Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing

Challenges and practical solutions for managing secondary genomic findings in primary care

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings.

An African Relational Approach to Healthcare and Big Data Challenges

Big Data has amplified some challenges in the healthcare context. One significant challenge is how to use healthcare big data (HBD) in ways that honor individual rights to informed consent or privacy. Careful analysis from diverse backgrounds will be vital in contributing ethical guidelines that can adequately address healthcare Big Data's growing complexities globally. Especially, the study argues that an under-explored African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully influence big data practices in ways that address this challenge without undermining its benefits. Ubuntu emphasizes harmonious relationships. Harmonious relations entail identifying with one another and exhibiting solidarity to each other. One can identify or exhibit solidarity with others through psychological attitudes such as thinking of oneself as part of a "we" and acting in ways that will more likely improve the quality of life of others. The African relational philosophy of Ubuntu deserves to be given an audience not only for epistemic justice but also because the continued absence of African perspective in the discourse on ethical use of HBD science represents a missed opportunity to enrich ethical thinking about HBD from diverse backgrounds. Research is, however, required to provide greater specificity on how Ubuntu values may be integrated into HBD analytic techniques.

Next Generation Sequencing Methods for Diagnosis of Epilepsy Syndromes

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by an increased predisposition for seizures. Although this definition suggests that it is a single disorder, epilepsy encompasses a group of disorders with diverse aetiologies and outcomes. A genetic basis for epilepsy syndromes has been postulated for several decades, with several mutations in specific genes identified that have increased our understanding of the genetic influence on epilepsies. With 70-80% of epilepsy cases identified to have a genetic cause, there are now hundreds of genes identified to be associated with epilepsy syndromes which can be analyzed using next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques such as targeted gene panels, whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS). For effective use of these methodologies, diagnostic laboratories and clinicians require information on the relevant workflows including analysis and sequencing depth to understand the specific clinical application and diagnostic capabilities of these gene sequencing techniques. As epilepsy is a complex disorder, the differences associated with each technique influence the ability to form a diagnosis along with an accurate detection of the genetic etiology of the disorder. In addition, for diagnostic testing, an important parameter is the cost-effectiveness and the specific diagnostic outcome of each technique. Here, we review these commonly used NGS techniques to determine their suitability for application to epilepsy genetic diagnostic testing.

A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Information empowerment has been the greatest gain of genomics, yet it also poses serious threat to its survival, especially when the information is incidental. There may be an emerging consensus that actionable incidental findings be returned. But this has not been supported by any systematic review. Future directions are equally missing. These are significant gaps.

To fill these gaps, an online search on PubMed and Genetics in Medicine website was conducted between 20th of August to 23rd of October, 2013; combining certain filters and phrases, such as ‘return incidental findings’. Nineteen (19) articles were selected from an avalanche of results, and reviewed. The review confirms a majority support for return of clinically actionable findings. The result also shows that the support represents views of Northern Americans. Critical contributions of Africans, Asians and Europeans are missing in this discourse. I recommended studies in this direction.

Incidentalome from Genomic Sequencing: A Barrier to Personalized Medicine?

BACKGROUND

In Western cohorts, the prevalence of incidental findings (IFs) or incidentalome, referring to variants in genes that are unrelated to the patient's primary condition, is between 0.86% and 8.8%. However, data on prevalence and type of IFs in Asian population is lacking.

METHODS

In 2 cohorts of individuals with genomic sequencing performed in Singapore (total n = 377), we extracted and annotated variants in the 56 ACMG-recommended genes and filtered these variants based on the level of pathogenicity. We then analyzed the precise distribution of IFs, class of genes, related medical conditions, and potential clinical impact.

RESULTS

We found a total of 41,607 variants in the 56 genes in our cohort of 377 individuals. After filtering for rare and coding variants, we identified 14 potential variants. After reviewing primary literature, only 4 out of the 14 variants were classified to be pathogenic, while an additional two variants were classified as likely pathogenic. Overall, the cumulative prevalence of IFs (pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants) in our cohort was 1.6%.

CONCLUSION

The cumulative prevalence of IFs through genomic sequencing is low and the incidentalome may not be a significant barrier to implementation of genomics for personalized medicine.

Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing

Despite dramatic drops in DNA sequencing costs, concerns are great that the integration of genomic sequencing into clinical settings will drastically increase health care expenditures. This commentary presents an overview of what is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of genomic sequencing. We discuss the cost of germline genomic sequencing, addressing factors that have facilitated the decrease in sequencing costs to date and anticipating the factors that will drive sequencing costs in the future. We then address the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and pharmacogenomic applications of genomic sequencing, with an emphasis on the implications for secondary findings disclosure and the integration of genomic sequencing into general patient care. Throughout, we ground the discussion by describing efforts in the MedSeq Project, an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial, to understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of integrating whole genome sequencing into cardiology and primary care settings.

Genome-Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Fetal Single-Gene Disorders

New sequencing methods capable of rapidly analyzing the genome at increasing resolution have transformed diagnosis of single-gene or oligogenic genetic disorders in pediatric and adult medicine. Targeted tests, consisting of disease-focused multigene panels and diagnostic exome sequencing to interrogate the sequence of the coding regions of nearly all genes, are now clinically offered when there is suspicion for an undiagnosed genetic disorder or cancer in children and adults. Implementation of diagnostic exome and genome sequencing tests on invasively and noninvasively obtained fetal DNA samples for prenatal genetic diagnosis is also being explored. We predict that they will become more widely integrated into prenatal care in the near future. Providers must prepare for the practical, ethical, and societal dilemmas that accompany the capacity to generate and analyze large amounts of genetic information about the fetus during pregnancy.

Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing

Return of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical sequencing has become a hotly debated topic over the past year. Efforts are being made by several bodies to provide guidance at both national and international levels; however, no studies comparing attitudes of experts across different countries have been published so far. Our goal was to investigate attitudes towards return of IFs from clinical sequencing across UK, USA and Greek experts. Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with genetics and genomic experts with different backgrounds. Our study revealed more differences when experts were compared according to their professional background than their country. General principles guiding the decision-making and the feedback process were common across all experts but the details of integrating these tests might vary as different professionals reported different needs and attitudes.

Management of Incidental Findings in the Era of Next-generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies allow for the generation of whole exome or whole genome sequencing data, which can be used to identify novel genetic alterations associated with defined phenotypes or to expedite discovery of functional variants for improved patient care. Because this robust technology has the ability to identify all mutations within a genome, incidental findings (IF)- genetic alterations associated with conditions or diseases unrelated to the patient's present condition for which current tests are being performed- may have important clinical ramifications. The current debate among genetic scientists and clinicians focuses on the following questions: 1) should any IF be disclosed to patients, and 2) which IF should be disclosed - actionable mutations, variants of unknown significance, or all IF? Policies for disclosure of IF are being developed for when and how to convey these findings and whether adults, minors, or individuals unable to provide consent have the right to refuse receipt of IF. In this review, we detail current NGS technology platforms, discuss pressing issues regarding disclosure of IF, and how IF are currently being handled in prenatal, pediatric, and adult patients.

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.

Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research

Genomic research-including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing-has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research-historically referred to as "incidental findings"-has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled-that is, whether incidental results should be returned, and if so, which ones.Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of "the procedures to be followed" in the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume-and indeed, many commentators have concluded-that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants.To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in-depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants' decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings.

Genetic counselors' views and experiences with the clinical integration of genome sequencing

In recent years, new sequencing technologies known as next generation sequencing (NGS) have provided scientists the ability to rapidly sequence all known coding as well as non-coding sequences in the human genome. As the two emerging approaches, whole exome (WES) and whole genome (WGS) sequencing, have started to be integrated in the clinical arena, we sought to survey health care professionals who are likely to be involved in the implementation process now and/or in the future (e.g., genetic counselors, geneticists and nurse practitioners). Two hundred twenty-one genetic counselors- one third of whom currently offer WES/WGS-participated in an anonymous online survey. The aims of the survey were first, to identify barriers to the implementation of WES/WGS, as perceived by survey participants; second, to provide the first systematic report of current practices regarding the integration of WES/WGS in clinic and/or research across the US and Canada and to illuminate the roles and challenges of genetic counselors participating in this process; and third to evaluate the impact of WES/WGS on patient care. Our results showed that genetic counseling practices with respect to WES/WGS are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ACMG 2012 policy statement, which highlights indications for testing, reporting, and pre/post test considerations. Our respondents described challenges related to offering WES/WGS, which included billing issues, the duration and content of the consent process, result interpretation and disclosure of incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. In addition, respondents indicated that specialty area (i.e., prenatal and cancer), lack of clinical utility of WES/WGS and concerns about interpretation of test results were factors that prevented them from offering this technology to patients. Finally, study participants identified the aspects of their professional training which have been most beneficial in aiding with the integration of WES/WGS into the clinical setting (molecular/clinical genetics, counseling and bioethics) and suggested that counseling aids (to assist them when explaining aspects of these tests to patients) and webinars focused on WES/WGS (for genetic counselors and other health care professionals) would be useful educational tools. Future research should permit us to further enhance our knowledge of pitfalls and benefits associated with the introduction of these powerful technologies in patient care and to further explore the roles and opportunities for genetic counselors in this rapidly evolving field.