The legal risks of returning results of genomics research

Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care

The return of individual results to research participants has been vigorously debated. Consensus statements indicate that researchers and bioethicists consider the return of research results most appropriate when the findings are clinically relevant. Even when clinical utility is the motivator, however, the return of individual research results is not equivalent to clinical care. There are important differences in the domains of research and medical care, both from a legal standpoint and in terms of the ethical responsibilities of clinicians and researchers. As a corollary, researchers risk promoting a therapeutic misconception if they create quasi-clinical settings for return of clinically relevant research results. Rather, efforts should be focused on clarity in the provision of research results, appropriate caveats and, most important, appropriate referrals when the results may be helpful to consider in medical care.

Disclosure of individual pharmacogenomic results in research projects: when and what kind of information to return to research participants

In the growing field of genomics, the utility of returning certain research results to participants has become a highly debated issue. Existing guidelines are not explicit as to the kind of genomic information that should be returned to research participants. Moreover, very few current recommendations and articles in the literature address the return of pharmacogenomic results. Although genetics and pharmacogenomics have many similarities, the circumstances in which disclosure could have a benefit for the participants are different. This review aims to describe the conditions in which disclosure of pharmacogenomic results is appropriate.

Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients

Next-generation sequencing is increasingly being chosen as a diagnostic tool for cases of expected genetic, but unresolved origin. The consequential increased need for decisions on disclosure of unsolicited findings poses a challenge for the informed consent procedure. This study explored the first experiences with, and needs for, the informed consent procedure in diagnostic exome sequencing, with the stakeholders involved. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 professional experts and one professional gave a written response. Furthermore, the counseling process was observed in three cases where exome sequencing was offered, followed by interviews with the patient (representative) and the genetic counselor. The respondents not only preferred an opt-out for unsolicited findings but also identified many challenges and therefore more experiences with exome sequencing was considered needed. Context-dependent decision-making was observed and an Advisory Board for unsolicited findings was considered helpful while doubts were raised about the feasibility and the possibility of undermining patients' autonomy. Finally, respondents brought up the complexity of information provision, and division of responsibilities between clinicians and the lab. These challenges and needs, raised by stakeholders involved, provide more insight in the next steps needed for an optimal informed consent procedure for exome sequencing in diagnostics.

Disclosure of amyloid imaging results to research participants: has the time come?

Amyloid imaging is becoming an increasingly popular tool in clinical research on Alzheimer's disease. In early studies, questions of whether to disclose amyloid imaging results were largely mooted by the immature state of the science. Lack of clarity as to what constituted a positive scan and what a positive scan meant from a prognostic or diagnostic perspective required investigators to advise research participants that, because their scans could not be meaningfully interpreted in a clinical sense, individual research scan results would not be disclosed. With a focus on the most widely used research tracer, Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB), we consider how advances in amyloid imaging are raising new questions about the appropriateness of withholding research results from study participants. We conclude that, although it remains advisable to withhold amyloid scan results from cognitively normal participants, it is no longer reasonable to uphold policies that unilaterally advise research participants with documented cognitive impairment that their PiB scans are uninterpretable. We outline circumstances that we believe compel investigators to provide research participants with the option of receiving their PiB scan results in a carefully managed fashion. Our findings can potentially be generalized to research involving all validated amyloid tracers.

Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research

The use of biobanks in biomedical research has grown considerably in recent years. As a result of the increasing analysis of tissue samples stored in biobanks, there has also been an increase in the probability of discovering-in addition to the research target-incidental findings (IF). We identified 23 laws, policies and guidelines from international, regional and national organizations that provide guidance or identify the need for the disclosure of IF to research participants. We analyzed these instruments to determine their contemplation of the funding considerations for the disclosure of IF, examining their guidance for who discloses and the extent of researcher responsibilities. We found that the available normative documents provide little guidance to researchers and biobanks for how they should address cost and funding concerns associated with IF disclosure. It is therefore essential that the research and policy communities think through the financial implications of imposing an ethical responsibility to disclose IF. Concerted efforts should be made by policymakers, ethicists, researchers, clinicians and research institutions to develop detailed funding recommendations, potentially universal in application, to aid in the disclosure of IF, and we provide recommendations on steps that can be taken to ensure full consideration of these issues.

Next generation sequencing in psychiatric research: what study participants need to know about research findings

The use of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies in psychiatric genetics research and its potential to generate individual research results will likely have far reaching implications for predictive and diagnostic practices. The extent of this impact may not be easily understood by psychiatric research participants during the consent process. The traditional consent process for studies involving human subjects does not address critical issues specific to NGS research, such as the return of results. We examined which type of research findings should be communicated, how this information should be conveyed during the consent process and what guidance is required by researchers and IRBs to help psychiatric research participants understand the peculiarities, the limits and the impact of NGS. Strong standards are needed to ensure appropriate use of data generated by NGS, to meet participants' expectations and needs, and to clarify researchers' duties regarding the disclosure of data and their subsequent management. In the short term, researchers and IRBs need to be proactive in revising current consent processes that deal with the disclosure of research findings.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records

The inclusion of genomic data in the electronic health record raises important ethical, legal, and social issues. In this article, we highlight these challenges and discuss potential solutions. We provide a brief background on the current state of electronic health records in the context of genomic medicine, discuss the importance of equitable access to genome-enabled electronic health records, and consider the potential use of electronic health records for improving genomic literacy in patients and providers. We highlight the importance of privacy, access, and security, and of determining which genomic information is included in the electronic health record. Finally, we discuss the challenges of reporting incidental findings, storing and reinterpreting genomic data, and nondocumentation and duty to warn family members at potential genetic risk.

Interpreting secondary cardiac disease variants in an exome cohort

BACKGROUND

Massively parallel sequencing to identify rare variants is widely practiced in medical research and in the clinic. Genome and exome sequencing can identify the genetic cause of a disease (primary results), but it can also identify pathogenic variants underlying diseases that are not being sought (secondary or incidental results). A major controversy has developed surrounding the return of secondary results to research participants. We have piloted a method to analyze exomes to identify participants at risk for cardiac arrhythmias, cardiomyopathies, or sudden death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Exome sequencing was performed on 870 participants not selected for arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or a family history of sudden death. Exome data from 22 cardiac arrhythmia- and 41 cardiomyopathy-associated genes were analyzed using an algorithm that filtered results on genotype quality, frequency, and database information. We identified 1367 variants in the cardiomyopathy genes and 360 variants in the arrhythmia genes. Six participants had pathogenic variants associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (n=1), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=2), left ventricular noncompaction (n=1), or long-QT syndrome (n=2). Two of these participants had evidence of cardiomyopathy and 1 had left ventricular noncompaction on echocardiogram. Three participants with likely pathogenic variants had prolonged QTc. Family history included unexplained sudden death among relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 0.5% of participants in this study had pathogenic variants in known cardiomyopathy or arrhythmia genes. This high frequency may be due to self-selection, false positives, or underestimation of the prevalence of these conditions. We conclude that clinically important cardiomyopathy and dysrhythmia secondary variants can be identified in unselected exomes.

Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science

The debate over return of individual research results and incidental findings to study participants is a key frontier in research ethics and practice. This is fundamentally a problem of translational science-a question of when information about an individual that is generated in research should be communicated for clinical attention, particularly as technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing are increasingly used in clinical care. There is growing consensus that investigators should offer participants at least those individual findings of high clinical importance and actionability. Increasing attention to what information biobanks and secondary researchers owe people who provide data and specimens offers an opportunity to treat these source individuals as research partners. Cutting-edge issues include return of results in pediatric populations and return to kin and family, both before and after the death of the proband, as well as how to manage incidental findings in clinical sequencing. Progress will require an understanding of the continuum linking research and clinical care and developing standards and models for return.

Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study

Patients from traditionally underrepresented communities need to be involved in discussions around genomics research including attitudes towards participation and receiving personal results. Structured interviews, including open-ended and closed-ended questions, were conducted with 205 patients in an inner-city hospital outpatient clinic: 48 % of participants self-identified as Black or African American, 29 % Hispanic, 10 % White; 49 % had an annual household income of <$20,000. When the potential for personal results to be returned was not mentioned, 82 % of participants were willing to participate in genomics research. Reasons for willingness fell into four themes: altruism; benefit to family members; personal health benefit; personal curiosity and improving understanding. Reasons for being unwilling fell into five themes: negative perception of research; not personally relevant; negative feelings about procedures (e.g., blood draws); practical barriers; and fear of results. Participants were more likely to report that they would participate in genomics research if personal results were offered than if they were not offered (89 vs. 62 % respectively, p < 0.001). Participants were more interested in receiving personal genomic risk results for cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes than obesity (89, 89, 91, 80 % respectively, all p < 0.001). The only characteristic consistently associated with interest in receiving personal results was disease-specific worry. There was considerable willingness to participate in and desire for personal results from genomics research in this sample of predominantly low-income, Hispanic and African American patients. When returning results is not practical, or even when it is, alternatively or additionally providing generic information about genomics and health may also be a valuable commodity to underrepresented minority and other populations considering participating in genomics research.

Views of genetics health professionals on the return of genomic results

As exome and whole genome sequencing become clinically available, the potential to receive a large number of clinically relevant but incidental results is a significant challenge in the provision of genomic counseling. We conducted three focus groups of a total of 35 individuals who were members of ASHG and/or NSGC, assessing views towards the return of genomic results. Participants stressed that patient autonomy was primary. There was consensus that a mechanism to return results to the healthcare provider, rather than patient, and to streamline integration into the electronic health record would ensure these results had the maximal impact on patient management. All three focus groups agreed that pharmacogenomic results were reasonable to return and that they were not felt to be stigmatizing. With regard to the return of medically relevant results, there was much debate. Participants had difficulty in consistently assigning specific diseases to 'bins' that were considered obligatory versus optional for disclosure. Consensus was reached regarding the importance of informed consent and pretest counseling visits to clarify what the return of results process would entail. Evidence based professional guidelines should continue to be developed and regularly revised to assist in consistently and appropriately providing genomic results to patients.

Ethical and legal implications of whole genome and whole exome sequencing in African populations

BACKGROUND

Rapid advances in high throughput genomic technologies and next generation sequencing are making medical genomic research more readily accessible and affordable, including the sequencing of patient and control whole genomes and exomes in order to elucidate genetic factors underlying disease. Over the next five years, the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Initiative, funded by the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom) and the National Institutes of Health (United States of America), will contribute greatly towards sequencing of numerous African samples for biomedical research.

DISCUSSION

Funding agencies and journals often require submission of genomic data from research participants to databases that allow open or controlled data access for all investigators. Access to such genotype-phenotype and pedigree data, however, needs careful control in order to prevent identification of individuals or families. This is particularly the case in Africa, where many researchers and their patients are inexperienced in the ethical issues accompanying whole genome and exome research; and where an historical unidirectional flow of samples and data out of Africa has created a sense of exploitation and distrust. In the current study, we analysed the implications of the anticipated surge of next generation sequencing data in Africa and the subsequent data sharing concepts on the protection of privacy of research subjects. We performed a retrospective analysis of the informed consent process for the continent and the rest-of-the-world and examined relevant legislation, both current and proposed. We investigated the following issues: (i) informed consent, including guidelines for performing culturally-sensitive next generation sequencing research in Africa and availability of suitable informed consent documents; (ii) data security and subject privacy whilst practicing data sharing; (iii) conveying the implications of such concepts to research participants in resource limited settings.

SUMMARY

We conclude that, in order to meet the unique requirements of performing next generation sequencing-related research in African populations, novel approaches to the informed consent process are required. This will help to avoid infringement of privacy of individual subjects as well as to ensure that informed consent adheres to acceptable data protection levels with regard to use and transfer of such information.

Incidental variants are critical for genomics

The topic of incidental variants detected through exome and genome sequencing is controversial, both in clinical practice and in research. The arguments for and against the deliberate analysis and return of incidental variants focus on issues of clinical validity, clinical utility, autonomy, clinical and research infrastructure and costs, and, in the research arena, therapeutic misconception. These topics are briefly reviewed and an argument is made that these variants are the future of genomic medicine. As a field, we should take full advantage of all opportunities to study these variants by searching them out, returning them to patients and research participants, and studying their utility for predictive medicine.

Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model

Researchers and clinicians face the practical and ethical challenge of if and how to offer for return the wide and varied scope of results available from individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing. We argue that rather than viewing individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing as a test for which results need to be "returned," that the technology should instead be framed as a dynamic resource of information from which results should be "managed" over the lifetime of an individual. We further suggest that individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing results management is optimized using a self-guided approach that enables individuals to self-select among results offered for return in a convenient, confidential, personalized context that is responsive to their value system. This approach respects autonomy, allows individuals to maximize potential benefits of genomic information (beneficence) and minimize potential harms (nonmaleficence), and also preserves their right to an open future to the extent they desire or think is appropriate. We describe key challenges and advantages of such a self-guided management system and offer guidance on implementation using an information systems approach.

Personalized medicine in the care of the child with congenital heart disease: discovery to application

On October 27-28, 2012, the SickKids Labatt Family Heart Centre and the Heart Centre Biobank Registry hosted the second international GenomeHeart symposium in Toronto, Ontario. The symposium featured experts in cardiology, developmental biology, pharmacology, genomics, bioinformatics, stem cell biology, biobanking, and ethics. The theme of this year's symposium was the application of emerging technologies in genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, and bioinformatics to diagnostics and therapeutics of the child with heart disease. Social, ethical, and economic issues were also discussed in the context of clinical translation. We highlight some of the themes that emerged from this exciting 2-day event.

Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data

The scale of tumor genomic profiling is rapidly outpacing human cognitive capacity to make clinical decisions without the aid of tools. New frameworks are needed to help researchers and clinicians process the information emerging from the explosive growth in both the number of tumor genetic variants routinely tested and the respective knowledge to interpret their clinical significance. We review the current state, limitations, and future trends in methods to support the clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genomes. This includes the processes of genome-scale variant identification, including tools for sequence alignment, tumor-germline comparison, and molecular annotation of variants. The process of clinical interpretation of tumor variants includes classification of the effect of the variant, reporting the results to clinicians, and enabling the clinician to make a clinical decision based on the genomic information integrated with other clinical features. We describe existing knowledge bases, databases, algorithms, and tools for identification and visualization of tumor variants and their actionable subsets. With the decreasing cost of tumor gene mutation testing and the increasing number of actionable therapeutics, we expect the methods for analysis and interpretation of cancer genomes to continue to evolve to meet the needs of patient-centered clinical decision making. The science of computational cancer medicine is still in its infancy; however, there is a clear need to continue the development of knowledge bases, best practices, tools, and validation experiments for successful clinical implementation in oncology.

Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians

PURPOSE

Clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will result in a broad range of incidental findings, but clinicians' obligations to identify and disclose such findings are a matter of debate. We sought legal cases that could offer insights into clinicians' legal liability.

METHODS

We searched for cases in which incidental findings were related to the cause of action, using the search engines WestLaw, WestLaw Next, Lexis, and Lexis Advance.

RESULTS

We found no case law related to incidental findings from genetic testing but identified eight cases involving incidental findings in medical imaging. These cases suggest that clinicians may face liability for failing to disclose incidental findings that would have offered an opportunity for interventions to improve health outcome, if under the applicable standard of care, they fail to identify or appreciate the significance of the incidental finding or they negligently fail to notify other clinicians and/or the patient of the identified incidental finding. Other cases support liability for failure to refer appropriately to a clinician with greater expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians may face liability if they fail to disclose incidental information that could inform interventions to improve health outcome; information lacking clinical actionability is likely to have less import.

Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey

Background

Effective translational biomedical research hinges on the operation of 'biobanks,' repositories that assemble, store, and manage collections of human specimens and related data. Some are established intentionally to address particular research needs; many, however, have arisen opportunistically, in a variety of settings and with a variety of expectations regarding their functions and longevity. Despite their rising prominence, little is known about how biobanks are organized and function beyond simple classification systems (government, academia, industry).

Methods

In 2012, we conducted the first national survey of biobanks in the U.S., collecting information on their origins, specimen collections, organizational structures, and market contexts and sustainability. From a list of 636 biobanks assembled through a multi-faceted search strategy, representatives from 456 U.S. biobanks were successfully recruited for a 30-minute online survey (72% response rate). Both closed and open-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

While nearly two-thirds of biobanks were established within the last decade, 17% have been in existence for over 20 years. Fifty-three percent listed research on a particular disease as the most important reason for establishment; 29% listed research generally. Other reasons included response to a grant or gift, and intent to centralize, integrate, or harmonize existing research structures. Biobank collections are extraordinarily diverse in number and types of specimens and in sources (often multiple) from which they are obtained, including from individuals, clinics or hospitals, public health programs, and research studies. Forty-four percent of biobanks store pediatric specimens, and 36% include postmortem specimens. Most biobanks are affiliated in one or multiple ways with other entities: 88% are part of at least one or more larger organizations (67% of these are academic, 23% hospitals, 13% research institutes). The majority of biobanks seem to fill a particular 'niche' within a larger organization or research area; a minority are concerned about competition for services, although many are worried about underutilization of specimens and long-term funding.

Conclusions

Effective utilization of biobank collections and effective policies to govern their use will require understanding of the immense diversity found in organizational features, including the very different history and primary goals that many biobanks have.

Return of results in translational iPS cell research: considerations for donor informed consent

Efforts have emerged internationally to recruit donors with specific disease indications and to derive induced pluripotent cell lines. These disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cell lines have the potential to accelerate translational goals such as drug discovery and testing. One consideration for donor recruitment and informed consent is the possibility that research will result in findings that are clinically relevant to the cell donor. Management protocols for such findings should be developed a priori and disclosed during the informed consent process. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has developed recommendations for informing donors in sponsored research. These recommendations include obtaining consent to recontact tissue donors for a range of scientific, medical and ethical considerations. This article reviews the basis for these recommendations and suggests conditions that may be appropriate when reporting findings to donors.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Returning genetic research results: study type matters

AIM

The return of individual genetic research results has been identified as one of the most pressing ethical challenges warranting immediate policy attention. We explored the practices and perspectives of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigators on this topic.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Corresponding authors of published GWAS were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews (n = 35) were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Most investigators had not returned GWAS results. Several had experience returning results in the context of linkage/family studies, and many felt that it will become a larger issue in whole-genome/-exome sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Research context and nature of the study are important considerations in the decision to return results. More nuanced ethical guidelines should take these contextual factors into account.

The evolution of biobanking best practices

Biobanks and biospecimens are critical components for many areas of clinical and basic research. The quality of biospecimens and associated data must be consistent and collected according to standardized methods in order to prevent spurious analytical results that can lead to artifacts being interpreted as valid findings. A number of international institutions have taken the initiative to develop and publish best practices, which include technical recommendations for handling biospecimens as well as recommendations for ethical and regulatory practices in biobanking. These sources of guidance have been useful in raising the overall consistency and quality of research involving biospecimens. However, the lack of international harmonization, uneven adoption, and insufficient oversight of best practices are preventing further improvements in biospecimen quality and coordination among collaborators and biobanking networks. In contrast to the more straightforward technical and management issues, ethical and regulatory practices often involve issues that are more controversial and difficult to standardize.

Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.