Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network

Returning findings within longitudinal cohort studies: the 1958 birth cohort as an exemplar

Population-based, prospective longitudinal cohort studies are considering the issues surrounding returning findings to individuals as a result of genomic and other medical research studies. While guidance is being developed for clinical settings, the process is less clear for those conducting longitudinal research. This paper discusses work conducted on behalf of The UK Cohort and Longitudinal Study Enhancement Resource programme (CLOSER) to examine consent requirements, process considerations and specific examples of potential findings in the context of the 1958 British Birth cohort. Beyond deciding which findings to return, there are questions of whether re-consent is needed and the possible impact on the study, how the feedback process will be managed, and what resources are needed to support that process. Recommendations are made for actions a cohort study should consider taking when making vital decisions regarding returning findings. Any decisions need to be context-specific, arrived at transparently, communicated clearly, and in the best interests of both the participants and the study.

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project

OBJECTIVE

To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.

RESULTS

Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.

CONCLUSIONS

OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.

Can I be sued for that? Liability risk and the disclosure of clinically significant genetic research findings

Genomic researchers increasingly are faced with difficult decisions about whether, under what circumstances, and how to return research results and significant incidental findings to study participants. Many have argued that there is an ethical-maybe even a legal-obligation to disclose significant findings under some circumstances. At the international level, over the last decade there has begun to emerge a clear legal obligation to return significant findings discovered during the course of research. However, there is no explicit legal duty to disclose in the United States. This creates legal uncertainty that may lead to unmanaged variation in practice and poor quality care. This article discusses liability risks associated with the disclosure of significant research findings for investigators in the United States.

Challenges in translational research: the views of addiction scientists

Objectives

To explore scientists' perspectives on the challenges and pressures of translating research findings into clinical practice and public health policy.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 leading scientists engaged in genetic research on addiction. We asked participants for their views on how their own research translates, how genetic research addresses addiction as a public health problem and how it may affect the public's view of addiction.

Results

Most scientists described a direct translational route for their research, positing that their research will have significant societal benefits, leading to advances in treatment and novel prevention strategies. However, scientists also pointed to the inherent pressures they feel to quickly translate their research findings into actual clinical or public health use. They stressed the importance of allowing the scientific process to play out, voicing ambivalence about the recent push to speed translation.

Conclusions

High expectations have been raised that biomedical science will lead to new prevention and treatment modalities, exerting pressure on scientists. Our data suggest that scientists feel caught in the push for immediate applications. This overemphasis on rapid translation can lead to technologies and applications being rushed into use without critical evaluation of ethical, policy, and social implications, and without balancing their value compared to public health policies and interventions currently in place.

Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing

While there is ongoing discussion about the details of implementation of whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES), there appears to be a consensus amongst geneticists that the widespread use of these approaches is not only inevitable, but will also be beneficial [1]. However, at the present time, we are unable to anticipate the full range of uses, consequences and impact of implementing WGS and WES. Nevertheless, the already known ethical issues, both in research and in clinical practice are diverse and complex and should be addressed properly presently. Herein, we discuss the ethical aspects of WGS and WES by particularly focussing on three overlapping themes: (1) informed consent, (2) data handling, and (3) the return of results.

Return of results in the genomic medicine projects of the eMERGE network

The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) (Phase I) network was established in 2007 to further genomic discovery using biorepositories linked to the electronic health record (EHR). In Phase II, which began in 2011, genomic discovery efforts continue and in addition the network is investigating best practices for implementing genomic medicine, in particular, the return of genomic results in the EHR for use by physicians at point-of-care. To develop strategies for addressing the challenges of implementing genomic medicine in the clinical setting, the eMERGE network is conducting studies that return clinically-relevant genomic results to research participants and their health care providers. These genomic medicine pilot studies include returning individual genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility or drug response, as well as genetic risk scores for common “complex” disorders. Additionally, as part of a network-wide pharmacogenomics-related project, targeted resequencing of 84 pharmacogenes is being performed and select genotypes of pharmacogenetic relevance are being placed in the EHR to guide individualized drug therapy. Individual sites within the eMERGE network are exploring mechanisms to address incidental findings generated by resequencing of the 84 pharmacogenes. In this paper, we describe studies being conducted within the eMERGE network to develop best practices for integrating genomic findings into the EHR, and the challenges associated with such work.

Characterizing genetic variants for clinical action

Genome-wide association studies, DNA sequencing studies, and other genomic studies are finding an increasing number of genetic variants associated with clinical phenotypes that may be useful in developing diagnostic, preventive, and treatment strategies for individual patients. However, few variants have been integrated into routine clinical practice. The reasons for this are several, but two of the most significant are limited evidence about the clinical implications of the variants and a lack of a comprehensive knowledge base that captures genetic variants, their phenotypic associations, and other pertinent phenotypic information that is openly accessible to clinical groups attempting to interpret sequencing data. As the field of medicine begins to incorporate genome-scale analysis into clinical care, approaches need to be developed for collecting and characterizing data on the clinical implications of variants, developing consensus on their actionability, and making this information available for clinical use. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the Wellcome Trust thus convened a workshop to consider the processes and resources needed to: (1) identify clinically valid genetic variants; (2) decide whether they are actionable and what the action should be; and (3) provide this information for clinical use. This commentary outlines the key discussion points and recommendations from the workshop.

Secondary use of clinical data: the Vanderbilt approach

The last decade has seen an exponential growth in the quantity of clinical data collected nationwide, triggering an increase in opportunities to reuse the data for biomedical research. The Vanderbilt research data warehouse framework consists of identified and de-identified clinical data repositories, fee-for-service custom services, and tools built atop the data layer to assist researchers across the enterprise. Providing resources dedicated to research initiatives benefits not only the research community, but also clinicians, patients and institutional leadership. This work provides a summary of our approach in the secondary use of clinical data for research domain, including a description of key components and a list of lessons learned, designed to assist others assembling similar services and infrastructure.

Genetic epidemiology: the potential benefits and challenges of using genetic information to improve human health

Genetic epidemiology has the potential to significantly affect human health. This commentary examines major developments in the field's history, promising avenues of research, and possible challenges faced by genetic epidemiologists.

Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium

As genomic and exomic testing expands in both the research and clinical arenas, determining whether, how, and which incidental findings to return to the ordering clinician and patient becomes increasingly important. Although opinion is varied on what should be returned to consenting patients or research participants, most experts agree that return of medically actionable results should be considered. There is insufficient evidence to fully inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines regarding return of results from genome-scale sequencing, and thus generation of such evidence is imperative, given the rapidity with which genome-scale diagnostic tests are being incorporated into clinical care. We present an overview of the approaches to incidental findings by members of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research network, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute, to generate discussion of these approaches by the clinical genomics community. We also report specific lists of "medically actionable" genes that have been generated by a subset of investigators in order to explore what types of findings have been included or excluded in various contexts. A discussion of the general principles regarding reporting of novel variants, challenging cases (genes for which consensus was difficult to achieve across Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research network sites), solicitation of preferences from participants regarding return of incidental findings, and the timing and context of return of incidental findings are provided.Genet Med 15 11, 860-867.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 860-867. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.133.

Clinical Correlates of Autosomal Chromosomal Abnormalities in an Electronic Medical Record-Linked Genome-Wide Association Study: A Case Series

Although mosaic autosomal chromosomal abnormalities are being increasingly detected as part of high-density genotyping studies, the clinical correlates are unclear. From an electronic medical record (EMR)–based genome-wide association study (GWAS) of peripheral arterial disease, log-R-ratio and B-allele-frequency data were used to identify mosaic autosomal chromosomal abnormalities including copy number variation and loss of heterozygosity. The EMRs of patients with chromosomal abnormalities and those without chromosomal abnormalities were reviewed to compare clinical characteristics. Among 3336 study participants, 0.75% (n = 25, mean age = 74.8 ± 10.7 years, 64% men) had abnormal intensity plots indicative of autosomal chromosomal abnormalities. A hematologic malignancy was present in 8 patients (32%), of whom 4 also had a solid organ malignancy while 2 patients had a solid organ malignancy only. In 50 age- and sex-matched participants without chromosomal abnormalities, there was a lower rate of hematologic malignancies (2% vs 32%, P < .001) but not solid organ malignancies (20% vs 24%, P = .69). We also report the clinical characteristics of each patient with the observed chromosomal abnormalities. Interestingly, among 5 patients with 20q deletions, 4 had a myeloproliferative disorder while all 3 men in this group had prostate cancer. In summary, in a GWAS of 3336 adults, 0.75% had autosomal chromosomal abnormalities and nearly a third of them had hematologic malignancies. A potential novel association between 20q deletions, myeloproliferative disorders, and prostate cancer was also noted.

Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing

Purpose:

Exome sequencing of a single individual for a clinical indication may result in the identification of incidental deleterious variants unrelated to the indication for testing (secondary findings). Given the recent availability of clinical exome testing, there is a limited knowledge regarding the disclosure preferences and impact of secondary findings in a clinical diagnostic setting. In this article, we provide preliminary data regarding the preferences for secondary findings results disclosure based on the first 200 families referred to Ambry Genetics for diagnostic exome sequencing.

Methods:

Secondary findings were categorized into four groups in the diagnostic exome sequencing consent: carrier status of recessive disorders, predisposition to later-onset disease, predisposition to increased cancer risk, and early-onset disease. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patient responses regarding the preferences for secondary findings disclosure.

Results:

The majority of patients (187/200; 93.5%) chose to receive secondary results for one or more available categories. Adult probands were more likely than children to opt for blinding of secondary data (16 vs. 4%, respectively). Among responses for blinding, preferences were evenly scattered among categories.

Conclusion:

These data represent the unprecedented results of a large reference laboratory providing clinical exome sequencing. We report, for the first time, the preferences of patients and families for the receipt of secondary findings based on clinical genome sequencing. Overwhelmingly, families undergoing exome sequencing opt for the disclosure of secondary findings. The data may have implications regarding the development of guidelines for secondary findings reporting among patients with severe and/or life-threatening disease undergoing clinical genomic sequencing.

Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes

The incorporation of genomics into medicine is stimulating interest on the return of incidental findings (IFs) from exome and genome sequencing. However, no large-scale study has yet estimated the number of expected actionable findings per individual; therefore, we classified actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants in 500 European- and 500 African-descent participants randomly selected from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project. The 1,000 individuals were screened for variants in 114 genes selected by an expert panel for their association with medically actionable genetic conditions possibly undiagnosed in adults. Among the 1,000 participants, 585 instances of 239 unique variants were identified as disease causing in the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). The primary literature supporting the variants' pathogenicity was reviewed. Of the identified IFs, only 16 unique autosomal-dominant variants in 17 individuals were assessed to be pathogenic or likely pathogenic, and one participant had two pathogenic variants for an autosomal-recessive disease. Furthermore, one pathogenic and four likely pathogenic variants not listed as disease causing in HGMD were identified. These data can provide an estimate of the frequency (∼3.4% for European descent and ∼1.2% for African descent) of the high-penetrance actionable pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in adults. The 23 participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were disproportionately of European (17) versus African (6) descent. The process of classifying these variants underscores the need for a more comprehensive and diverse centralized resource to provide curated information on pathogenicity for clinical use to minimize health disparities in genomic medicine.

Clinical Correlates of Autosomal Chromosomal Abnormalities in an Electronic Medical Record-Linked Genome-Wide Association Study: A Case Series

Although mosaic autosomal chromosomal abnormalities are being increasingly detected as part of high-density genotyping studies, the clinical correlates are unclear. From an electronic medical record (EMR)-based genome-wide association study (GWAS) of peripheral arterial disease, log-R-ratio and B-allele-frequency data were used to identify mosaic autosomal chromosomal abnormalities including copy number variation and loss of heterozygosity. The EMRs of patients with chromosomal abnormalities and those without chromosomal abnormalities were reviewed to compare clinical characteristics. Among 3336 study participants, 0.75% (n = 25, mean age = 74.8 ± 10.7 years, 64% men) had abnormal intensity plots indicative of autosomal chromosomal abnormalities. A hematologic malignancy was present in 8 patients (32%), of whom 4 also had a solid organ malignancy while 2 patients had a solid organ malignancy only. In 50 age- and sex-matched participants without chromosomal abnormalities, there was a lower rate of hematologic malignancies (2% vs 32%, P < .001) but not solid organ malignancies (20% vs 24%, P = .69). We also report the clinical characteristics of each patient with the observed chromosomal abnormalities. Interestingly, among 5 patients with 20q deletions, 4 had a myeloproliferative disorder while all 3 men in this group had prostate cancer. In summary, in a GWAS of 3336 adults, 0.75% had autosomal chromosomal abnormalities and nearly a third of them had hematologic malignancies. A potential novel association between 20q deletions, myeloproliferative disorders, and prostate cancer was also noted.

Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop, operationalize, and pilot test a transparent, reproducible, and evidence-informed method to determine when to report incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies.

METHODS

Using evidence-based principles, we proposed a three-stage process. Stage I "rules out" incidental findings below a minimal threshold of evidence and is evaluated using inter-rater agreement and comparison with an expert-based approach. Stage II documents criteria for clinical actionability using a standardized approach to allow experts to consistently consider and recommend whether results should be routinely reported (stage III). We used expert opinion to determine the face validity of stages II and III using three case studies. We evaluated the time and effort for stages I and II.

RESULTS

For stage I, we assessed 99 conditions and found high inter-rater agreement (89%), and strong agreement with a separate expert-based method. Case studies for familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary hemochromatosis, and α1-antitrypsin deficiency were all recommended for routine reporting as incidental findings. The method requires <3 days per topic.

CONCLUSION

We establish an operational definition of clinically actionable incidental findings and provide documentation and pilot testing of a feasible method that is scalable to the whole genome.

Motivation in the age of genomics: why genetic findings of disease susceptibility might not motivate behavior change

There is a growing consensus that results generated through multiplex genetic tests, even those produced as a part of research, should be reported to providers and patients when they are considered “actionable,” that is, when they could be used to inform some potentially beneficial clinical action. However, there remains controversy over the precise criterion that should be used in identifying when a result meets this standard. In this paper, we seek to refine the concept of “actionability” by exploring one proposed use for genetic test results. We argue that genetic test results indicating that a patient is at risk for developing a chronic health condition should not be considered actionable if the only potential value of that result is to motivate patients to make changes in their health behaviors. Since the empirical research currently available on this question is equivocal, we explore relevant psychological theories of human motivation to demonstrate that current theory does not support the assumption that information about genetic risk will be motivating to most patients in their attempts to make changes in health behaviors.

Assigning value to medical algorithms: implications for personalized medicine

Genomic algorithms are typically multiple variable, mathematical equations that assign a score or probability to an event of clinical interest. Debate about the valuation of multianalyte algorithm assays highlights the gaps in best practices for valuing technologies. Decisions about valuation are partly about resolving scientific uncertainty, but also involve issues of social norms and political processes. More transparent discussion and understanding of beliefs about the valuation of algorithms would help reduce uncertainty and drive optimal investment in development and adoption of algorithms that improve social welfare; that is, affordably improving population health. Techniques have been evolving for greater public participation and engagement in such deliberations, which are to be encouraged in determining the valuation of genomic algorithms.

Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics

Genomic technologies are reaching the point of being able to detect genetic variation in patients at high accuracy and reduced cost, offering the promise of fundamentally altering medicine. Still, although scientists and policy advisers grapple with how to interpret and how to handle the onslaught and ambiguity of genome-wide data, established and well-validated molecular technologies continue to have an important role, especially in regions of the world that have more limited access to next-generation sequencing capabilities. Here we review the range of methods currently available in a clinical setting as well as emerging approaches in clinical molecular diagnostics. In parallel, we outline implementation challenges that will be necessary to address to ensure the future of genetic medicine.

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.

Personalized medicine: challenges and opportunities for translational bioinformatics

Personalized medicine can be defined broadly as a model of healthcare that is predictive, personalized, preventive and participatory. Two US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology reports illustrate challenges in personalized medicine (in a 2008 report) and in use of health information technology (in a 2010 report). Translational bioinformatics is a field that can help address these challenges and is defined by the American Medical Informatics Association as "the development of storage, analytic and interpretive methods to optimize the transformation of increasing voluminous biomedical data into proactive, predictive, preventative and participatory health." This article discusses barriers to implementing genomics applications and current progress toward overcoming barriers, describes lessons learned from early experiences of institutions engaged in personalized medicine and provides example areas for translational bioinformatics research inquiry.

ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing

In clinical exome and genome sequencing, there is a potential for the recognition and reporting of incidental or secondary findings unrelated to the indication for ordering the sequencing but of medical value for patient care. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recently published a policy statement on clinical sequencing that emphasized the importance of alerting the patient to the possibility of such results in pretest patient discussions, clinical testing, and reporting of results. The ACMG appointed a Working Group on Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing to make recommendations about responsible management of incidental findings when patients undergo exome or genome sequencing. This Working Group conducted a year-long consensus process, including an open forum at the 2012 Annual Meeting and review by outside experts, and produced recommendations that have been approved by the ACMG Board. Specific and detailed recommendations, and the background and rationale for these recommendations, are described herein. The ACMG recommends that laboratories performing clinical sequencing seek and report mutations of the specified classes or types in the genes listed here. This evaluation and reporting should be performed for all clinical germline (constitutional) exome and genome sequencing, including the "normal" of tumor-normal subtractive analyses in all subjects, irrespective of age but excluding fetal samples. We recognize that there are insufficient data on penetrance and clinical utility to fully support these recommendations, and we encourage the creation of an ongoing process for updating these recommendations at least annually as further data are collected.

Natural language processing: state of the art and prospects for significant progress, a workshop sponsored by the National Library of Medicine

Natural language processing (NLP) is crucial for advancing healthcare because it is needed to transform relevant information locked in text into structured data that can be used by computer processes aimed at improving patient care and advancing medicine. In light of the importance of NLP to health, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) recently sponsored a workshop to review the state of the art in NLP focusing on text in English, both in biomedicine and in the general language domain. Specific goals of the NLM-sponsored workshop were to identify the current state of the art, grand challenges and specific roadblocks, and to identify effective use and best practices. This paper reports on the main outcomes of the workshop, including an overview of the state of the art, strategies for advancing the field, and obstacles that need to be addressed, resulting in recommendations for a research agenda intended to advance the field.

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.

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network is a National Human Genome Research Institute–funded consortium engaged in the development of methods and best practices for using the electronic medical record as a tool for genomic research. Now in its sixth year and second funding cycle, and comprising nine research groups and a coordinating center, the network has played a major role in validating the concept that clinical data derived from electronic medical records can be used successfully for genomic research. Current work is advancing knowledge in multiple disciplines at the intersection of genomics and health-care informatics, particularly for electronic phenotyping, genome-wide association studies, genomic medicine implementation, and the ethical and regulatory issues associated with genomics research and returning results to study participants. Here, we describe the evolution, accomplishments, opportunities, and challenges of the network from its inception as a five-group consortium focused on genotype–phenotype associations for genomic discovery to its current form as a nine-group consortium pivoting toward the implementation of genomic medicine.

Genet Med15 10, 761–771.

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.

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.

Biobanking: The Melding of Research with Clinical Care

The number of biobanks around the world has increased dramatically, owing in part, to the need for researchers to have access to large numbers of samples for genomic research. Policies for enrolling participants, returning research results and obtaining samples and data can have a far reaching impact on the type of research that can be performed with each biobank. Research using biobank samples includes studies of the impact of environmental and other risk exposures on health, understanding genetic risks for common disease, identification of biomarkers in disease progression and prognosis, and implementation of personalized medicine projects. This research has been instrumental in the progress of genetic and genomic research and translational medicine. This article will highlight some of the controversies and recent research associated with biobanking over the past year.

Incidental genetic findings in randomized clinical trials: recommendations from the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET)

Recommendations and guidance on how to handle the return of genetic results to patients have offered limited insight into how to approach incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials. This paper provides the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET) recommendations on incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials, and discusses the ethical and practical issues considered in formulating our recommendations. There are arguments in support of as well as against returning incidental genetic findings in clinical trials. For instance, reporting incidental findings in clinical trials may improve the investigator-participant relationship and the satisfaction of participation, but it may also blur the line between clinical care and research. The issues of whether and how to return incidental genetic findings, including the costs of doing so, should be considered when developing clinical trial protocols. Once decided, plans related to sharing individual results from the aim(s) of the trial, as well as incidental findings, should be discussed explicitly in the consent form. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other study-specific governing bodies should be part of the decision as to if, when, and how to return incidental findings, including when plans in this regard are being reconsidered.

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.

Diagnostic applications of high-throughput DNA sequencing

Advances in DNA sequencing technology have allowed comprehensive investigation of the genetics of human beings and human diseases. Insights from sequencing the genomes, exomes, or transcriptomes of healthy and diseased cells in patients are already enabling improved diagnostic classification, prognostication, and therapy selection for many diseases. Understanding the data obtained using new high-throughput DNA sequencing methods, choices made in sequencing strategies, and common challenges in data analysis and genotype-phenotype correlation is essential if pathologists, geneticists, and clinicians are to interpret the growing scientific literature in this area. This review highlights some of the major results and discoveries stemming from high-throughput DNA sequencing research in our understanding of Mendelian genetic disorders, hematologic cancer biology, infectious diseases, the immune system, transplant biology, and prenatal diagnostics. Transition of new DNA sequencing methodologies to the clinical laboratory is under way and is likely to have a major impact on all areas of medicine.

Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study

Genome sequencing has been rapidly integrated into clinical research and is currently marketed to health-care practitioners and consumers alike. The volume of sequencing data generated for a single individual and the wide range of findings from whole-genome sequencing raise critical questions about the return of results and their potential value for end-users. We conducted a mixed-methods study of 311 sequential participants in the NIH ClinSeq study to assess general preferences and specific attitudes toward learning results. We tested how these variables predicted intentions to receive results within four categories of findings ranging from medically actionable to variants of unknown significance. Two hundred and ninety-four participants indicated a preference to learn their genome sequencing results. Most often, participants cited disease prevention as their reason, including intention to change their lifestyle behaviors. Participants held positive attitudes, strongly perceived social norms and strong intentions to learn results, although there were significant mean differences among four categories of findings (P<0.01). Attitudes and social norms for medically actionable and carrier results were most similar and rated the highest. Participants distinguished among the types and quality of information they may receive, despite strong intentions to learn all results presented. These intentions were motivated by confidence in their ability to use the information to prevent future disease and a belief in the value of even uninterpretable information. It behooves investigators to facilitate participants' desire to learn a range of information from genomic sequencing while promoting realistic expectations for its clinical and personal utility.

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.

The legal risks of returning results of genomics research

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing "consensus," which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.