Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate

Incidental or secondary findings (ISFs) in whole exome or whole genome sequencing have been widely debated in recent literature. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' recommendations on diagnostic ISFs have strongly catalyzed the discussion, resulting in worldwide reactions and a variety of international guidelines. This article will outline how propositions on levels of terminology, policy, and underlying values are still internationally criticized and adjusted. Unsolved questions regarding ISFs include a suitable terminology, adequate counseling or informed consent procedures, opt-out possibilities, reporting ISFs to (parents of) minors and values regarding professional duty, patient autonomy, and actionability. These questions will be characterized as intrinsically related and reciprocally maintained and hence, symptomatic, single-level reflections will be marked as ineffective. Instead, a level-integrative approach of the debate that explicitly acknowledges this interaction and considers a balance between internationally significant and case-specific solutions, will be advocated. Second, the inclusion of a patient perspective will be strongly encouraged to complement the professional preponderance in the current debate. The examination of lived patient experiences, a qualitative focus on the subjective meaning of ISFs, and a contextualization of meaning processes will be suggested as specific concretizations. This integrative and inclusive approach aims for a more comprehensive understanding of ISFs, a consideration of all relevant stakeholders' perspective and, ultimately, an effective health-care policy.

Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study

With large-scale genome sequencing initiatives underway, vast amounts of genomic data are being generated. Results-including secondary findings (SF)-are being returned, although policies around generation and management remain inconsistent. In order to inform relevant policy, it is essential that the views of stakeholders be considered-including participants who have made decisions about SF since the wider debate began. We conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen rare disease patients and parents enroled in genome sequencing to explore views towards SF. Informed by extensive contact with the healthcare system, interviewees demonstrated high levels of understanding of genetic testing and held pragmatic views: many are content not knowing SF. Interviewees expressed trust in the system and healthcare providers, as well as an appreciation of limited resources; acknowledging existing disease burden, many preferred to focus on their primary condition. Many demonstrated an expectation for recontact and assumed the possibility of later access to initially declined SF. In the absence of such an infrastructure, it is important that responsibilities for recontact are delineated, expectations are addressed, and the long-term impact of decisions is made clear during consent. In addition, some interviewees demonstrated fluid views towards SF, and suggestions were made that perceptions may be influenced by family history. Further research into the changing desirability of SF and behavioural impact of disclosure are needed, and the development and introduction of mechanisms to respond to changes in patient views should be considered.

Managing unsolicited findings in genomics: A qualitative interview study with cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being employed in the context of personalized cancer treatment. Anticipating unsolicited findings that may arise during a NGS procedure is a key consideration; however, little is known about cancer patients' intentions, needs, and preferences concerning the return of unsolicited findings.

METHODS

A qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews with 24 cancer patients was utilized to explore patients' decisions on whether to receive unsolicited findings from NGS. These interviews were subsequently analyzed using the constant comparative method to develop codes and themes.

RESULTS

We identified 4 interrelated themes that emerged in the context of the return of unsolicited findings. First, we describe how cancer patients expressed a strong need to control their lives. Second, we show the importance of family dynamics. Third, the NGS procedure regarding unsolicited findings is perceived as cognitively complex, and fourth, the procedure is also considered emotionally complex.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of what cancer patients consider important and what may motivate and influence them when making decisions on the disclosure of unsolicited findings following NGS. We show how Joel Feinberg's classification of autonomy may help clinicians to better understand cancer patients' desire for autonomous decision making while also acknowledging the emotional and cognitive difficulties regarding the disclosure of unsolicited findings. These insights could be helpful for clinicians to guide patients through this complex process.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

"I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings

Lowered costs of genomic sequencing facilitate analyzing large segments of genetic data. Ethical debate has focused on whether and what kind of incidental or secondary findings (SFs) to report, and how to obtain valid informed consent. However, people's support needs after receiving SFs have received less attention. We explored Finnish adults' perspectives on reporting genetic SFs. In this qualitative study which included four focus group discussions (N = 23) we used four vignette letters, each reporting a genetic SF predisposing to a different disease: familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Transcribed focus group discussions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Major themes were immediate shock, dealing with worry and heightened risk, fear of being left alone to deal with SFs, disclosing to family, and identified support needs. Despite their willingness to receive SFs, participants were concerned about being left alone to deal with them. Empathetic expert support and timely access to preventive care were seen as essential to coping with shock and worry, and disclosing SFs to family. Discussion around SFs needs to concern not only which findings to report, but also how healthcare systems need to prepare for providing timely access to preventive care and support for individuals and families.

Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories

BACKGROUND

Increasingly used for clinical purposes, genome and exome sequencing can generate clinically relevant information that is not directly related to the reason for testing (incidental or secondary findings). Debates about the ethical implications of secondary findings were sparked by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2013 policy statement, which recommended that laboratories report pathogenic alterations in 56 genes. Although wide variation in laboratories' secondary findings policies has been reported, little is known about its causes.

METHODS

We interviewed 18 laboratory directors and genetic counselors at 10 U.S. laboratories to investigate the motivations and interests shaping secondary findings reporting policies for clinical exome sequencing. Analysis of interview transcripts and laboratory documents was informed by sociological theories of standardization.

RESULTS

Laboratories varied widely in terms of the types of secondary findings reported, consent-form language, and choices offered to patients. In explaining their adaptation of the ACMG report, our participants weighed genetic information's clinical, moral, professional, and commercial value in an attempt to maximize benefits for patients and families, minimize the costs of sequencing and analysis, adhere to professional norms, attract customers, and contend with the uncertain clinical implications of much of the genetic information generated.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all laboratories in our study voluntarily adopted ACMG's recommendations, but their actual practices varied considerably and were informed by laboratory-specific judgments about clinical utility and patient benefit. Our findings offer a compelling example of standardization as a complex process that rarely leads simply to uniformity of practice. As laboratories take on a more prominent role in decisions about the return of genetic information, strategies are needed to inform patients, families, and clinicians about the differences between laboratories' practices and ensure that the consent process prompts a discussion of the value of additional genetic information for patients and their families.

Is It Our Duty To Hunt for Pathogenic Mutations?

Should professionals systematically screen whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data to check for life-threatening mutations? Alternatively, should genome analysis focus on the primary reason for testing - that is, aiming to achieve precision medicine? We present an ethical review of the arguments and compare the act of searching for mutations with disclosing mutations that are discovered incidentally.

"Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project

Purpose

Approaches to secondary findings in genome sequencing (GS) are unresolved. In the United Kingdom, GS is now routinely available through the 100,000 Genomes Project, which offers participants feedback of limited secondary findings.

Methods

In Oxford, a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team (GM-MDT) governs local access to GS, and reviews findings. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 GM-MDT members to explore perspectives on secondary findings.

Results

While enthusiastic about GS for diagnosing rare disease, members question the rationale for genome screening largely because of lack of evidence for clinical utility and limited justification for use of resources. Members’ views are drawn from diverse experiences; they feel a strong sense of responsibility to act in participants’ best interests. The capacity to return limited secondary findings should be enabled, but members favor a cautious approach that is responsive to accumulating evidence. Informed participant choice is considered critical, yet challenging. Discrimination of variants is considered essential, and requiring of specialist input and consensus. Multiple areas requiring enhanced engagement and education are identified, i.e., for patients, the public, and health-care professionals; at present, mainstreaming of genomics may be premature.

Conclusion

UK experts believe that evidence to inform policy toward secondary findings is lacking, arguing for caution.

Supplementary information

The online version of this article (doi:10.1038/gim.2017.157) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.

GROWING POINTS

SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.

A 'joint venture' model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation

Advances in genomics often lead healthcare professionals (HCPs) to learn new information, e.g., about reinterpreted variants that could have clinical significance for patients seen previously. A question arises of whether HCPs should recontact these former patients. We present some findings interrogating the views of patients (or parents of patients) with a rare or undiagnosed condition about how such recontacting might be organised ethically and practically. Forty-one interviews were analysed thematically. Participants suggested a 'joint venture' model in which efforts to recontact are shared with HCPs. Some proposed an ICT-approach involving an electronic health record that automatically alerts them to potentially relevant updates. The need for rigorous privacy controls and transparency about who could access their data was emphasised. Importantly, these findings highlight that the lack of clarity about recontacting is a symptom of a wider problem: the lack of necessary infrastructure to pool genomic data responsibly, to aggregate it with other health data, and to enable patients/parents to receive updates. We hope that our findings will instigate a debate about the way responsibilities for recontacting under any joint venture model could be allocated, as well as the limitations and normative implications of using ICT as a solution to this intractable problem. As a first step to delineating responsibilities in the clinical setting, we suggest HCPs should routinely discuss recontacting with patients/parents, including the new information that should trigger a HCP to initiate recontact, as part of the consent process for genetic testing.

Insights from early experience of a Rare Disease Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team: a qualitative study

Whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) has the potential to enhance genetic diagnosis of rare disease, and is increasingly becoming part of routine clinical care in mainstream medicine. Effective translation will require ongoing efforts in a number of areas including: selection of appropriate patients, provision of effective consent, pre- and post-test genetic counselling, improving variant interpretation algorithms and practices, and management of secondary findings including those found incidentally and those actively sought. Allied to this is the need for an effective education programme for all members of clinical teams involved in care of patients with rare disease, as well as to maintain public confidence in the use of these technologies. We established a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team (GM-MDT) in 2014 to build on the experiences of earlier successful research-based WES/WGS studies, to address these needs and to review results including pertinent and secondary findings. Here we report on a qualitative study of decision-making in the GM-MDT combined with analysis of semi-structured interviews with GM-MDT members. Study findings show that members appreciate the clinical and scientific diversity of the GM-MDT and value it for education and oversight. To date, discussions have focussed on case selection including the extent and interpretation of clinical and family history information required to establish likely monogenic aetiology and inheritance model. Achieving a balance between effective use of WES/WGS - prioritising cases in a diverse and highly complex patient population where WES/WGS will be tractable - and meeting the recruitment targets of a large project is considered challenging.