really, really something that's amazing to see and what I'm really looking forward to in the future as well.

Florence: Yeah, I can imagine that like getting to experience the kind of like end to end, like see it.

Kate: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Florence: Super cool.

Kate: We don't often get to follow the babies up in my line of work, so it's really nice.

Florence: Yeah. Yeah. I'd also be curious to know has being involved in the Generation Study changed how you think about the space? So whether that's genomics or research or even your role as a midwife, do you see any of those things differently now?

Kate: Yeah, absolutely. I think before I started this role with the Generation Study, genomics was sort of there, but I didn't really know the full details and like much in depth knowledge about genomics and how that could impact on people's health and their pregnancies and their health going forward into the future.

But since doing this job, I think it's really opened my eyes to how much of an impact it can have and how much I think it could potentially improve the lives of generations to come.

Florence: Well, thank you so much, Kate. I think we'll finish there, but I really appreciate you taking the time to come on our podcast.

Kate: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Florence: If you want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for listening.

In this episode, we celebrate 10 years of the Participant Panel and explore how genomic research is being guided by patient and participant voices. 

Made up of people who have consented for their genome, or the genome of their loved one, to be included in the National Genomics Research Library, the Panel plays a vital role in shaping how research is designed, how data is used, and how genomics is communicated. From influencing policy discussions to to advising the Genomics England board, their work helps ensure lived experience is embedded from the very beginning. 

Over the past decade, the Panel has driven meaningful change. From advocating for greater transparency and accessibility, to challenging how the genomics community talks about genetic conditions. But beyond the impact, this episode focuses on the people behind the work: their motivations, experiences, and the realities of representing a wider community. 

Our host, Sharon Jones is joined by: 

You can find out more about the Participant Panel in our recent Genomics 101 episode which Lisa featured in, titled ‘What is the Participant Panel?’, and you can read about their timeline of achievements over the last 10 years.

“One of the things as participants that we're always really keen to get across, particularly to the scientists, is that behind every piece of data is a face and a name”

You can download the transcript, or read it below.

Sharon Jones: This time on Behind the Genes, we'll be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Participant Panel, and we'll discuss how genomic research is being guided by patient and participant voices. The panel is made up of participants whose data is held in the National Genomic Research Library. They help us to put lived experience at the heart of our work.

My name is Sharon Jones, and in this podcast we cover everything from cutting-edge research to real-life stories in genomic healthcare. Joining me this time are Kirsty Irvine, chair of the Participant Panel, and Frances Allan and Lisa Beaton, who are also both members. Collectively, they wear many hats for a range of organisations, which are listed in the episode description. As you'll hear, this one is all about people power.

So back in 2016, the Participant Panel was in its infancy, with 12 founding members bringing lived experience of rare conditions. The idea was straightforward but radical: that the people whose genomes were being sequenced should have a real say in how the work was done. Over the decade since, the Panel has shaped some significant changes, from pushing for a service that let participants track their own samples, to publishing a language guide that changed how the genomics community talks about genetic conditions and disability. They've navigated the pandemic, welcomed new members and, in 2025, launched their first formal strategy.

This year they mark their 10th anniversary, and today we're hearing from some of the people who've been part of that story. So welcome Kirsty, Frances and Lisa. So what was your reason for joining the Participant Panel? And I will ask Frances that.

Frances Allan: Hi Sharon. I joined the Panel back in 2023 following a cancer diagnosis, and as part of that investigation I was fortunate enough to have a whole genome sequence performed.

And they also asked would I be interested in taking part in a panel who look after this information, and I ticked the box and then thought no more of it. And then a month or so later I heard from the then Chair, Jillian, um, and had a chat about genomics and joined the Panel, and it was a very good decision that I made.

Sharon Jones: Did you have any kind of expectations? What were your early thoughts when you kind of accepted?

Frances Allan: Not many thoughts. So I was in the middle of my chemotherapy treatment, but one of the things that really stood out: when I signed the consent form, I said, well, of course I would do that. And the clinician consenting me, said, actually, not everybody does.

And I thought, well, why would they not want to do that? So I was really interested in finding out about that. I had no idea how influential the Panel was, and that was great to discover as I became part of it. But seeing the breadth of the research and the knowledge already gained, compared to my rudimentary A-level Biology from many, many years ago, gave me incredible hope, um, and really helped me through a very difficult, difficult time.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, that's, that's amazing. It's amazing that you could kind of think in that way whilst you were actually going through the treatment itself. I mean, how did you split yourself in that way?

Frances Allan: I think it gave me a sense of, of purpose. So at the time, I'd, I'd stopped working to have my treatment and I was a, a vet previously, so I was used to thinking about medical things and problem solving, and it, it filled a, a void in my life. I had no idea I'd be able to contribute to it. I thought, well, I'd learn something from it. But, you know, the, the Panel is managed very well. Kirsty's a fantastic Chair. Everybody gets an opportunity to speak, and the attendance can be in person. And I've done most of them in person.

When I was poorly I attended an online meeting, but even that is managed so well that you get a chance to speak up. If you're not feeling well enough, then you can, you can add it to the chat or email. So it's very, very inclusive and a very supportive environment, as well.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, it sounds like a, a very safe space to be in. And Lisa, what was your reason for joining the Participant Panel?

Lisa Beaton: I think it was sort of one of those, bit of a light bulb moment for me thinking, yeah, I could do that. I'm not quite sure why I felt I was qualified to do that, but my reasoning is slightly different than Frances. So I joined the 100,000 Genomes Project back in 2015 in respect of one of my children who has an undiagnosed, thought to be neuromuscular, syndrome.

Um, so myself, my husband and our daughter recruited for genetic sampling, and over the years I've sort of taken a keen interest in all things genetic and genomic related, followed on kind of various social media platform. And I think if memory serves, I saw an announcement or an advert stating, do you want to be part of the Participant Panel, clicked on the link and thought, this is something that really resonates with me.

I've served with different hats on different kind of participant groups and speaking events, and it's something I feel really, it's an overused phrase, but I do feel really passionate and strong about it because, you know, we are the people who are the front and centre of this, because it's our genetic information.

So I applied, did a bit of a kind of resume of myself, um, then had huge imposter syndrome and thought, oh, that'll be the last I'll ever hear of that. And uh, actually had a really lovely interview with some of the then, uh, members of the Panel and must have said a few of the right things, 'cause here I am, three years down the line.

Sharon Jones: That's amazing. Has it lived up to your expectation? How has it, how has it helped you get through what sounds like a really challenging time?

Lisa Beaton: It's, it probably sounds wrong to say I, I didn't really have an expectation, but I joined it really just wanting to kind of know more and see if I could find out more details, more information, kind of more genomic discovery, and hope that I could give something back, if that doesn't sound too cringey.

I think one of the things I'm always really keen to say is that you don't need to be a geneticist. You don't need to be a scientist. You don't need to kind of have lots of scientific information. And I will confess that the very first meeting I went to, I did come away thinking, I think I probably only understood about one word in three. But three years down line as I say, I'm still here, and it's been good to challenge myself and to explore kind of things that I don't know information about, but also I found that there are areas that I can definitely bring lived experience to and, and hopefully a voice for people like myself and my family.

Sharon Jones: Yeah. That's so important. It sounds like you've become a bit of an expert by, uh, experience there. Has your vocabulary improved in the last three years? Do you know more words now?

Lisa Beaton: Yes. Uh, I've, I have to remind myself not to use an acronym. It's one of my pet peeves. You know, when you're, you're in a, a meeting and terminology or, or vernacular, that is not necessarily something that people would use day-to-day, and I think lots of you know, you don't, don't have to be genomics or genetics to, um, using acronyms for things.

It's something we all need to remind ourselves that just because you know that expression, somebody else doesn't. So it's really important to kind of keep that at a, a lay explanation so that everybody understands it. Um, I think particularly with quite heavy subject matter such as genomics and genetics, there can be a tendency otherwise for people to feel that it's not for them. And of course it is, because it's about our own personal data.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, absolutely. And, um, and coming to you, Kirsty, what were your kind of motivations for, for joining the Participant Panel?

Kirsty Irvine: Well, it's been quite a long journey for me to find myself on the Participant Panel, so I and my family, we were all consented into the a 100,000 Genomes Project back in 2015.

But from that point, I then spent nearly 10 years chairing committees at NHS Digital and then NHS England, focusing on health data access. And I remember talking about the 100,000 Genomes Project at my interviews for those roles. I then went down a different path. And in those roles I was very much wearing my solicitor's hat.

So I was thinking about governance and risk and were we complying with the precise wording of the legislation. And then when the chair role came available, I had a number of people sort of forward it to me saying, I think this would suit you. I think this would suit you. And at that stage, I was aware of the Panel because I'd met the fantastic former chair, Jillian.

Um, so I'd seen Jillian at various conferences and meetings and things, so I was well aware of what the Panel did. I was well aware of the Panel's standing. It was probably the only participant panel that I was aware of in my work with NHS Digital, NHS England. And then I realised, you know, I wanted to be closer to the people behind the data and I wanted to do something more active.

I wanted to bring a bit more of myself. Because when you're chairing a very formal committee, at NHS England, you, you can't talk about the time that you resuscitated your child at home, you know? And on the Panel, you know, my very first meeting, I, I met someone, someone whose child had, you know, been fed with an NG tube for a number of months.

You know, I met someone else who had resuscitated their child, you know, and all of a sudden I could bring more of myself to my colleagues and, and find a real community. So for me, joining the participant panel was a way of shifting the perspective, but to also bring that experience with me because I, the roles at NHS England, you know, from a governance perspective, I couldn't continue chairing those, you know, board subcommittees forever.

But I didn't want that knowledge to just sort of disappear. So for me, I'm really delighted that I've, what I hope, what I hope is a good fit. I feel it's a good fit. So that, that's been my journey to the Panel.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, that's, that's so interesting. And I guess having that space to kind of be yourself, and having understanding because of your lived experience, brings a lot of value to the role that you're doing now in a way that kind of is different when you're in your previous roles of NHS Digital, because you had to be a bit more, kind of stand back from it and, yeah. That's so interesting.

So, what has it been like being part of these groups? You know, the ones that you kind of, you're involved in a lot of things, and we'll list them in the, in the web description. And how has it kind of affected your life, essentially, because it's not the kind of average thing that people are involved in.

Frances Allan: So it's been an incredible, I think as Lisa alluded to, incredible learning curve. We've learnt so much. But the team at Genomics England are endlessly patient and very skilful at passing that information on. And we have access to the leading researchers, the clinicians that are involved in genomics. And they're happy to take any question.

And the questions, however silly, there's no silly question. They're happy to answer that. And so we learn every time we attend a meeting, we have quarterly meetings and that can be in person or online. Um, but we also have regular lunch-and-learns. So if there's somebody we want to speak to or find more about their specialist area, they'll come and have a, a chat with us.

And then we have half of it, them chatting to us and half us, us. Us asking them questions and, and challenging them. Um, so it's very, very informative and then learning from each other. And as Kirsty was saying, you know, this is a, a group of people who've, who've dealt with an awful lot of unique situations and they're happy to, to share that and pass on the information. It's a, it's a great place of learning.

Sharon Jones: Lisa, would you agree with that? How it been for you?

Lisa Beaton: Yeah, I would definitely echo everything that Frances has actually said there, and I think it's a very humbling experience, as well. Ostensibly, we are a, a collection of individuals who have all been brought together, um, purely because of, uh, our genomic interests.

And whether that's for our families, you know, as, as parents, as in my case, or in somebody like Frances' case, who's obviously a participant in her, in her own right. And although there are kind of many differences in our stories, there's also a lot of similarities. But I think what's really interesting, very precious, is that the staff at Genomics England, obviously they range from, you know, there, there's so many different kind of areas from the, the comms, the scientists, etc., but everybody is really interested. They want to know your story, who you are, why you are there. There's a real kind of inclusion focus on that.

And one of the things as participants that we're always really keen to get across, particularly to the scientists, is that, you know, behind every piece of data is a face and a name. And I think they really make that felt when they're chatting to us. You know, we go in and, and there, there's people who are there from governance sides for how the data is accessed by other parties.

There's people there who are the science technicians, etc. There's people who are dealing with the administrative side of things, but every single person that I've encountered wants to know more about you, what you are there for. And that is, is very, very precious. And as Kirsty also alluded to, a lot of us have been through some really quite traumatic experiences.

It, it's not my place to speak of others' journeys, but you know, there, there are, uh, bereaved parents and family members among us. And so we are sharing very precious raw material, emotions, experiences, and that is very powerful, as well. And I, I think the Genomics England staff never forget that. They seem to bear that at the forefront of their, their communications with us, always.

Um, and certainly Kirsty and Adam and previous chairs, uh, of the panel, that inclusivity was entirely throughout every dealing we had with them.

Sharon Jones: It's very humanising and I think that it's humbling for us who work here that that's always at the forefront of our mind, that this is why we kind of get up and go to work every day, because of that human element.

And it's not just a data point. There is a whole family, a story, a history, and that's, that's so important to us in the work that we do. Kirsty, did you want to add your point on this as well?

Kirsty Irvine: I've probably got two points I wanted to raise. One was just to draw out what Lisa was saying, is that it can be complex being a Panel member, because the story you're bringing often isn't just your own.

In my family, we've got a real, we've got a whole range of genetic differences and conditions that, you know, across the extended family. And so when I speak, I'm often drawing on experiences that aren't solely mine to share, and, you know. So I think that's something that for some on the Panel, we're sort of, we're, we're being quite careful to think about what we're saying, and if we're speaking in the public domain, we might be talking about it in more general terms.

So that's, you know, but there's not a single right way, and there's room on the Panel, everyone, for the people who can and, and as Lisa talked about, you know, the, the most acute situation is where someone's bereaved, you know. And it's, so everyone's got different, you know, different experiences. But that, that, again, coming back to the positive side of things, one of the biggest things to me about being on the Panel, what it means to me, is being part of a wider community.

I mean, one of the other things that, Sharon, I don't know if I can sort of segue onto this about, you know, the opportunities that have arisen?

Sharon Jones: Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to hear more about that.

Kirsty Irvine: So one thing that really stands out for me was the opportunity to speak directly with, um, Associate Health Minister Ahmed about, and his policy team.

So we went to the department, Adam and I went to the Department of Health, and it was about the use of GP data in consented research cohorts. So getting the GP data into the National Genomic Research Library. So even though there's consent, up until now, that GP data, that tranche of really rich data, hasn't, hasn't gone into the NGRL. So I'll use that abbreviation now that I've used it in full. And so what was really unique for me was that I'd seen it from multiple angles because I'm participant in the 100,000 Genomes Project, so I'm a cohort member.

I then worked on the consent review for NHS England. I then sat on a, the consent review assessment committee with, you know, a multiparty group. And then, because I was on the panel, I got to see things full circle. I was then invited to, to go and meet with, um, Minister Ahmed and, and advocate for the use of this GP data. And that really matters because something, you know, there's such important information sitting in that GP data and it wasn't a given, it was not a given that the government was going to the direction that allowed that data to go into the NGRL.

And so we were able to talk about how we really wanted that data to be used. And now, going forward, you know, something as simple as BMI or for example, if a, if an individual's coded for a neuro, neurodevelopmental condition like autism, sometimes that data actually only sits in the GP health record. It's in primary care only, so it's not necessarily in the hospital records or other records.

And so this is really, really valuable data for, for researchers. And so that was something that was a really special experience, just being able to see that come full circle. And I felt like it's a really tangible example of how the participant voices really helped strengthen that conversation, you know, with the DH policy team, you know, and the government ministers.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, I mean that's, that's really powerful and it, it just sort of shows how these opportunities can arise from being involved in a participant panel in a way that you wouldn't have necessarily had that power if you hadn't been involved. And you know, obviously you are wearing lots of different hats in that, in that position, Kirsty.

And um, it just sort of shows what can be done when you're, unfortunately, you know, you're in this group for a reason and it's not necessarily the, the most cheeriest reasons, but it, you still leverage that opportunity to create something positive, you know, with it.

Frances Allan: So we've given all sorts of opportunities and we seek to get involved with as many things as we can to speak and have our voice heard.

Um, and one of the things I did last year was, um, do a short presentation to open a stage at the Genomics England Research Summit, which was quite a challenge for me, but I felt very exhilarated having done it. And then a couple of people came up afterwards and just said, oh, thank you for sharing your story.

And a researcher who was slightly older than I, so very experienced, been in his field a long, long time, and he said his clinical years were long behind him, and now he researches within a lab. And actually for someone to say, you know, thank you for, for looking, thank you for finding, had a very profound experience on him.

And he knew there was a clinical benefit; his research was very clinically led. But he said he hadn't thought about the recipients of those findings. And I pointed out every time you have that chat with somebody, come to an event like that, have a network, spend a bit longer in the lab, look for something that you might not find, even if it's a negative finding, there will be somebody eventually that benefits from that.

And I've been a direct recipient of other people putting forward their whole genome sequence, and then a common change was noted in people with the type of cancer that I have, and that then qualified me for a treatment that otherwise I wouldn't have been eligible for, and I wouldn't have been, I wouldn't have been here now.

So it's a very, you know, profound thanks to all the people that are involved from everybody within Genomics England, all the researchers, all the other patients that speak up. We each have a contribution to make.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, that's amazing. That must have been quite a poignant experience when you, you met him at the, um, Summit, of just kind of the other side of the, the world that you don't often see. And they obviously don't see our side of the world, and it's kind of interesting to join those dots and kind of come full circle.

So moving on. In terms of like, collectively, there's a lot of impact that you have and there's a noticeable shift in organisations where people with lived experience are playing, you know, a much bigger role in decision making. Can you help our listeners understand how people are getting involved in governance and shaping research?

Lisa Beaton: From my perspective, it comes back to that word "embedding". I think historically, perhaps there's been an, an almost about-face. Um, it's kind of come at it very backwards, that that embedding has almost happened as an afterthought, which is sort of a bit of a misnomer way of explaining it.

When you're talking about embedding, obviously it should be the foundation. Historically, at least both from the parent, parental perspective, I've seen that with clinicians, for example, that historically I've been made perhaps to feel a bit of a thorn in someone's side, that even though we're there for an appointment about our young person, when I'm asking questions that they don't necessarily want to answer, you know, I'm almost the, the add-on rather than the reason that we're there.

And I think there has been a paradigm shift in everybody's approach to that. So thinking much more about, you know, the, the what's, the wherefores, the whys. How do we ensure that right from the get go, that patient or participant voice is heard, and it shapes the question. And one of our other Panel members frequently uses the phrase, "nothing about us without us", because that is front and centre of why, you know, genomics exists in the first place, really.

Without that data, the conversation ceased to exist. It, it's so vitally important, not just for us as an individual, not just for our family members, but for the greater good, if that doesn't sound too grandiose.

Sharon Jones: No, not at all. And, and, and Frances?

Frances Allan: I think having raised that value of patient advocacy: what we have to say. So it started off, people felt that they should have some, so they included it, but actually once they started to include it, they thought, this does contribute to our study.

And starting at the very beginning of the research project, so what is reasonable to ask participants and patients to do? Is it something that there is benefit from? And trying to see that end goal right at the beginning. And we might help shape a research study that actually goes in a beneficial direction, rather than the researchers starting alone, and then actually getting into the study, and the procedure is, is too painful to endure, there's no clinical benefit, it's not something that can be translated into clinical practice, and it gets abandoned.

So start us right at the very beginning, and our perspectives may not be what, what researchers or clinicians think. Uh, with that lived experience, however empathetic you are, the lived experience is a very unique lens and position to look from.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, it absolutely is. So, given that you are part of a small group and you know, you're representing a much wider community, essentially, like, what are the considerations that you, you have to bear in mind?

Lisa Beaton: I think we can only speak, obviously, to our own individual experience and we are very aware that, you know, diversity, ethnicity, inclusion is something that is a much bigger conversation and certainly something that we want to broaden in, in the panel itself.

And I know there's kind of lots of work and thought going into how that can widen those perhaps more diverse communities that historically... It's not that, there's, there's been a terminology that, you know, they're difficult to access, but actually the question is wrong there. The statement is wrong. It's not that they're difficult to access, it's just that we've been asking that incorrectly.

And we need to ensure that they are, uh, empowered to bring their stories forward and find ways to push forward for their inclusion. We need to ensure that everybody's voices are heard, otherwise the data set is wrong from the off. So I think that's something that we're all very minded when we speak about, and definitely want to, to diversify the pools of data that come in. That, that has huge resonance for, you know, shaping genomic and genetic policies moving forward, for sure.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, definitely. Frances, sort of broadening out that question. Does it feel like a lot of pressure and a lot of responsibility, kind of representing, you know, in this kind of small group where you are almost speaking on behalf of, you know, a lot of people?

Frances Allan: I think it mainly feels like a, a privilege, Sharon, to be in that position, to have a say. And back to my, one of my motivators for joining is why would people not choose to do this? And actually understanding why that is. And is it the, you know, the lack of knowledge of genomics? And there is a lot of, of fear about what can be discovered. But understanding the immense benefits from that so people don't miss out on those opportunities.

Our genomes contain the, the blueprint to us, but also how we would respond in certain situations, and you want everybody to be using those leverage points. You know, cancer's a really difficult disease to manage, and anything you can do to make it slightly easier, slightly more comfortable, slightly more successful, we want to do that.

So every time we speak out and we advocate for the benefits of genomics, we might gain one more person who's going to feel that a successful outcome.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, and who knows what, what that can mean for their family and, and sort of further down the line. So have you got any advice for, or encouragement, or any tips for, you know, potential participants who are thinking of getting involved in, in groups?

You know, it doesn't necessarily mean the Participant Panel, but just generally, sort of groups related to their conditions or their family's conditions.

Frances Allan: Yeah, I think the value of the one's personal experience: don't underestimate that. Everybody has an individual journey and they can comment and reflect on that.

And anybody interested in, in joining our panel, you can include in the, the copy or description, ways they're getting in touch with us and speak to us about what that, what that involves. And uh, Lisa said at the, the beginning, you come and it's a huge learning curve, but there are people to support you and guide you through that way.

And the learning is, is just fascinating. And there's a position for everybody and everybody's point of view to be heard, and you will be heard.

Sharon Jones: Thank you. Lisa?

Lisa Beaton: Yeah, I think I might steal a phrase or two actually from some, uh, well-known brands. But, um, one would be "just do it" and the other would be "feel the fear and do it anyway" because, you know, you are amongst friends, first and foremost. We all, we do tailor our experiences, and clearly we self-censor at times because that's necessary to protect the privacy and dignity of not necessarily ourselves, but as we've already alluded to in our chats, but you know, our family members, the wider people that you are aware will be hearing this.

And you don't necessarily want certain medical information about your family members out there, because it's not your information to share. But in terms of joining the panel and, you know, having a voice, giving more voices, giving more diverse data, we, we need as many people as possible to come. We need more voices.

We need to get our genetic, genomic information out there, uh, in front of the researchers and, and all involved with Genomics England, um, and other patient advocacy groups, as well, because that will only benefit the greater public.

Sharon Jones: Thank you. And Kirsty?

Kirsty Irvine: I'm just thinking about sort of general tips building on what Lisa and Frances have said. You don't need to be a seasoned public speaker. I think that's something, absolutely not. We've got some fantastic speakers in the group. Um, but then we've got people in the group who've got, who have got different skills, so don't think that you need to be ready to give a TED Talk at the first meeting, be that the Participant Panel or whatever group you might be motivated to join.

We, we just need good listeners. I've chaired meetings in the past where people, uh, wanted to contribute via the chat function, and that worked absolutely fine. They would put their incredibly insightful, erudite comments in the chat, and then I would relay them to the group, and that was how we got that person's input, because we realised that they weren't necessarily going to speak up in the forum.

So whatever your communication style, we can accommodate it at the Participant Panel and we would be delighted to hear from you.

Sharon Jones: That's great. Thank you. Um, final question. So what do you hope the next 10 years of participant involvement will look like?

Kirsty Irvine: I think if I could use a little catchphrase, which I'm sure is not mine, but I would like to see us fully integrated as partners, not participants.

I'll put that out there. I mean, Sharon, I wonder if I could sort of also open things up to how are things going to look in another 10 years, because there's been some statistics that have really struck me, uh, at presentations that, that we've heard. One of them being that in the next, you know, within 10 years, around about half the data in the National Genomics Research Library will be from, I don't know if this is the best name for it, the general population.

So that's people who aren't necessarily seeking an answer, or have a diagnosis or a condition. These are people who have donated their genomic data through being part of, you know, research projects. And, as a panel, so Genomics England's evolving and the panel will be evolving. And in 10 years time, the panel will need to be, I believe, true to the original route.

So, 100,000 Genomes Project. Uh, the people who've had their whole genome sequencing through cancer diagnoses. You know, there's a significant COVID cohort, but also people of the gen, general population. So how do we advocate for and look after everyone in that broad group of people. So I think that, that's both a challenge, that's a challenge for us, but it's also really exciting to think how we can meet that challenge.

Sharon Jones: Yeah, definitely one, definitely an opportunity and a challenge, and one that will take a lot of thinking in the next few years. Frances?

Frances Allan: Yeah, thanks Sharon. I think looking forward to that, that 10-year period is how genomics just becomes a normal part of everybody's healthcare, so we all fully understand the benefits of it.

People are willing to participate in it and then using lots of different types of data to go into the National Genomics Research Library. So at the moment, it's mainly genomics material, but there's been a lot of work done with the cancer cohort, putting in diagnostic images, pathology slides, other clinical data, written notes, and this can then be accessed under the strict criteria of the access review committee.

It can be accessed by clinicians, researchers across the world. And we want our research library to be the premium source of that information and to have collaboration with researchers, clinicians, participants, worldwide, to speed up the generation of that information and those positive outcomes. It's a, a very, very rich data source now, and it'll only get bigger as we include people from the general population.

Sharon Jones: That'd be amazing and have some quite incredible global, um, outcomes. Lisa?

Lisa Beaton: I just had a little image actually pop into my head that I, I almost look at it a little bit like we're doing one of those, I think they might be called an "impossipuzzle" where actually we don't have the picture on the box, but we have lots and lots of little pieces that are all going in together and they're making up a really creative, wonderful, fantastic, woven story, a tapestry as you were, of different information that's coming through. And how incredible, you know what, what a wonderful legacy we're building, you know, and this amazing picture that's going to evolve and change and develop over the years to come.

Sharon Jones: That's a wonderful note to end on, so we're going to wrap it up there.

Thank you for listening. A special thanks to our guests, Kirsty, Frances, and Lisa, for joining me today as we discussed how lived experience can shape health research. If you'd like to hear more like this, please subscribe to the Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. And if you want to know more about the Participant Panel, you can head to the Genomics England website and listen to our 10-minute explainer podcast, Genomics 101.

Behind the Genes is produced by Deanna Barac, Florence Cornish, Sophie McLachlan and Dave Howard at Bespoken Media.

In this explainer episode, we’ve asked Lisa Beaton, Panel Member and Parent Representative for SWAN UK, to tell us about the Participant Panel.

You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel.

If you’ve got any questions, or have any other topics you’d like us to explain, let us know on [email protected].

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Florence: What is the Participant Panel at Genomics England? My name is Florence Cornish and today I'm joined with Lisa Beaton, who is a Parent Representative for Syndrome Without a Name, Swan UK, and a member of the Participant Panel. And we have a special episode today because it is to celebrate the 10th anniversary, so a decade of the Participant Panel at Genomics England.

Lisa, I think it would be good to start with a quick rundown of what the Participant Panel is. If you had to describe it in a few sentences, what would you say?

Lisa: Ooh, that's tricky actually, to cram all our wealth of expertise and knowledge into that, I guess in just a few sentences. But essentially, we are a group of lay people who have all contributed by way of being on genomic studies, such as the 100,000 Genome, for our data to be held in the NGRL, the National Genomic Research Library.

We may have joined because our children or another family member have a disorder or a syndrome or a condition that requires further genetic testing. So, there are panel members who represent from different cancer communities, there's panel members who have connections with rare disease, and then there's panel members like myself who come from the undiagnosed community, where we joined to essentially try and find a diagnosis in respect of our daughter.

The majority of us don't have any kind of medical background. We're all just individuals who collectively are really interested in where genomics and genetics is going to take us in the future. But probably most importantly, we all feel a sense of responsibility to ensure that there's equity of access, to diversify, to basically ensure that the lived experience of real-life people become more than just the data point to the scientific and research community. We, we are real people.

Florence: Yeah. And could you explain a little bit more about the practical role of the panel? So what you aim to do as a group and what it involves to be a part of it?

Lisa: Certainly. So as a panel, we meet either in person or on Teams approximately four times a year. So quarterly. We also get to listen to what we call 'Lunch and Learns', which have been absolutely fascinating. It's different people from different areas of the scientific and research community who will come along and talk to us about their latest discovery or what new things have been found. What's in pipelines, what we can be looking forward to.

There's all sorts of different aspects of that. So currently a project that's been quite well known in the news is the Generation Study, the study of newborns. There have been research interviews and meetings around cancer studies. It's really exciting actually because every time there's something kind of new to learn or to see where progress is going, and that is just, I guess that's what most of us are there for, really just to see it in action.

The role of the panel really is there to hold accountability, to ensure that, you know, data is being kept in a safe and secure manner, to ask any questions that we have about that.

I think probably, we are all just members of the public, so our interests are widely there to ensure, you know, we're representing what we feel we would want to know, and therefore, hopefully in connection with what other members of who have kindly donated their genetic information and material towards studies so we, we can hold that agency for them and just to get more information, knowledge, share that out there with power.

Power to the people, as it were!

Florence: I'm interested if there's anything in particular that comes to mind that the panel has achieved that you are especially proud of, or that you are the most proud of.

Lisa: Again, I think to squash that into just kind of one or two sentences is probably impossible, because there's so many things that panel members are proud of.

One of the things that has definitely, we feel made a huge difference is the Plain Language Guide. We are absolutely adamant that, you know, everything should be as clear and easy to understand as possible. It's all very well having all the, the science and researchers who, you almost speak like a different language. For us, to get that passionately back to everybody who, who can be involved at different levels.

You know, if you've contributed your time, your information, your DNA to research, then everybody who's done that, whether they speak English as a first language or second language, or if they have any kind of say, learning disability or just different socioeconomic experience, et cetera, it's really key that across the board everybody can, can access the language and terminology that is used around genetics.

To summon up a point that has been used time and again, but is so, so crucial: nothing about us, without us.

Florence Cornish: I can confirm, I'm a very big fan of the Language Guide. I use it all the time, I share it all the time. It's amazing, and you should be very proud of it.

Lisa: Well, we definitely are. When I first joined the panel, one of the things I found really hard was I came into a room and I already had a bit of imposter syndrome.

There were lots of terms being flung around in kind of, and acronyms. It's something we all do in everyday life, and you know, the more used to them you are the more you use them. But actually it's to go back and remind ourselves what those are. You don't want to be sort of 10 steps behind because you're constantly having to go back and, and look something up.

So if you've got that guide there with you, if we ensure that everything is written as plainly and simply, whilst not dumbing anything down, just ensuring that it is accessible, that's incredibly important.

Florence: Yeah, completely. So it's been really great to hear about what the panel does and, and the vital role that they play, and you've given a really great example there.

But I thought it might also be nice to hear about what being part of the panel has meant for you and how it's impacted you just as a person, I guess, if you feel comfortable to share more about that.

Lisa: Yes, definitely. So as I said, when I joined the panel, I did have a bit of imposter syndrome.

Um, I don't have a medical background. I've gained 17+ years of medical experience because of our undiagnosed child, and I suppose I've gleaned quite a lot of information along the way, but clearly I'm not a geneticist. I'm not a doctor. I know what I know and I'm comfortable with that.

I think joining the panel for me gave me back some of who I am as a person. Over the years, I've been 'mum' a lot of the time. Medical professionals in particular face-to-face, utilise that term. And I know it's not meant in any kind of patronising way, but being part of the panel has, has made me become sort of myself as a person again, I'm more than just 'mum'. It's enabled me to meet with fellow parents and caregivers and kind of share that common bond.

Although we all come from different pathways and walks of life, be that the cancer pathway or the rare disease pathway, or the undiagnosed pathway, or in our case a combination of rare and undiagnosed, we share so many different things in common and our experience of commonalities, even if we've come about it from a different pathway, and that gives agency and strength, I think to us as individuals.

We know what we are going through, that lived experience, that real voice really brings it back and I know from chatting to members of Genomics England and being at different networking events that they really hear us when they meet us, we are so much more than just the data.

Florence: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. And in connection to that, I just wanted to finish off by giving you the opportunity to say, is there one thing that you wish people knew about patient advocacy in general?

Lisa: Yes, come and join us would be my message. We need more people. We definitely need more diversity. We want to hear from everybody and anybody, you know, genetics, genomics affects all of us.

By 2035, I think it is, that it's predicted that more than 50% of medical such encounters will be with a genomic connection. And so to ensure that, you know, we are representing all members of communities across the board, we need more and more people particularly people of different backgrounds, would be something that I would be very keen to see the panel kind of move and diversify into.

Florence: And so, for anyone listening that does want to get involved, how would they go about doing that?

Lisa: So, I think there's probably quite a number of ways. I personally saw some information on Facebook. They're across different social media - X, Instagram, et cetera. So, there's definitely more information there.

Obviously type in their website, Genomics England, and there's different links on the pages there. And come, come and join us. We're a very friendly bunch.

Florence: Thank you so much, Lisa, for sharing more about the Participant Panel and the vital role they play and have done for the last 10 years.

Lisa: Thank you so much for inviting me to be a part of this.

Florence: If you want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening.

In this episode, we explore how individualised medicines are evolving from “n=1” treatments (a treatment effective for a single individual) into approaches that could transform care for many people living with rare conditions. 

Advances in genomic medicine are making it possible to design highly targeted treatments based on an individual’s genetic information. While these therapies may begin as bespoke solutions for a single patient, they can often be adapted, refined or reused to benefit others with similar conditions. 

While the research is evolving, the systems needed to deliver these treatments at scale are still catching up. From regulation to access, our guests discuss what needs to change to turn this potential into reality. 

Our host Sharon Jones, is joined by: 

If you enjoyed today’s conversation, please like and share wherever you listen to your podcasts. 

“However rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope. Everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment.”

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Sharon: What if treatments once designed for just one person could now help many others? Thanks to advances in genomic medicine, regulations are changing and research is expanding.

This opens up more options for treatments for rare conditions. But what does this mean and how close is real change? I'm Sharon Jones, and this is Behind the Genes.

We look at how genomics is changing healthcare, covering everything from cutting-edge research to real-life stories.

Individualised medicines are a fast-moving area, but there's still a big gap between scientific progress and what's actually happening to patients. You could call it the gap between hype and hope.

Ana Lisa: However rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope. Everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment.

Sharon: Coming up, we'll hear from Ana Lisa Tavares, Clinical Lead for Rare Disease Research at Genomics England, and Consultant in Clinical Genetics at Cambridge University Hospital, as well as Mel Dixon, member of the Participant Panel at Genomics England and CEO and founder of Cure DHDDS. Mel opens this chat by explaining why developments in individualised healthcare really matter to her.

Mel: This issue is really personal to me. I have three children, two of whom are affected with an ultra-rare DHDDS gene variant, for which there is currently no treatment. Their condition causes symptoms such as, well, it varies between mild to severe learning difficulties, seizures, tremors, and movement and coordination difficulties.

But the, the most worrying thing for us was that this condition is actually also progressive. So over time it becomes more of a Parkinsonism and some patients experience dementia-like symptoms and psychosis. So for us to get a treatment that targets the genetic cause of, of their condition is, like, the most important thing in, in our lives.

If we could intervene now, they could potentially, at the stage they're at, you know, live an independent life with, with some supports. But if the disease is left to progress, it would be a very different outcome for them.

Sharon: I mean, that sounds so difficult and I can't even imagine how life is for you and your family. And I can see what is driving you to find anything to extend the life of your children and to give them that opportunity to, to have a better quality of life. And then Lisa.

Ana Lisa: It's a huge burden for families to carry. And I think at the moment there's an additional layer of burden, which shouldn't fall on families, to feel like they need to forge a pathway for their child to have a chance of a treatment. That's, that's a lot to bear.

Mel: I think as well, families feel they almost have to become mini scientists in their children's specific condition overnight, because you go to these appointments with the consultants and nobody's heard of the condition and they don't know, they just don't really know what to do with you.

So they're asking you, you know, so tell me about this, this gene change. What, what does it do? What does it mean? So you have to become the mini professor in your child's condition to be able to advocate for them. We've had to really learn on our feet so that we're able to advocate and push for research into DHDDS, because without us doing it, nobody else was going to be.

Sharon: Yeah. So that's, you know, that's partly what we're here and what this podcast is for, it's here to support families to, to understand this stuff. And Ana Lisa, can you just break it down to us, what is individualised medicines?

Ana Lisa: An individualised medicine that's made for one individual person. In reality, sometimes there are other individuals that can also benefit from the same medicines, and sometimes actually, although the medicine is made for one specific person, it might be made using a strategy that other patients could also benefit from, either directly, exactly the same, even, or through tweaking them so that they could work for a different patient.

In the context that they're most often referred to at the moment, they're therapies that are being made based on the genetic information about somebody.

Sharon: Thank you. I mean, that sounds amazing. And now coming to you, Mel, what does receiving a diagnosis mean for a family? And how do you navigate the space between finally having answers and the reality that the treatment may not yet exist?

Mel: So for us, I think, we went down the, the diagnostic route in the hope that we would be able to find a treatment for our children, or there would already be a treatment in place. But unfortunately when we got their diagnosis, we were told that their, their condition was ultra rare, neurodegenerative and also newly discovered. So there was, there was no treatment pathway and actually minimal research happening into it at the time.

So it was frustrating, upsetting, um, and it felt like quite a hopeless situation at the start, but actually this was just over three years ago. And through a lot of proactiveness on our part in fundraising, we've been able to better understand the condition and we now have treatments in the pipeline. So in that three-year window, from there being nothing, we now have treatments both in terms of potential drug repurposing candidates and also, um, an individualised therapy called an ASO is also in development for them.

So it was hard, but it's given huge benefit to us. Otherwise, we'd just be going, remaining going from specialist to specialist without having any answers or understanding why their symptoms were progressing.

Sharon: I mean, that sounds really, really tough and you know, coming back to you, Ana Lisa, could you talk us through how genomics is changing the way we can treat rare conditions? You know, what types of individualised medicines now exist and how do they even work?

Ana Lisa: Maybe I'll start with how some of these medicines are working.

So with, without going into details, but the sort of principle that these medicines might be able to, to do something called gene editing. So our, our DNA, uh, the instruction manual is made up of genes and it's now can be possible scientifically to change even a single DNA letter code in somebody to try and ameliorate the symptoms of their rare condition. You know that's phenomenal scientific progress to be able to do that.

I think a lot of people have heard about gene therapy, where one is trying to get into the body a gene or part of a gene that might be able to sort of replace the function of a gene that isn't working as it should. There are various other strategies. So our DNA is actually used to send messages to our body, if you like, to, to decode these instructions.

And so there are medicines that target the next step in this process, the RNA, which are the ASO therapies that Mel was referring to earlier. And really what those are doing are either trying to correct for a protein in our body that isn't working as it should, or to try and get rid of one that shouldn't be there.

And so they can act in different ways. And that's actually quite powerful, because you can, theoretically, use these strategies to correct for different genetic rare conditions. So I think going to the sort of first part of your question, maybe if I can phrase it as "directly at source". If you can go upstream and target in a very direct way the cause of a rare condition, then actually you might be able to apply those same principles to many different types of rare condition.

We know that there are, you know, 8,000 as a very ballpark number of rare conditions, and it might be that these strategies could be used I don't want to say for all rare conditions, but for many rare conditions where we find the genetic cause, these strategies could collectively be a very powerful way to treat them.

And traditionally we've had to understand all the underlying biology, find a druggable target, find a drug that could target that, that's safe, effective, et cetera. And that's a lot of work. And that's still very, very valuable. If we were going to do this for these thousands of conditions, it would probably take us hundreds to thousands of years, collectively.

And these strategies provide a lot of hope for being able to do this in a, in a more efficient way, where we can actually use the information used to treat one rare condition and apply those learnings to another rare condition.

Sharon : I mean, that's really helpful to understand. So if the science is there, why aren't more patients benefiting from it yet? You know, what's standing in the way from your perspective?

Ana Lisa: That's a really good question, and it's complex because the, our whole ecosystem is made up of, of many parts that go from finding a potential strategy that could help a rare condition to a patient benefiting from that. And I think one thing that maybe we haven't touched on yet is the fact that rare conditions can be really rare and affect a really small number of people individually, even though we know collectively they affect so many.

You know, in the past it's been easier, if you're taking a condition that's common, that affects thousands of people, it's easier to see and to be sure whether your new medicine is actually working as you think it does and should, and having the benefits that you think. The, the sort of regulators have really clear guidance.

We have lots of knowledge about how to assess treatments and have a randomised clinical trial, for example. How the reimbursement process may work in a public healthcare system. And when you, when you, when you sort of set down into the really rare, this is difficult for each stage of the journey.

The transformation that's needed is a whole, system-wide transformation to be able to regulate in a scalable, equitable way, these therapies that could actually be an N of one treatment for one individual, that actually maybe one day another individual may also benefit, and sometimes even a group of individuals.

It's not just the, the regulator, it's also how do you make it viable. So again, you have to make it scalable, equitable. And even to implement in the NHS down to this very "N equals one" level, and demonstrate that patients could benefit from these treatments, might require sort of fancier ways of assessing these treatments, whether it's statistics, other methodology and I think it's really the system-wide nature that makes this tricky, but is also a fantastic opportunity for, for collaboration, because that, that sort of end goal and benefits could be so, so great.

Sharon: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, Mel, for your side of things, it must sound, you know, quite frustrating where the people in the rare community to not see the support being made more readily available?

Mel: Yeah, it is particularly difficult for patients and their families. I think in our case, when you're dealing with a neurodegenerative condition, time is of the essence. So when you know that the science is available or it's ready, but you don't have the systems in place to implement them to the patients so that they can access these much-needed therapies, it's worrying and frustrating.

And also I see our children are affected with, with, you know, one of these N of few conditions that there's, you know, there's only 59 confirmed cases of DHDDS worldwide, and we've seen how the system firsthand doesn't fit ultra-rare patients. We can't, when we were looking at drug repurposing, we can't do a traditional clinical trial because we don't have the patient numbers and we don't have the funding. So a placebo-controlled trial just wouldn't be possible for us when there's only, I think, seven confirmed patients in the UK and, um, four that we're actually in, in, in touch with.

So it does feel, I think, as Ana Lisa was saying, that we really need a system rethink, um, and refit so that it does start to accommodate these ultra-rare conditions, especially now as there's therapies which are showing huge benefit to patients.

Sharon: And so with like all of these challenges, where are you seeing things shift and what does meaningful progress really look like for you?

Mel: At the end of last year, the MHRA announced that they were rewriting the regulatory framework for rare conditions, and that fills us with lots of hope for the future. They're recognising that the traditional systems don't work for particularly ultra-rare conditions, and now that we do have these therapies in the pipeline, we, we want to get the patients to be able to access them. And we're also seeing innovation in how evidence is generated and measured.

We witnessed this firsthand with our son as he was undergoing baseline tests for his ASO therapy. You know, the use of digital biomarkers, of real-world evidence, how they're increasingly being used for these N of one or N of few populations.

And how the individual receiving the treatment becomes their own comparator. So you're not relying on these big natural history studies of the disease or placebo controls. It's you're looking specifically at that individual, getting a really strong baseline and then looking, once they're dosed with the medication, is that improving or stabilising symptoms?

So I think this shift in focus is really meaningful for the ultra-rare community and also for them to be part of the decision-making process of what, what benefits do they want from a drug? Like what is meaningful to them? I think there's much more talk about the patients and how the, what will benefit them most.

It's not necessarily what the scientists would think or research would think would most benefit, but what, what would make a meaningful difference to the patient?

Sharon: I mean, that's good to know because it's kind of putting the person at the centre of, you know, this is what it's all about, isn't it? It's not just the science. We're trying to treat people and it's putting people, people first.

Ana Lisa: Just to build on that, it's exactly that, that awareness that is, is growing, I think, that there are so many people affected by a rare condition and, and however rare your condition is, someone has a right to have hope and that the system should be able to cater for many rare conditions, you know, whether they're an ultra-rare or an actually almost common rare condition, everybody should have a hope that we should be able to find a treatment.

And it's not a hopeless situation that it's, you know, never going to happen or be too difficult. It's quite powerful, hope. If you can solve for the truly individualised medicine, then you at the same time may also be helping everyone in-between a really common condition and a really rare condition, because right now the system works for common conditions. And if you can take it right down to the sort of radical of, example of an individualised medicine made for one person, then you are also forcing the system to a change for everybody else. And I think that's one of the great benefits of thinking about it as a joined-up system.

Sharon: So how do you each navigate between hype versus hope when it comes to rare therapies? Mel?

Mel: I like to focus on hope, because when we got our diagnosis, we felt really hopeless and that's a really dark place for a family to be.

But as we learnt more about their condition and the rare condition landscape and genomics, we actually learned of all these new therapies that were in the pipeline. We were hearing about, you know, recently, conditions like Huntington's Disease that you never, never previously had any disease-modifying treatment, how they're now being able to be treated with gene therapy with really positive effects.

Similarly for other neurodegenerative conditions that have been treated with ASOs, how they're seeing not just disease stabilisation, but improvements. So I know it's, it's still, like, relatively early days with these technologies and therapies, but I think it, it allows families to have hope, which is, which is really, really important, because that statistic, you know, of the, of 95% of rare conditions not having a treatment, it's, it's a really brutal one, uh, to be told at the outset or to learn at the outset.

So, you know, if, if these therapies can, can make a huge dent in that, that would be life-changing. It would make a profound difference to many, many families, and I think there's a lot of reason to have hope, taking all of that into consideration.

Sharon: And then Lisa?

Ana Lisa: I think to work in this area, one needs to be full of hope and optimism because there are so many, um, challenges to overcome as a community. Uh, but I think that means that people are also incredibly collaborative, because they know that we need to work together for this to succeed. And no one, you know, one individual, one organisation can do it on their own.

It truly has to be a crosscutting, collaborative endeavour. The fact that we, in the UK, have resources like the National Healthcare System,Genomics England in partnership with the NHS runs a National Genomic Research Library. And so the fact that you could look at, at tens of thousands of, of genomes for many, many individuals with rare conditions.

That gives me hope because it means that if a treatment is made for another person, it could be in a different country in the world, and if we could find another patient, it doesn't matter what specialty they're under, where they are, we should be able to find them and connect with their clinical team if, you know, if they've consented for the National Genomic Research Library.

And so to me, that feels, that whilst there's, there is a lot of hype in the sense that some of the really well-publicised cases, really had a lot of people working on them and a lot of resources to make it happen. But that gives hope to everybody else that follows that actually it is doable and if we can make better systems, and having these national resources that we do, the fact that, there are a lot of guidelines being written at the moment, both international and national.

And again, they show that the sort of scaffolding is starting to be in place to apply these in an equitable scalable way. It might not be that you're so much looking for a specific rare condition as for a particular type of genetic variant that could be targeted in the same strategic way, and that therefore you could look across many different rare conditions.

So again, all these sort of pieces of the puzzle are, are filling me with, with, with hope.

Sharon: You touched upon, um, inequity there. Now, you know, is there a risk of inequity given what we've talked about in terms of those challenges?

Ana Lisa: I think we, we always have to have the lens of equity in everything we, we do.

And that, and that really does apply to healthcare and, and in fact, probably the whole rare disease community are, are, are not well served in terms of therapies at the moment. There are so few, um, therapeutic options and so I think there's a massive inequity in that this, our systems are not geared, uh, towards rare conditions.

I suppose, you know, different countries have different healthcare systems and some of the sort of first personalised therapies may require a lot of money behind them to, to happen, but they will be pioneers in leading the way for how this can be done. And I think in the UK we have a lot of the infrastructure and the, a sort of a strong, that's very equitable, I think. And so we could do this in a, in a much more open and equitable way.

Sharon: Mel?

Mel: Cost is always, unfortunately, and it, when it's your family that's affected you, you know, you hate the thought that things are coming down to cost and, and money. But I, I think as Ana Lisa said, if, if the system absorbs the initial cost.

You know, it seems that those longer-term costs could come down significantly. We already see with our very small DHDDS community that an ASO, which is an allele specific that was made personally for one, for one child, can actually also benefit my son, even though they have a different variant.

So if the cost of the ASO is 1.2 million per person, but if you suddenly find actually one other person can share that, that's almost halving the, the cost.

And then if then you're finding out that actually, oh no, 3, 4, 5, 10 people can all have that same ASO, suddenly it becomes much more cost-effective and more sustainable. So I think, as we have to think about cost, I think that also allows us to have more hope that these therapies can, the cost of these therapies that are obviously hugely expensive at the moment, can be brought down in the longer term.

Ana Lisa: There are a lot of things that people want to do in the NHS. People can be working under quite hard circumstances, so to talk about making a therapy for one individual can be difficult and people can sometimes, I think, think that it's a pie-in-the-sky conversation.

However, I think that, you know, all the clinicians I know who work with families with rare conditions, what they'd most like to be able to do is to be able to offer a therapy.

And so I think a lot of people see this as a, as a big opportunity, despite these initial hurdles. One thing I often think about is my grandfather, when he was alive, every phone conversation, he would start with, "How many lives have you saved today?" And so I think that's the, that's our challenge.

Sharon: Wow. That's, that's really powerful.

Mel: Just echoing really what Ana Lisa was saying, I feel the, um, inequity lies in rare conditions as a, as a whole, from the point of diagnosis to the lack of pathway, um, to, to the lack of system in place for them. You wouldn't have a patient with a life-changing cancer diagnosis receive that information in a telephone call, and that is the stark reality for many rare disease patients. That's how they receive the, that's how they often receive the news. That was certainly our, our experience. And, and from that point, there was then no pathway. It's just this horrendous feeling of isolation.

And I think now that there are these treatments in place and therapies in, in place, it's about time we change that because often the rare, the rare condition community, and certainly those with ultra-rare conditions as well, they're probably like some of the most underserved members of the community in that it's their parents and their families that have to advocate. Otherwise, without that, they, they often wouldn't stand a chance of understanding the disease, let alone finding a treatment.

So I think the whole system needs to have a reset, to think about these rare condition patients and, put them at the heart as they do for more common conditions.

Ana Lisa : I completely agree. And you mentioned cancer, and there are actually quite a few parallels. So there might be really common cancers that affect a lot of people that are being, uh, subsetted down into different groups depending on the genetics that are related to that particular cancer and therefore what treatments might be most effective.

And so I think there's, there's a lot we can each learn from each other between the rare disease and cancer communities. Perhaps as in rare disease we scale up to apply the same strategies to many different rare conditions and patients. Even if they're being tweaked for their particular genetic variant and cancer, sometimes one is subsetting down to treat specifically that, exactly that cancer subtype.

So there's a lot we can learn and I completely agree that the, the rare disease community deserves the same chance at at treatments, and the hope that that comes with.

Sharon: Thank you. It feels like there needs to be some kind of seismic system change along with this piece around collaboration and how, you know, the science is there, but it's how do we bring it to families who are facing these difficulties with it, you know, their children and, and rare conditions.

We'll wrap it up there. Thank you to our guests, Ana Lisa Tavares and Mel Dixon, for joining me as we discussed the evolving landscape of individualised medicines. And thank you for listening.

If you'd like to hear more like this, please subscribe on your favorite podcast app. Behind the Genes is produced by Deanna Barac, Florence Cornish, Sophie McLachlan and Patrick Wallace at Bespoken Media.

In this explainer episode, we’ve asked Georgia Chan, Senior Data Wrangler at Genomics England, to explain what de-identified data is.

You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel.

If you’ve got any questions, or have any other topics you’d like us to explain, let us know on [email protected].

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Florence: What do we mean by de-identified data?  

My name is Florence Cornish, and today I'm here with Georgia Chan. Georgia is Senior Data Wrangler here at Genomics England, which just means that she cleans up and adds structure to complicated data so that it becomes usable, and she is going to be telling us much more about the topic of de-identified data. 

Georgia, I think it would be a good place to start by talking about the National Genomic Research Library, which is the library that we at Genomics England store data in. So maybe you could explain more about that and what kind of data is in there.  

Georgia: Sure. Thanks Florence. So, we have genomic data. 

Genomic data is information that comes from a person's DNA. It helps us understand how the body works and why disease happens. This can include whole genome sequencing data, variants found in genes, small differences that make each of us unique, and information about how genes function or how they differ between people. 

Genomic data does not include a person's name or who they are. It's biological information, not identity, and it's used to understand health and disease. It's really important to note that by nature, it's nature, genomic information is incredibly rich. We all have millions of common genetic variants, but your whole genome is unique to you. So although genomic data alone can't directly identify you, it still counts as personal data under data protection.  

We also have clinical data. Clinical data provides real world context for the genomic data. It shows what's happening in someone's health. This can include diagnosis of a disease or a symptom, treatments that have been received, health outcomes over time, such as remission or progression, and this clinical data that help researchers see how genetic differences relate to symptoms, treatment response, and long-term outcomes.  

So, we have both of these kinds of data. Genomic data on its own can be hard to interpret, and clinical data on its own only tells part of the story. Together, they allow researchers to better understand how diseases develop, helps them discover new or more targeted treatments, and it helps them improve diagnosis, care, and outcomes. 

And this is why both types of this data are used together in the National Genomic Research Library.  

Florence: And so, both of these data types, both clinical and genomic, we say that they are de-identified. But what exactly does that mean?  

Georgia: Yes, good question. De-identified data means that information which directly identifies a person has been changed or removed from a health record before researchers can access it. 

And in practice, it means that researchers cannot see who the person is. The data cannot be used to contact individuals, and a person's identity is protected by design, which means that necessary safeguards are embedded into every stage of a service or process. So, researchers work with the data, but not with people's identities. 

Florence: Could you tell me a little bit more about why it's so important to de-identify data in this way?  

Georgia: Sure. De-identification creates a safe middle ground. It means that data can be used to improve healthcare whilst people's privacy and trust is respected. So, without de-identification, every new research question would require individual contact and large-scale, long-term research would be extremely difficult. 

With de-identification, we reduce the risk of someone being identified. We prevent inappropriate use of data, and we ensure that data is used only for approved research.  

And it's important to note also that it sits alongside a list of other safeguards, so that helps ensure data is used responsibly, such as secure Research Environment, strict access control, independent ethical and governance approvals. And all of those safeguards are provided in Genomics England's Research Environment.  

Florence: I think a common question that people might have, or a question that I definitely had when I first heard the term, is how de-identified data is different from anonymous data.  

Georgia: Yes, it is a good question. So, anonymised data cannot be linked back to an individual and is no longer considered personal data, whereas de-identified anonymised data, it has identified as hidden from researchers, but it can still be relinked by a trusted authorised organisation if needed.  

So, in healthcare research, de-identification is often preferred because it allows long-term follow up. It also allows updates as new health information becomes available, and also allows corrections or withdrawals when they occur and when they're appropriate. 

Florence: So say a researcher did find something in the data that they might want to feedback, how can we re-identify that participant? What does that process look like?  

Georgia: Researchers cannot re-identify participants themselves. At Genomics England, if researchers do make a new discovery that could help an individual, for example, a possible diagnosis for a rare condition, we have an in-house clinical team who can link back to that individual's details and work with their NHS clinicians to establish if this new insight can be fed back. 

So if something clinically important is discovered, research is reported through a formal governance process, and then a trusted authorized team, not the researchers who re-identify the participant, and this ensures that researchers never know who the participant is and individuals remain protected. 

Whilst important findings can still benefit patients, and this would only happen when it's ethically approved and clinically appropriate.  

Florence: Great. Well, I think we'll finish there. Thank you so much, Georgia, for taking the time to talk us through the meaning of de-identified data and why it is so important to protect participants. 

Georgia: Thank you, Flo. And let's remember that de-identified data isn't about hiding information. It's about using it responsibly.  

Florence: Absolutely. If you want to hear more explainer episodes like this, you can find them on our website at www.genomicsengland.co.uk or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening. 

Blood cancers are the fifth most common group of cancers in the UK. But for a small number of people, the condition may have an inherited genetic cause. 

In this episode of Behind the Genes, we explore the role of genetics in blood cancer, and what an inherited risk means for patients and their families. Our guests explain what blood cancer is, how inherited factors can increase risk, and why multidisciplinary teamwork is key to supporting families. They also look ahead to future advances, from whole genome sequencing to prevention trials. 

Our host Amanda Pichini, Clinical Director at Genomics England, is joined by: 

“By doing whole genome sequencing we get all of the information about all of the changes that might have happened, we know whether any are inherited, but importantly, we’re certain of the ones that have just occurred in the cancer cells and can help guide us with their treatment.” 

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Amanda: Hello, and welcome to Behind the Genes. 

Sarah: When we think about blood cancers, it’s a whole range of different conditions and when you talk to patients who are affected with blood cancers or are living with them, their experiences are often really different from one another, depending in part on what kind of blood cancer they have.  We also know that blood cancers affect not just the cell numbers but also the way that those cells function, and so the range of symptoms that people can get is really variable. 

Amanda: I am your host, Amanda Pichini, clinical director at Genomics England and genetic counsellor.  Today I’ll be joined by Dr Katie Snape, principal clinician at Genomics England and a consultant cancer geneticist in London, Bev Speight, a principal genetic counsellor in Cambridge, and Dr Sarah Westbury, and haematologist from Bristol.  They’ll be talking about blood cancers and the inherited factors that increase blood cancer risk.  If you enjoy this episode, we’d love your support, so please subscribe, rate and share on your favourite podcast app.  Let’s get started. 

Thanks to everyone for joining us today on this podcast, we’re delighted to have so many experts in the room to talk to us about blood cancer.  I’d love to start with each of you introducing yourself and telling us and the listeners a little bit about your role, so, Sarah, could we start with you? 

Sarah: Sure.  It’s great to be here.  My name’s Sarah Westbury, and I’m a consultant haematologist who works down in Bristol.  And my interest in this area is I’m a diagnostic haematologist so I work in the laboratories here in the hospitals, helping to make a diagnosis of blood cancer for people who are affected with these conditions.  And I also look after patients in clinic who have different forms of blood cancer, but particularly looking after families who have an inherited predisposition to developing blood cancer.  And in the other half of my job, I work as a researcher at the University of Bristol.  And in that part of my job, I’m interested in understanding the genetic basis of how blood counts are controlled and some of the factors that lead to loss of control of those normal blood counts and how the bone marrow functions and works. 

Amanda: Thank you.  That’s really interesting, we’ll be looking forward to hearing more about your experience.  Bev, we’ll come to you next. 

Bev: Thank you.  Hello everyone, I’m Bev Speight, I’m a genetic counsellor, and I work at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge.  I work with families with hereditary cancers in the clinical genetic service, and for the last six years or so have been focused on hereditary blood cancers.  So we’ve been helping our haematologists across the region to do genetic tests and interpret the results, and then in my clinic seeing some of the onward referrals that come to clinical genetics after a hereditary cause for blood cancer is found.  I’m also part of the Council for the UK Cancer Genetics Group. 

Amanda: Thank you, Bev.  And Katie, over to you. 

Katie: Hello, I’m Katie Snape.  I’m a genetics doctor and I am a specialist in inherited cancer.  So we look after anyone who might have an increased chance of developing cancer in their lifetime due to genetic factors.  I am the chair of the UK Cancer Genetics Group, so that’s a national organisation to try and improve the quality of care and care pathways for people with inherited cancer risk in the UK.  And I have a special interest in inherited blood cancers through my work at King’s College Hospital, I work in the haematology medicine service there seeing individuals who might have or have been diagnosed as having an inherited component to their blood cancers.  So it’s great to be here. 

Amanda: Excellent, thank you for those introductions.  I’d like to then dive right in and understand a little bit more about blood cancers.  So, Sarah, could you tell us a little bit more about what blood cancer is? 

Sarah: Yes, sure.  The term blood cancer is used to describe a whole range of different kinds of cancer, all of which affect some part of the blood or sometimes parts of the immune system that kind of gets represented as part of the blood.  So it’s really describing a big group of conditions rather than one single kind of condition or entity itself.  But like any form of cancer, we understand blood cancers as being conditions where because cells as part of the blood system are rapidly dividing and normally doing so under really well controlled circumstances to produce just the right balance of blood cells and just the right number of those cells.  In a cancer affecting those cells, we see that that loss of control results in either too many of one type of blood cell being produced or too few, or that balance being lost.  And like any form of cancer, this is because of genetic changes that happen in individual cells that then go on to grow in a way that is not controlled and well regulated.   

And because when we talk about blood cancer we’re talking about such a wide range of different kinds of cancer affecting different cells within that blood system, there’s a really wide range of different conditions.  From conditions that we might think of as being like a form of acute leukaemia, so something that produces often symptoms and signs in patients very quickly and they can often feel quite unwell quite soon and then get picked up with having this condition because they present feeling unwell.  All the way to chronic and slow growing cancers that can be found completely by chance and serendipity when blood tests are done for other reasons.  So when we think about blood cancers, it’s a whole range of different conditions.  And when you talk to patients who are affected with blood cancers or are living with them, their experiences are often really different from one another, depending in part on what kind of blood cancer they have. 

We also know that blood cancers affect not just the cell numbers, but also the way that those cells function.  And so the range of symptoms that people can get is really variable, again depending on which of the blood cells are really affected by that.  And it may be that during the course of some of the conversations we have today in this podcast, we’ll perhaps focus on particular kinds of blood cancer.  But like any cancer, it’s that disruption of the normal growth and development of cells that means that the number and function of those blood cells has been disrupted in some way. 

Amanda: Thank you so much for explaining that, Sarah, that’s really helpful.  In terms of across the range of blood cancers, is that something that people can get at any age, and how common is it? 

Sarah: It does depend, as we were sort of talking about that really wide range of different disorders that make up that group of blood cancers.  And individually each of those blood cancers is reasonably uncommon compared to cancers that we might typically think of, like breast cancer or colon cancer.  But actually, if you group blood cancers together, they make up quite a sizeable proportion, and they’re actually as a group the fifth most common form of cancer that’s diagnosed in people in the UK.  In adults in particular we think that perhaps people diagnosed with leukaemia would make up about 3% of the new diagnosis of cancer made in any year. 

Amanda: So coming to you, Bev, when we talk about inherited blood cancers, what are the differences between those and blood cancers more generally? 

Bev: So at point of diagnosis, it may not be obvious that somebody with a new blood cancer diagnosis is one of the minority of people in that big group as Sarah has described, who has an inherited cause.  So it may not be immediately obvious.  However, in the last few years certainly, it’s become more and more routine to do quite broad genetic testing.  Often on a bone marrow sample or blood, because that is done looking for genetic changes, which are part of all cancer and we find within cancer cells, that can help with treatment planning.  It can also find that there is an inherited cause to that new blood cancer diagnosis.  Sometimes that might not be clear cut, sometimes that might be inferred from the genetic tests that are done on the blood or the bone marrow. And the proportion of blood cancers in that huge group which do have an inherited cause is fairly small, the actual proportion will depend a bit on the age of the patient and the specific subtype of blood cancer. 

Amanda: Okay, and could you talk us through how some of those inherited genetic factors can increase the chance of a person developing blood cancer, how does that work? 

Bev: Yes, so if we know that there is an inherited cause for blood cancer, then what we mean by that most of the time is that a change in a single gene has been found.  And that there is enough research evidence and enough known about that specific change in that gene to say to the person who’s been diagnosed, there is at least in part or perhaps a full explanation for why that blood cancer has developed and this could be shared in the family.  So at that point it’s information that not only has implications for the person in treatment, but also their relatives.  Depending on what sort of gene alteration it is and which gene it’s found in, there are different inheritance patterns, and that changes the sorts of information that we give about risks for relatives.  So for lots of the genetic tests that detect an inherited cause in adults when they’re diagnosed, that’s most often what we would call an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern.  Essentially that means you only need to have one gene alteration which is in that person’s normal non-cancerous DNA inherited from a parent and can be passed onto a child.  And for people in the family who have inherited this one genetic change, then they are likely to be at increased risk of developing blood cancer. 

Sometimes with particularly the children’s blood cancers, if an inherited cause is found, it can be a different pattern, which we call autosomal recessive.  And that’s where two gene changes are found and one has been inherited from each parent.  So parents might be what we call carriers and have one each just by chance, both have been passed onto a child who has developed blood cancer either in childhood or possibly later on, and that’s the pattern we call autosomal recessive.  There are other inheritance patterns too.  The third one that we come across being X-linked, and so that has a gender component.  That’s where there’s a change on the X chromosome, women have two X’s, and men have one X and one Y.  So sometimes with the X-linked conditions we’re more likely to see the clinical signs of a condition in boys and men because they’ve only got that one X chromosome.  But those are less common in the context of talking about hereditary blood cancers. 

Amanda: Thank you.  That’s really helpful to understand.  So it sounds like you're saying that these forms of blood cancers that are caused by a single gene are relatively rare.  And also by having one of these changes, it’s not a given that that person will develop a blood cancer, but it makes them more likely, and how likely that is might depend on the inheritance pattern or the type of condition. 

Bev: That’s right.  So what we’re saying is it can give either part of full explanation for the blood cancer diagnosis, and it could confer a risk to family members, but that doesn’t mean they definitely will develop it.  We’re talking about an increased risk compared to the population risk. 

Amanda: Right.  I can imagine for those families to some extent it might be helpful to know the underlying reason why they had that blood cancer, but again, that’s just a small proportion.  So, Katie, could I come to you next?  What about the rest of all the blood cancers, how do they occur? 

Katie: Yes, thanks, Amanda.  So most blood cancers will occur just by chance.  We also know that there are some environmental factors that can increase the risk of blood cancers, so, for example, serious radiation exposure, something like that.  What Bev has described is where there is this sort of quite rare condition where there is a kind of single gene that’s really important for the blood cells in terms of keeping those control mechanisms that Sarah described.  And that’s not working properly, which has increased the risk of a blood cancer.  But we also sometimes see some families where there is more blood cancer, or the same type of blood cancer in that family than we might expect by chance.  We think that’s probably not due to a single high risk genetic factor, but might be due to kind of multiple lower risk genetic factors that are sort of shared by close family members and can add up together to increase the risk a little bit.  And we call that familial risk or polygenic risk. 

We don’t have a test for that at the moment.  We wouldn’t offer usually any extra screening or testing to those families, but we would just suggest obviously family members are aware of any signs of symptoms of blood cancers and seek any advice if they’re concerned.  But, you know, the majority of blood cancers are not due to genetic factors, and it’s sort of environmental or chance or bad luck.

Amanda: Okay, so it’s clear that obviously blood cancer is almost an oversimplification, within that category there’s so many different types, so many ways that it could happen in a person.  So, Bev, if we’re dealing with that type of blood cancer that is inherited or has some heritability, can you tell us more about what that means for the family?  What kind of impacts do you see that having for them? 

Bev: Yes, of course.  So clearly this is another layer of information that’s often coming at a family during a time where somebody is often recently diagnosed with blood cancer of one sort or another and is having to take in a lot of information about treatment and all of the uncertainty and anxiety that goes with that.  So for this minority of patients and families where there is new information about an inherited cause, that needs conveying in a timely but sensitive way, bearing in mind what else is happening.  And for some people it can come as a major shock and really an additional burden at that time.  I think the reaction to that will of course depend on lots of factors.  And what we also see is that this question about a new cancer diagnosis of any sort, including blood cancers, can generate the question in people’s mind, particularly if they’ve got children, about does this change the risk for relatives?  So sometimes this new information that, actually, there is an inherited cause is an answer to a question that families have already got.  And that might be because of what Katie’s described as familial clustering, there might already have been this known history in the family.

So sometimes this information can feed into that and actually be quite a helpful answer.  But it’s quite normal for families to feel quite mixed about this and for different family members to have a different approach to it.  When there’s the offer of what we would call predictive testing, if we found a change in a single gene in somebody with blood cancer which we’re saying is a hereditary cause for that, that might open the door for relatives to access predictive testing.  I.e., the opportunity to discuss and possibly take up a genetic test for themselves when they haven't had cancer themselves, but there’s an opportunity to try and quantify whether or not they’re at increased risk.  We know in families the uptake of those kinds of tests is different, and a lot of it is to do with timing and the way people respond to this in families might depend on their response to the cancer diagnosis in their relative, and of course what else is going on in their life at the time. 

This aspect for the family is where clinical genetic services come in, because these initial tests in the person with blood cancer are done in their haematology/oncology setting, and normally the results about an inherited cause has been found are conveyed through that service.  That’s when a referral to clinical genetics happens.  And in our specialist service we’re addressing those additional concerns for the family which arise because of this diagnosis.

Amanda: Thanks, Bev, for explaining that.  Sarah, coming back to you.  Could you tell me then if someone has an inherited blood cancer does it also change the way that the patient is treated?

Sarah: Well, it certainly can do, and again, it does depend a little bit on the specific circumstances of that particular person and the form of inherited blood cancer predisposition that they have.  But certainly if we think about treatment as a whole, then for a lot of people it does affect the way that we might recommend treatments or look after them and their families.  So, for example, for some patients who have a diagnosis of an inherited form of blood cancer, we know that some treatments might be more or less effective for their particular set of circumstances.  And so that can sometimes influence the specific treatment recommendations that we would make, particularly thinking about, for example, the risks that the cancer might come back again after it’s been treated.  Or thinking about whether or not some of the typical drug regimes that might be used might be perhaps more likely to cause them side effects or problems with tolerating that treatment.  So it can certainly make some changes in that respect.

For some people, to be fair a minority of people with blood cancers, they may need a stem cell transplant as part of their treatment to hopefully cure them of their blood cancer.  And this as I say is a treatment that’s required for a minority of patients as a whole who have a diagnosis of a blood cancer.  But for those people who have got an inherited predisposition and who might be recommended a stem cell transplant as part of their treatment, then knowing about a familial risk for this condition can also be really important.  For making sure that if a family member is being considered as a donor for example that we’re being really careful to make sure that we’re not choosing a donor that might also be affected by the same underlying blood cancer predisposition.  Because this can obviously cause problems for the person that’s receiving the stem cells if it turns out that the person they’re receiving them from actually has the same inherited condition as them.  So in that respect knowing about the underlying predisposition and genetic cause for their cancer can be helpful. 

But in a more sort of general sense, yes, the other thing that it can have a big difference for is that some of these inherited cancer predispositions and syndromes also have other health conditions associated with them.  So it might be that that genetic diagnosis predisposes somebody not only to a form of blood cancer but to other health conditions as well.  And so actually knowing about that diagnosis can help their haematologist then make sure that they’re linked in with the right other medical teams to make sure that those other health conditions are identified if they’re present and taken care of.  And then I think really coming back to what Bev has already touched on, there’s the sort of bigger picture of just how people are looked after in their own right but also as part of their family unit.  And making sure that they’re given the right information and advice about their health, but also thinking about other family members.  And particularly for younger patients who perhaps either are just starting their own families or for whom that’s not yet a consideration, making sure that they’ve got the information to understand what might be relevant for future family members, if that makes sense. 

So it’s not necessarily true to say that for every individual patient knowing that there’s an inherited blood cancer present will necessarily directly affect the way that the treatment is offered.  But you can see that as a part of a bigger picture for a lot of patients, it will make a difference to their care as a whole. 

Amanda: And you can really see how the impact is very sort of multigenerational and is going to affect people at all ages and stages of their life, so that’s really interesting.  Katie, Bev spoke a little earlier about the fact that there are genetic tests that can help tell us if blood cancer is inherited.  Could you tell us more about what the tests involve, and some of your experience taking families through this? 

Katie: There’s sort of two main different ways that we might identify somebody has an inherited cause for their blood cancer through testing.  So traditionally what has happened, as Bev and Sarah sort of discussed before, is that when a person is diagnosed with a blood cancer, we either take a sample of their blood or bone marrow.  To try and look at what are the changes within those cells that have driven that cell to become a cancer cell and have driven this blood cancer to develop.  And a lot of the time, as we’ve said, it’s not inherited, it’s not genetic, so they’re what we call acquired changes, they’re changes that have just happened in the bone marrow or to the blood cells that have caused that kind of particular cell to become a cancer cell.  And it’s really important that we look at those because that can help both diagnose the blood cancer, it can give us information about how serious that blood cancer might be, and it can also help us guide our treatments and therapies. 

And so if we do those testings, they’re primarily done within haematology for those sort of diagnostic or prognostic or treatment purposes.  We do sometimes see then a change that looks a bit suspicious that it might be inherited for various reason.  And if we see something that is in the cancer and it looks like there’s a potential it could be inherited, we would go on and do a second test.  So usually because we can’t do a blood test because the cancer’s in the blood, we would take a skin biopsy.  And then we would look and see, well, is this change also present in the skin?  And if it is, then that indicates that that change is in all of the cells of the body, because it’s in both the blood cancer and it’s in the skin, and therefore it’s likely to be inherited.  So that’s one thing that we do. 

And I think that that can be quite challenging for patients.  Because they go in to have a test for their blood cancer and then suddenly were being told, “Well, actually, we’ve also found something that might be inherited,” and it is something then that other members of the family might have.  And as Sarah said, potentially that means that even if your relative was offering to be a bone marrow donor for you, they might not be able to if they also carry the same thing.  And so that can be quite tricky just in terms of making sure that we’re guiding the patient and their family members through that process. 

And then thinking about the work that Genomics England does, particularly with whole genome sequencing, and this is particularly offered for children and young adults in the paediatric setting.  But I think we’re also increasingly, as we progress we’ll perhaps talk about this a bit, moving towards whole genome sequencing for adult blood cancers more routinely as well, that that is offered as a sort of standard of care.  And what whole genome sequencing is, is it is looking at the entire genetic instruction manual in both the blood cancer cells and in the cells that we’re born with, to look at the inherited or germline genome as well.  And the reason that we look at both the cancer cells and the inherited or germline genome is because what we’re trying to understand is firstly, are there any inherited changes that have led to the blood cancer developing?  But also, what are the changes that have just occurred in the cancer cells that are going to help us to diagnose and treat that blood cancer? 

So by doing whole genome sequencing we get all of the information about all of the changes that might have happened, we know whether any are inherited, but importantly, we’re certain of the ones that have just occurred in the cancer cells and can help guide us with their treatment.  And so, again, when we’re talking to patients, we have to explain to them that we’re going to be looking at their entire genetic information.  And what’s interesting about that is it might find things that are not only relevant to blood cancer, but very rarely other findings, incidental findings as well, or we might find things that we don’t know about.  But I think certainly that’s something that patients often feel very comfortable with having because it gives them the maximum amount of information. 

Amanda: Thanks, Katie.  So it really sounds like there’s a lot of advancements that are being made in genetic technology which potentially brings a lot of new things for you and Bev as genetic specialists, but also for you, Sarah, as a haematology specialist.  What does that kind of change for you, and I assume it’s really important then for you all to be working together as a multidisciplinary team? 

Katie: Yes, I mean, I think for clinical genetics, we were not involved in sort of haematology pathways for a really long time, and the haematologists are absolute experts in the genomic factors that drive blood cancers.  And certainly in my practice, it’s really only been as the technology advanced that we really started finding more and more of these inherited factors, particularly in the adult setting.  Because I think in the paediatric and childhood setting, the haematologists again have been managing those conditions very well for years.  And I think there’s places that we really interface and we really need to work together as a multidisciplinary team, understanding the genetic information, really understanding when something that we’ve seen in the blood cancer or the bone marrow could be inherited.  Do we need to check that?  What should that pathway look like?  But I think as you’ve said, a lot of these are actually really quite new conditions, particularly in the adult setting.  And we don’t yet 100% know why do some people get blood cancer and some people don’t when they have the same inherited factor.  What’s the actual risk?  Are there any other factors modifying it?  What makes some people progress to develop a blood cancer and some people not? 

And for that we really need to work together to try and gather the data and sort of capture people that have these inherited changes.  And hopefully develop a system and an infrastructure that we can follow it long-term and get a lot of information about long-term outcomes, both for individuals with cancer but also their families.  And also from looking at doing population studies.  Because I think we know that lots of people in the general population might carry some of these inherited changes and never develop a blood cancer as a result of this, certainly ones that seem a bit lower risk.  So we really need to work together to understand all of that.  But I’d be really interested in Sarah’s views on that as well. 

Sarah: Yes, sure.  So I think, as you say, Katie, haematologists have got a long history of understanding and interpreting genetic findings in the sort of acquired or somatic changes that we know are what occurs in some blood cells to drive the cancer forming in the first place. But this kind of newer integration of that with the germline testing is something that is becoming much more mainstream in haematology now, and I think something that people have had to sort of acquire new skills in this area to interpret that alongside.  I think as you say, that multidisciplinary working, where we’re able to benefit from both sides of our expertise and knowledge and put that together is so valuable, particularly in those circumstances where there is some uncertainty.  And I think as a haematologist, one of the things that I really find a benefit both personally and professionally to help me navigate these tricky questions but that I also think patients benefit from is your expertise and ability to have those really quite tricky conversations with people who are not haematology patients, if that makes sense. 

So they may be the relatives of patients who have a haematological diagnosis for example.  Who at the moment are entirely well and were just going about their daily business, and they’re now told that they may or may not potentially have this inherited predisposition.  And I think that as haematologists, we’re very used to dealing with potentially quite poorly patients, potentially quite scared patients who find themselves, you know, the recipient of all this quite difficult information.  But we’re not necessarily so skilled and experienced at holding conversations with people who don’t yet have that diagnosis.  And I think that that’s a really rich area of mutual aid to one another as haematologists and genetic doctors, if that makes sense.  And I think your points about understanding actually the real risks and the nature history, as we would call it, of what happens to people who carry these variants that predispose them to blood cancers is something that we can probably only work out by working together.  And of course, working with the patients and families that are affected by these conditions so that hopefully for both sides in the future we’ll be able to give much better advice to patients and their families. 

Amanda: So, Bev, from your experience and as a genetic counsellor, what do you feel are the important things that patients and their families should know as they’re going through this testing and diagnosis process? 

Bev: The things I think families where there is a hereditary cause found should know is that with this new information comes a whole new referral to a dedicated service.  Who want to help patients and their family members at risk to navigate this, to adjust the information, and to make decisions that fit with them, about whether to have testing and the timing of that.  As we already said, where there is a hereditary blood cancer risk, that risk in family members is rarely 100%.  Depending on what the hereditary predisposition is in the family, we may be able to quantify that risk, sometimes we can’t always.  And the other thing to know which links to that is that there is growing interest in research in this area.  That will really help us to improve care in terms of, for example, being able to quantify the risk of developing a blood cancer in relatives who are perfectly well that may have inherited these predisposition gene changes.  Or, for example, the other obvious place where we want to make improvements in terms of some sort of evidence-based surveillance for those people who want to find out that they have inherited the genetic change and are at increased risk. 

Amanda: Thank you.  And overall there’s been a lot I think we’ve been covering today that’s probably going to be very new to many people.  Why do you think it’s important to raise public awareness of inherited blood cancers? 

Bev: There have been lots of public awareness campaigns about other cancers, as listeners probably can think about, in terms of for women checking their breasts and breast cancer awareness.  And perhaps there’s been a bit less of that in general for blood cancers.  As we’ve already talked about, clinical genetics were not so involved in all of the genetic testing happening in blood cancers.  Because it wasn’t so long ago in the history of how we think about inherited cancers in general that our suspicion of inherited causes in leukaemia was much lower than it is now.  So I think that awareness in the public probably will take a bit more effort to bring up.  But clearly public awareness about blood cancers in general, symptom awareness, and the fact that occasionally it can be something that is running in the family, clearly better public awareness of that means that people are empowered to ask the right questions.  And the questions that might already be in some way going through their minds of their haematology doctors or perhaps of their GP, if they’ve got a family history but are not affected themselves. 

Amanda: Wonderful.  So, looking now to the future, Katie, what genomic advancements are we seeing or are we likely to see that could impact on the care of people with an increased genetic risk of blood cancer? 

Katie: We touched a little bit, I think that whole genome sequencing is expanding.  And as we can turn that test around and get it back more quickly that might become more commonplace.  And I know Genomics England and the UK Haemato-oncology Network of Excellence have been doing a lot of work in that area.  We are very lucky now we have a national inherited cancer predisposition register that NHS England have set up with the National Disease Registration Service.  So that will enable us to capture individuals that have these sort of rarer but single gene disorders or conditions that increase the chance of developing blood cancers.  And that will enable us to do that sort of longer-term follow-up and get really more information.  We’ve touched on this already but I think there’s really amazing research happening, why do some people develop blood cancers and some people don’t, even though everyone carries the same underlying change that increases the risk? 

And then I think really importantly, we’re seeing now in some conditions, clinical trials of certain medications to see if that can actually prevent people who carry these inherited changes from progressing to developing blood cancers.  So I think all of those things are really exciting and will give us lots more information that we can then help patients and their families, particularly the sort of treatment and trials aspects. 

Amanda: And, Sarah, on treatment and trials, how do think genomics might improve the treatment, but also the diagnosis of people with inherited blood cancers in the future? 

Sarah: I think, you know, hopefully when we are able to accrue more information about these underlying genetic predispositions and how they actually then affect people’s likelihood of developing blood cancer, we’ll be able to build on what we have so far to make that just feel much more robust and evidence based.  And it feels like at the moment there are many of us struggling to bring together small threads of evidence that have been accrued in the UK but in other centres around the world that are also interested in understanding this inherited blood cancer risk.  In such a way that we can actually give patients and their families more clear information and advice about what that means to them.  And I think that in terms of the diagnosis of blood cancer, I think this is something that Bev alluded to.  If we could better understand who might benefit for example from having regular screening or monitoring blood tests performed to see whether we can detect an emerging blood cancer.  Versus identifying those people who actually, the chances of them developing a blood cancer are so small that doing those tests is likely to do them more harm than good.  Perhaps by just causing them to be anxious or have other sort of unintended consequences of that kind of testing. 

So understanding something more about that natural history, as we’ve already alluded to, will hopefully improve our ability to go from the diagnosis of the predisposition condition to working out how to then diagnose the blood cancer on the back of that.  And with time, I think as Katie has alluded to, thinking about more specific treatments and more tailored treatments to the individual predisposition condition and the blood cancer.  So whether it’s that you're intervening before the blood cancer has developed to try and reduce that happening, or whether it’s that you're then treating the blood cancer after it’s developed.  Understanding the genetic basis and what it is that causes that transition would be really helpful and I think that is something that will come but will take time. 

And I think on a sort of national level what I would really hope to see over time is that we’re able to use that improvement in evidence base to then be able to bring together perhaps more defined patient pathways.  So that if you're diagnosed with a particular condition, one of these leukaemia predisposition syndromes or another form of blood cancer predisposition, there’s a recognised strategy and set of steps that should be taken for all of those patients.  To make sure that they’re getting equity of care and make sure that everything is being done in a way that feels safe, sensible and appropriate across the country.  While still then enabling us to give really personalised treatment to that individual person and what that diagnosis means for them.  But I think until we’ve gathered more information and more evidence we are just in the process of trying to do that to then bring about those changes.  

Amanda: If you enjoyed today’s episode, we’d love your support.  So please subscribe, share and rate us on wherever you listen to your podcasts.  I’ve been your host, Amanda Pichini.  This podcast was produced by Deanna Barac and edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital.  Thank you for listening. 

In this explainer episode, we’ve asked Réka Novotta, Research Ethics Operations Manager at Genomics England, to explain what informed consent is.

You can also find a series of short videos explaining some of the common terms you might encounter about genomics on our YouTube channel.

If you’ve got any questions, or have any other topics you’d like us to explain, let us know on [email protected].

You can download the transcript or read it below.

Florence: What do we mean by informed consent? My name is Florence Cornish, and today I'm here with Réka, who is Research Ethics Operations Manager here at Genomics England, and she's going to be telling us much more about it.  

I think it would first be helpful Réka, if you could explain the word consent.  

Réka: The broad definition of consent is that it's the voluntary agreement given by an individual to participate in a particular activity. 

We all probably give consent to a lot of different things each day without really realizing it. So, you go on to read the news in the morning, and the website asks for your consent to process cookies. You maybe go to a routine GP appointment later, and you stick your arm out for them to measure your blood pressure. Maybe you even go to a podcast and you give consent to a host to record your voice. So, these are all based on affirmative action made by you while taking into consideration the information that's available to you.  

The technical definition of consent often includes that it's freely given, meaning that you are not coerced. That it’s specific, meaning when you stick your arm out for your doctor, you're only agreeing to that part of the examination, and perhaps most importantly, that person needs to be adequately informed for the consent to be meaningful. 

Florence: So you gave lots of really interesting examples there. I think it would be good to understand what we mean by informed consent and where this distinction comes in. How does it differ? 

Réka: By informed consent, we mean that the person consenting has been provided with all relevant and necessary information about the activity, in a format that is accessible and understandable for them.  

And that latter part of the sentence is really important, because if you go to the doctor and the doctor speaks to you in French, if you speak French, then wonderful, you have all the information that you need. But if you don't, even though the information is technically there, you not understanding it makes it impossible for your consent to be informed.  

Similarly, if you think about maybe an older person who's not familiar with technology, if they see a QR code, they might not necessarily know what to do with it, even if it would technically lead to all of the information that they would ever want to know about Genomics England. 

Florence: So you mentioned Genomics England, obviously we both work for Genomics England, this is a Genomics 101 podcast. So what do we mean by informed consent in the context of genomics? Where does it come into play? 

Réka: So if we think about informed in a traditional research study, they test a drug, the treatment either works or it doesn't work, and there's analysis of that data, and that's sort of the end of the process. 

With genomics, there's a huge amount of information that gets generated and analysed, and the field itself is rapidly evolving. So we may not have an answer today, but we might do tomorrow, which puts our participants' data in the research resource that we manage in a really unique position.  

Because of that, it's even more important perhaps for this consent to be ongoing. Consent is often incorrectly considered a tick box exercise, where you receive information, you consider the information, you make a decision, and that's sort of it. Whereas for genomics, it's important that it is an ongoing conversation and it doesn't just stop at the signing of a form.  

We also employ what's called a broad consent model. Genomics England manages the National Genomic Research Library, which rather than being a single study, is a resource for a wide range of research uses. It allows us to gain permission via the informed consent conversations for the storage and the use of data and samples for upcoming studies that we don't yet know about. 

And this eliminates the need to reconsent each participant every time a researcher starts to use their data for a new research project, and in turn, and this also feeds back to the need for ongoing conversation, a fully informed consent is very hard to achieve at the time of consenting. 

Florence: So you mentioned the National Genomic Research Library, and we actually did a previous explainer podcast episode about this. So, if listeners would like to learn more about it, you can check out our previous Genomics 101 episode: What is the National Genomic Research Library?  

Réka, I'd be interested to know, are there any challenges related to informed consent that are specific to the field of genomics? 

Réka: Yeah, so there’s many fascinating challenges. There's one that I really want to highlight, which is the family aspect. It's a lot more pronounced in genomics than it is in traditional medicine. The information that you receive, it doesn't only affect you, but it also affects your parents, your siblings, your existing, or even your future children, which is quite unique, and there's a challenge in how we articulate that without causing further anxiety. 

Florence: So speaking of the challenges there, the family aspect and the fact that genomics as a field is rapidly evolving, I think this highlights how important it is that we embed informed consent into our practices.  

Could you tell me a bit about how we're doing this at Genomics England? 

Réka: We follow best practice in informed consent called information layering, where we provide materials for our research in different formats. And this can ensure that participants can get the depth of understanding that they need, without feeling overwhelmed by a massive amount of information from the outset. 

So this includes longer and shorter information sheets, providing materials and training for healthcare professionals so that they can have conversations with potential participants. We also have lots of different copy on our website. We have videos, and this podcast as well. 

And it's all part of what we call patient and public involvement and engagement or PPIE, which means that we co-produce our materials involving members of the public and patients in the design of our materials, making sure that they present accessible and understandable information. 

It is really important for us not to, as you say, mark our own homework. What makes sense to one person might not make sense to another, and it's important to get lots of different perspectives. And I just wanted to shout out the Participant Panel who's a committee of wonderful people who help us, and also keep us accountable in everything that we do. 

Florence: What would happen if say, somebody gave informed consent for their data to be stored in the National Genomic Research Library, but then they change their mind and they want to take it back? What would happen then? 

Réka: So we offer 2 types of withdraw from a resource. There is an option to withdraw partially or to unsubscribe, which means that you can leave your de-identified donated data for researchers to analyse, but not receive any updates or contact from us going forward.  

You can also decide to withdraw your participation fully, and that's where we make your data unavailable for future research. One of the key pillars in informed consent and the consent model that Genomics England employs, is that research participants can withdraw their consent to participate at any time without giving us a reason. 

So, it doesn't matter if you submit your request on a website or on a paper form or if you call us, we will respect your decision with no questions asked. 

Florence: Thank you so much for coming on and for walking us through the meaning of informed consent, and why it's so important in the context of healthcare and research. 

If you want to learn more about terms we use in genomics, check out our other podcasts at www.genomicsengland.co.uk, or, wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening.  

In this special episode, recorded live at the 2025 Genomics England Research Summit, host Adam Clatworthy is joined by parents, clinicians and researchers to explore the long, uncertain and often emotional journey to a genetic diagnosis. Together, they go behind the science to share what it means to live with uncertainty, how results like variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are experienced by families, and why communication and support matter just as much as genomic testing and research.

The panel discuss the challenges families face when a diagnosis remains out of reach, the role of research in refining and revisiting results over time, and how collaboration between researchers, clinicians and participants could help shorten diagnostic journeys in the future.

Joining Adam Clatworthy, Vice-Chair for the Participant Panel, on this episode are:

Linked below are the episodes mentioned in the episode: 

Visit the Genomics England Research Summit website, to get your ticket to this years event.

You can download the transcript, or read it below.

Sharon: Hello, and welcome to Behind the Genes.

My name is Sharon Jones and today we’re bringing you a special episode recorded live from our Research Summit held in June this year. The episode features a panel conversation hosted by Adam Clatworthy, Vice-Chair of the Participant Panel.

Our guests explore navigating the diagnostic odyssey, the often-complex journey to reaching a genetic diagnosis. If you’d like to know more about what the diagnostic odyssey is, check our bitesize explainer episode, ‘What is the Diagnostic Odyssey?’ linked in the episode description.

In today’s episode you may hear our guests refer to ‘VUS’ which stands for a variant of uncertain significance. This is when a genetic variant is identified, but its precise impact is not yet known. You can learn more about these in another one of our explainer episodes, “What is a Variant of Uncertain Significance?”

And now over to Adam.

--

Adam: Welcome, everyone, thanks for joining this session.

I’m always really humbled by the lived experiences and the journeys behind the stories that we talk about at these conferences, so I’m really delighted to be hosting this panel session. It’s taking us behind the science, it’s really focusing on the people behind the data and the lived experiences of all the individuals and the families who are really navigating this system, trying to find answers and really aiming to get a diagnosis – that has to be the end goal. We know it’s not the silver bullet, but it has to be the goal so that everyone can get that diagnosis and get that clarity and what this means for their medical care moving forwards.   

So, today we’re really going to aim to demystify what this diagnostic odyssey is, challenging the way researchers and clinicians often discuss long diagnostic journeys, and we’ll really talk about the vital importance of research in improving diagnoses, discussing the challenges that limit the impact of emerging research for families on this odyssey and the opportunities for progress. So, we’ve got an amazing panel here. Rather than me trying to introduce you, I think it’s great if you could just introduce yourselves, and Lisa, I’ll start with you.

Lisa: Hi, I’m Lisa Beaton and I am the parent of a child with an unknown, thought to be neuromuscular, disease. I joined the patient Participant Panel 2 years ago now and I’m also a Parent Representative for SWAN UK, which stands of Syndromes Without A Name.

I have 4 children who have all come with unique and wonderful bits and pieces, but it’s our daughter who’s the most complicated.

Adam:  Thank you. Over to you, Jo.

Jo:  Hi, I’m Jo Wright, I am the parent of a child with an undiagnosed genetic condition.  So I’ve got an 11-year-old daughter. 100,000 Genomes gave us a VUS, which we’re still trying to find the research for and sort of what I’ll talk about in a bit.  And I’ve also got a younger daughter.

I joined the Participant Panel just back in December. I’m also a Parent Rep for SWAN UK, so Lisa and I have known each other for quite a while through that.

Adam:  Thank you, Jo.  And, Jamie, you’re going to be covering both the research and the clinician side and you kind of wear 2 hats, so, yeah, over to you.

Jamie:  Hi, everyone, so I’m Jamie Ellingford and, as Adam alluded to, I’m fortunate and I get to wear 2 hats. So, one of those hats is that I’m Lead Genomic Data Scientist for Rare Disease at Genomics England and so work as part of a really talented team of scientists and engineers to help develop our bioinformatic pipelines, so computational processes.

I work as part of a team of scientists and software engineers to develop the computation pipelines that we apply at Genomics England as part of the National Health Service, so the Genomic Medicine Service that families get referred to and recruited to, and we try to develop and improve those.

So that’s one of my hats. And the second of those is I am a researcher, I’m an academic at the University of Manchester, and there I work really closely with some of the clinical teams in the North West to try and understand a little bit more about the functional impact of genomic variants on kind of how things happen in a cell. So, we can explore a little bit more about that but essentially, it’s to provide a little bit more colour as to the impact that that genomic variant is having.

Adam: Great, thank you, Jamie. Over to you, Emma.

Emma: My name’s Emma Baple, I’m an academic clinical geneticist in Exeter but I’m also the Medical Director of the South West genomic laboratory hub, so that’s the Exeter and Bristol Genomics Laboratory. And I wear several other hats, including helping NHS England as the National Specialty Advisor for Genomics.

Adam: Thank you all for being here. I think it’s really important before we get into the questions just to ground ourselves in like those lived experiences that yourself and Jo and going through.

So, Lisa, I’m going to start with you. The term ‘diagnostic odyssey’ gets bandied around a lot, we hear about it so many times, but how does that reflect your experience that you’ve been through and what would you like researchers and clinicians to understand about this journey that you’re on, essentially?

Lisa: So I think ours is less an odyssey and more of a roller-coaster, and I say that because we sort of first started on a genetic journey, as it were, when my daughter was 9 weeks of age and she’s now 16½ – the half’s very important – and we still have no answers.

And we’ve sort of come a bit backwards to this because when she was 6 months old Great Ormond Street Hospital felt very strongly that they knew exactly what was wrong with her and it was just a case of kind of confirmation by genetics. And then they sent off for a lot of different myasthenia panel genes, all of which came back negative, and so having been told, “Yes, it’s definitely a myasthenia, we just need to know which one it is,” at 4 years of age that was removed and it was all of a sudden like, “Yeah, thanks, sorry.”

And that was really hard actually because we felt we’d had somewhere to hang our hat and a cohort of people with very similar issues with their children, and then all of a sudden we were told, “No, no, that’s not where you belong” and that was a really isolating experience.

I can remember sort of saying to the neuromuscular team, “Well is it still neuromuscular in that case?” and there was a lot of shrugging of shoulders, and it just…  We felt like not only had we only just got on board the life raft, then we’d been chucked out, and we didn’t even have a floaty. And in many ways I think I have made peace with the fact that we don’t have a genetic diagnosis for our daughter but it doesn’t get easier in that she has her own questions and my older children – one getting married in August who’s already sort of said to me, you know, “Does this have implications for when we have children?”  And those are all questions I can’t answer so that’s really hard.

Adam:  Thank you, Lisa. Yourself, Jo, how would you describe the odyssey that you’re currently experiencing?

Jo: So my daughter was about one when I started really noticing that she was having regressions. They were kind of there beforehand but, I really noticed them when she was one, and that’s when I went to the GP and then got referred to the paediatrician.

So initially we had genetic tests for things like Rett syndrome and Angelman syndrome, which they were all negative, and then we got referred on to the tertiary hospital and then went into 100,000 Genomes. So we enrolled in 100,000 Genomes at the beginning of 2017, and we got our results in April of 2020, so obviously that was quite a fraught time.

Getting our results was probably not as you would want to do it because it was kind of over the phone and then a random letter. So, what I was told in that letter was that a variant of uncertain significance had been identified and they wanted to do further research to see if it might be more significant. So we were to be enrolled into another research project called Splicing and Disease, which wasn’t active at the time because everything had been put on hold for COVID, but eventually we went into that. So, I didn’t know what the gene was at that point, when I eventually got the form for going to get her bloods done…  So that went off and then that came back and the geneticist said, “That gives us some indication that it is significant.”

So, since that point it’s been trying to find more information and research to be able to make it a diagnosis. There have been 2 sort of key things that have happened towards that but we’re still not there. So one of the things is that a research paper came out earlier this year so that’s kind of a little bit more evidence, it’s not going to give us a diagnosis but it kind of, you know, sits there. And the other thing is that my geneticist said, “Actually, yeah, it looks like it’s an important change.”  That’s as far as we’ve got. So we’ve still got work to do to make it a diagnosis or not.  Obviously if it is a diagnosis, it is still a one-of-a-kind diagnosis, so it doesn’t give me a group to join or that kind of thing.

But now I’ve got that research paper that I’ve read and read, and asked ChatGPT to verify that I’ve understood it right in some places, you know, with the faith that we put into ChatGPT (laughs), I’ve got a better understanding and I’ve got something now that I can look back on, the things that happened when my daughter was one, 2, 3, 4 and her development was all over the place and people thought that I was slightly crazy for the things I was saying, that “Actually, no, I can see what’s happening.”

So, it’s like the picture’s starting to come into focus but there’s work to do. I haven’t got a timeframe on that, I don’t know when it’s going to come together. And I always say that I’m a prolific stalker of the postman; ever since our first genetic tests you’re just constantly waiting for the letters to drop through the door. So a diagnostic odyssey to me is just waiting for random events.

Adam: I think what you’ve both kind of really clearly elaborated on is how you’re the ones that are having to navigate this journey, you’re the ones that are trying to piece this puzzle together, and the amount of time you’re investing, all whilst navigating and looking after your child and trying to cope with the daily lived experience as well.

And something you’ve both touched on that I’d love to draw out more is about how exactly was the information shared with you about the lack of diagnosis or the VUS or what’s going on, because in our case you get this bit of paper through the post that has all these numbers and it’s written in clinical speak and we had no conversation with the geneticist or the doctors.

You see this bit of paper and you’re reading it, scared for what the future will hold for your child, but I’d love to know like how were you communicated whilst all this is going on, how did you actually find out the next steps or any kind of future guidance.

Lisa: So I think in our case we kept sort of going onto neuromuscular appointments, and I think for probably the first 5 years of my daughter’s life I kind of had this very naïve thought that every time we turned up to an appointment it would be ‘the one’ and then…   I think it would’ve been really helpful actually in those initial stages if they had said to us, “Actually, we don’t know when this is going to happen, if it’s even going to happen, you need to kind of prepare yourself for that.”

It sounds fairly obvious to say but you don’t know what you don’t know. And in some ways we were getting genetic test results back for some really quite horrible things and they would tell us, “Oh it’s good news, this mitochondrial disorder hasn’t come up,” and so part of you is like, “Yay!” but then another part of you is thinking, “Well if it’s not that what is it?” And we’ve very much kind of danced around and still don’t really have an answer to whether it’s life-limiting.

We know it’s potentially life-threatening and we have certain protocols, but even that is tricky. We live in North Yorkshire, and our local hospital are amazing. Every time we go in, if it’s anything gastro-related, they say to me, “What’s the protocol from Great Ormond Street?” and I say, “We don’t have one” (laughs) and that always causes some fun. We try to stay out of hospitals as much as we absolutely can and do what we can at home but, equally, there’s a point where, you know, we have to be guided by where we’re going with her, with the path, and lots of phone calls backwards and forwards, and then is it going to be a transfer down to Great Ormond Street to manage it.

And actually the way I found out that nothing had been found from 100,000 Genomes was in a passing conversation when we had been transferred down to Great Ormond Street and we’d been an inpatient for about 6 weeks and the geneticist said to me, “So obviously with you not having a diagnosis from the 100,000 Genomes…” and I said, “Sorry?  Sorry, what was that?  You’ve had the information back?”  And she said, “Well, yes, did nobody write to you?” and I said, “No, and clearly by my shock and surprise.”

And she was a bit taken aback by that, but it happened yet again 2 years later (laughs) when she said, “Well you know everything’s been reanalysed” and I said, “No.”  (Laughs)  And, so that’s very much, it still feels an awful lot like I’m doing the heavy lifting because we’re under lots of different teams and even when they’re working at the same hospital they don’t talk to each other. And I do understand that they’re specialists within their own right, but nobody is really looking at my daughter holistically, and there are things that kind of interrelate across.   

And at one of the talks I attended this morning they were talking about the importance of quality of life, and I think that is something that has to be so much more focused on because it’s hard enough living without a diagnosis, but when you’re living with a bunch of symptoms that, I think the best way I can describe it is at the moment we’ve got the spokes of the umbrella but we don’t have the wrapper, and we don’t know where we’re going with it. We can’t answer her questions, we can’t even necessarily know that we’re using the most effective treatments and therapies for her, and she’s frustrated by that now, being 16, in her own right, as well as we are.

And I’m panicking about the navigation towards Adult Services as well because at the minute at least we have a clinical lead in our amazing local paediatrician but of course once we hit and move into that we won’t even have him and that’s a really scary place to be, I think.

Adam: Jo, is there anything you wanted to add on that in terms of how you’ve been communicated to whilst all this is going on?

Jo: Yeah, so I think part of what makes it difficult is if you’re across different hospitals because they’re not necessarily going to see the same information. So obviously it was a bit of a different time when I got our results, but I got our results on a virtual appointment with a neurologist in one hospital, in the tertiary hospital, and because he could see the screen because it was the same hospital as genetics, and he said, “Oh you’ve got this” and then the letter came through later.

When I had my next appointment with the neurologist in our primary hospital, or secondary care, whatever it’s called, in that hospital, he hadn’t seen that, so I’m telling him the results, which isn’t ideal, but it happens quite a lot.

What I think is quite significant to me is the reaction to that VUS.  I have to give it, the doctors that look after my daughter are brilliant, and I’m not criticising them in any way but their reaction to a VUS is “I’m so grateful for the persistence to get to a diagnosis.”

Neurologists are a bit more like “Oh it’s a VUS so it might be significant, it might be nothing.” Actually, as a patient, as in a parent, you actually want to know is it significant or not, “Do I look at it or not?” And, I mean, like I said, there were no research papers to look at before anyway until a few months ago so I didn’t have anything to look at, but I didn’t want to look at it either because you don’t want to send yourself off down a path. But I think that collective sort of idea that once someone gets a VUS we need a pathway for it, “What do we do with it, what expectation do we set the patients up with and what is the pathway for actually researching further?” because this is where we really need the research.

Adam:  Thank you, Jo. So, Emma, over to you in terms of how best do you think clinicians can actually support patients at navigating this odyssey and what’s the difference between an initial diagnosis and a final diagnosis and how do you then communicate that effectively to the patients and their family?  

Emma: So I think a key thing for me, and it’s come up just now again, is that you need to remember as a doctor that the things you say at critical times in a patient’s or parent’s journeys they will remember – they’ll remember it word for word even though you won’t – and thinking about how to do that in the most sensitive, empathetic, calm, not rushed way is absolutely key.  

And there are some difficulties with that when you’re in a very high-pressure environment but it is absolutely crucial, that when you are communicating information about test results, when you’re talking about doing the test in the first place, you’re consenting the family, you’re explaining what you’re trying to do and those conditions, you balance how much information you give people.   

So, you were talking earlier about “So you haven’t got this diagnosis, you haven’t got that diagnosis,” I often think it’s…  We’re often testing for numerous different conditions at the same time, I couldn’t even list them all to the parents of the children or the patient that I’m testing. It’s key to try and provide enough information without overwhelming people with so much information and information on specific conditions you are just thinking about as a potential.  Sometimes very low down your list actually but you can test for them.   

Because people go home and they use the internet and they look things up and they get very, very worried about things. So, for me it’s trying to provide bite-sized amounts of information, give it the time it deserves, and support people through that journey, tell them honestly what you think the chance of finding a diagnosis is. If you think it’s unlikely or you think you know, sharing that information with family is helpful.  

Around uncertainty, I find that a particular challenge. So, I think we’ve moved from a time when we used to, in this country, declare every variant we identified with an uncertain significance. Now, if we remember that we’ve all got 5 million variants in our genome, we’ve all got hundreds and hundreds… thousands and thousands, in fact, of variants of uncertain significance in our genetic code. And actually, unless you think a variant of uncertain significance genuinely does have a probability of being the cause of a child’s or a patient’s condition, sharing that information can be quite harmful to people.   

We did a really interesting survey once when we were writing the guidelines for reporting variants of uncertain significance a few years ago. We asked the laboratories about their view of variants of uncertain significance and we asked the clinicians, and the scientists said, “We report variants of uncertain significance because the clinicians want them” and the clinicians said, “If the labs put the variant of uncertain significance on the report it must be important.” And of course, if you’re a parent, if the doctor’s told you the variant is a variant of uncertain significance of course you think it’s important.   

So, we should only be sharing that information, in my opinion, if it genuinely does have a high likelihood of being important and there are things that we can do. And taking people through that journey with you, with the degree of likelihood, the additional tests you need to do and explaining to them whether or not you think you will ever clarify that, is really, really key because it’s very often that they become the diagnosis for the family.  Did I cover everything you think’s important, both of you? 

Lisa: I think the one thing I would say is that when you are patient- or parent-facing, the first time that you deliver that news to the parent… you may have delivered that piece of news multiple times and none of us sit there expecting you to kind of be overcome with emotion or anything like that but, in the same way that perhaps you would’ve had some nerves when, particularly if it was a diagnosis of something that was unpleasant, you know, to hold onto that kind of humanity and humility. Because for those patients and parents hearing that news, that is the only time they’re ever hearing that, and the impact of that, and also, they’re going on about with their day, you don’t know what else they’re doing, what they’re juggling.   

We’re not asking you all to be responsible for kind of, you know, parcelling us up and whatnot but the way information is imparted to us is literally that thing we are all hanging our hats on, and when we’re in this kind of uncertainty, from my personal experience I’m uncomfortable, I like to be able to plan, I’m a planner, I’m a researcher, I like to sort of look it up to the nth degree and that, and sitting in a place without any of that is, it’s quite a difficult place to be. And it’s not necessarily good news for those parents when a test comes back negative, because if it’s not that then what is it, and that also leaves you feeling floundering and very isolated at times. 

Adam: Yeah, and you touched upon the danger of like giving too much information or pushing families down a particular route, and then you have to pull them out of it when it’s not that.  

You talked about the experience you had, you felt like you’d found your home and then it’s like, “Well, no, no, sorry, actually we don’t think it’s that.” And you’ve invested all of your time and your emotion into being part of that group and then you’re kind of taken away again. So it’s to the point where you have to be really sure before you then communicate to the families, and obviously in the meantime the families are like, “We just need to know something, we need to know,” and it’s that real fine line, isn’t it?   

But, Jamie, over to you. Just thinking about the evolving nature of genomic diagnosis, what role does research play in refining or confirming a diagnosis over time? 

Jamie: So it’s really, really difficult actually to be able to kind of pinpoint one or 2 things that we could do as a community of researchers to help that journey, but perhaps I could reflect on a couple of things that I’ve seen happen over time which we think will improve things. And one of that’s going back to the discussion that we’ve just had about how we classify genetic variants. And so, behind that kind of variant of uncertain significance there is a huge amount of effort and emotion from a scientist’s side as well because I think many of the scientists, if not all, realise what impact that’s going to have on the families.  

And what we’ve tried to do as a community is to make sure that we are reproducible, and if you were to have your data analysed in the North West of England versus the South West that actually you’d come out with the same answer. And in order to do that we need guidance, we need recommendations, we need things that assist the scientists to actually classify those variants. 

And so, what we have at the moment is a 5 point scale which ranges from benign to likely benign, variant of uncertain significance, unlikely pathogenic variant and pathogenic variant. It’s objective as to how we classify a variant into one of those groups and so it’s not just a gut feeling from a scientist, it’s kind of recordable measurable evidence that they can provide to assist that classification.  

So in many instances what that does is provide some uncertainty, as we’ve just heard, because it falls into that zone of variant of uncertain significance but what that also does is provide a framework in which we can generate more evidence to be able to classify it in one direction or another to become likely pathogenic or to become likely benign. And as a research community we’re equipped with that understanding –– and not always with the tools but that’s a developing area – to be able to do more about it.  

What that doesn’t mean is that if we generate that evidence that it can translate back into the clinic, and actually that’s perhaps an area that we should discuss more. But kind of just generating that evidence isn’t always enough and being able to have those routes to be able to translate back that into the hands of the clinicians, the clinical scientists, etc, is another challenge.

Adam:  And how do you think we can drive progress in research to deliver these answers faster, to really try and shorten those diagnostic journeys, like what are the recommendations that you would say there?

Jamie:  So being able to use the Genomics England data that’s in the National Genomic Reference Library, as well as kind of other resources, has really transformed what we can do as researchers because it enables teams across the UK, across the world to work with data that otherwise they wouldn’t be able to work with.  

Behind that there’s an infrastructure where if researchers find something which they think is of interest that can be reported back, it can be curated and analysed by teams at Genomics England and, where appropriate, kind of transferred to the clinical teams that have referred that family. And so having that pathway is great but there’s still more that we can do about this. You know, it’s reliant on things going through a very kind of fixed system and making sure that clinicians don’t lose contact with families – you know, people move, they move locations, etc. And so, I think a lot of it is logistical and making sure that the right information can get to the right people, but it all falls under this kind of umbrella of being able to translate those research findings, where appropriate, into clinical reporting.  

Adam:  Thank you. And, Emma, is there anything you would add in terms of like any key challenges that you think need to be overcome just to try and shorten the journeys as much as possible and find the answers to get a diagnosis? 

Emma: I think trying to bridge that gap between some of the new technologies and new approaches that we’ve got that we can access in a research context and bringing those into diagnostics is a key area to try to reduce that diagnostic odyssey, so I really want to see the NHS continuing to support those sorts of initiatives.  

We’re very lucky, as Jamie said, the National Genomic Research Library has been fundamental for being able to reduce the diagnostic odyssey for large numbers of patients, not just in this country but around the world, and so trying to kind of look at how we might add additional data into the NGRL, use other research opportunities that we have in a more synergistic way with diagnostics I think is probably key to being able to do that.   

We are very lucky in this country with the infrastructure that we’ve got and the fact that everything is so joined up. We’re able to provide different opportunities in genomics for patients with rare conditions that aren’t so available elsewhere in the world. 

Adam: Great, thank you. I think we’re it for time, so thank you very much to the panel. And I’d just say that if you do have any further questions for ourselves as participants then we’re only too happy to pick those up. Thank you for lasting with us ‘til the end of the day and hope to see you soon. 

--

Sharon: A huge thank you to our panel, Adam Clatworthy, Emma Baple, Jo Wright, Lisa Beaton and Jamie Ellingford, for sharing their insights and experiences.

Each year at the summit, the Behind the Genes stage hosts podcast style conversations, bringing together researchers, clinicians and participants to discuss key topics in genomics.  If you’re interested in attending a future Genomics England Research Summit, keep an eye out on our socials.

If you’d like to hear more conversations like this, please like and subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. Thank you for listening.   

I’ve been your host, Sharon Jones. The podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital and produced by Deanna Barac.