"I want to know what's in Pandora's Box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing

Professionals' views on providing personalized recurrence risks for de novo mutations: Implications for genetic counseling

When an apparent de novo (new) genetic change has been identified as the cause of a serious genetic condition in a child, many couples would like to know the risk of this happening again in a future pregnancy. Current practice provides families with a population average risk of 1%-2%. However, this figure is not accurate for any specific couple, and yet, they are asked to make decisions about having another child and/or whether to have prenatal testing. The PREcision Genetic Counseling And REproduction (PREGCARE) study is a new personalized assessment strategy that refines a couple's recurrence risk prior to a new pregnancy, by analyzing several samples from the parent-child trio (blood, saliva, swabs, and father's sperm) using deep sequencing and haplotyping. Overall, this approach can reassure ~2/3 of couples who have a negligible (<0.1%) recurrence risk and focus support on those at higher risk (i.e. when mosaicism is identified in one of the parents). Here we present a qualitative interview study with UK clinical genetics professionals (n = 20), which investigate the potential implications of introducing such a strategy in genetics clinics. While thematic analysis of the interviews indicated perceived clinical utility, it also indicates a need to prepare couples for the psychosocial implications of parent-of-origin information and to support their understanding of the assessment being offered. When dealing with personalized reproductive risk, a traditional non-directive approach may not meet the needs of practitioner and client(s) and shared decision-making provides an additional framework that may relieve some patient burden. Further qualitative investigation with couples is planned.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention.

METHODS

Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research

Background

Clinical genomic professionals are increasingly facing decisions about returning incidental findings (IFs) from genetic research. Although previous studies have shown that research participants are interested in receiving IFs, yet there has been an argument about the extent of researcher obligation to return IFs. We aimed in this study to explore the perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of a sample (n = 113) of clinical genomic professionals using a convenient sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to explore their attitudes toward disclosure of IFs, their perception of the duties to return IFs and identifying the barriers for disclosure of IFs. A descriptive analysis was employed to describe participants' responses.

Results

Sixty-five (57.5%) respondents had faced IFs in their practice and 31 (27.4%) were not comfortable in discussing IFs with their research subjects. Less than one-third of the respondents reported the availability of guidelines governing IFs. The majority 84 (80%) and 69 (62.7%) of the study participants indicated they would return the IFs if the risk of disease threat ≥ 50% and 6–49%, respectively and 36 (31.9%) reported they have no obligation to return IFs.

Conclusion

Clinical genomics professionals have positive attitudes and perceptions toward the returning IFs from genomic research, yet some revealed no duty to do so. Detailed guidelines must be established to provide insights into how genomics professionals should be handled IFs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00670-y.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child's future autonomy

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1-15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre's UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children's preferences seriously and acknowledge the child's incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

"…This Has to Do With My Identity. And I Don't Want to Make it Totally Transparent." Identity Relevance in the Attitudes of Affected People and Laypersons to the Handling of High-Throughput Genomic Data

With the establishment of genome sequencing, the influence of genomic information on self-understanding and identity construction has become increasingly important. New sequencing methods far exceed previous genetic tests in terms of scope and quantity. Despite theoretical approaches, however, there are few empirical findings on the identity-relevant influence of genomic information. The present study examines genomic information's identity-relevant influences and considers whether developments in the field of genome sequencing may generate problems that are not yet addressed by existing identity concepts based on traditional genetic tests. The study is based on 10 partially standardized interviews with personally affected persons and four focus groups with medical laypersons as representatives of the public, which were evaluated on the basis of qualitative content analysis. As a result, this paper presents five thematic areas with identity-relevant references within subjective attitudes toward the handling of genomic information, and also derives two basic identity concepts. The results indicate that the lay discourse is still strongly based on older debates about genetic testing and that the view on the complexity of genomic information established in the scientific context has thus far no influence on the perspectives either of those affected or laypersons.

Ethical questions concerning newborn genetic screening

Newborn screening is a public health strategy used to identify certain diseases in the first days of life and, therefore, facilitate early treatment before the onset of symptoms. The decision of which diseases should be included in a screening goes beyond the medical perspective, including reasons for public health and health economics. There are a number of characteristics to include a disease in the screening, such as that the disorder must be a significant health problem, the natural history of the disease must be well known, a feasible and accurate test must be available, there must be a treatment that is most effective when applied before the onset of clinical symptoms and a health system must be in place that is capable of performing the procedure and subsequent monitoring. Currently, newborn screening programs are currently based on the use of biochemical markers that detect metabolites, hormones or proteins, but recently, the availability of new technology has allowed the possibility of a genetic screening. In addition to technical problems, the possibility of neonatal screening also presents a number of ethical problems. We identified and discussed six areas of particular concern: type of illness, overdiagnosis or overtreatment, information management and informed consent, data confidentiality and protection, justice and legal regulation.

Public interest in whole genome sequencing and information needs: an online survey study

Aim: To survey the general public about whole genome sequencing interest, including pharmacogenomic testing, and to identify information important for sequencing decisions. Patients & methods: An online survey of 901 members of the general public in an eastern Canadian province. Results: Interest in whole genome sequencing, including pharmacogenomic testing, was high with few differences among demographic variables. Issues identified as very important to sequencing decisions included familial implications of testing, whether treatment was available for conditions tested and knowing who could access genomic information. Most respondents would value support when interpreting sequencing results. Conclusion: Findings reveal the kind of information and support users of sequencing services would value and could inform the implementation of sequencing into care in ways that accord with public preferences and needs.

Genetic tests by next-generation sequencing in children with developmental delay and/or intellectual disability

Developments in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techogies have assisted in clarifying the diagnosis and treatment of developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID) via molecular genetic testing. Advances in DNA sequencing technology have not only allowed the evolution of targeted panels but also, and more currently enabled genome-wide analyses to progress from research era to clinical practice. Broad acceptance of accuracy- guided targeted gene panel, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for DD/ID need prospective analyses of the increasing cost-effectiveness versus conventional genetic testing. Choosing the appropriate sequencing method requires individual planning. Data are required to guide best-practice recommendations for genomic testing, regarding various clinical phenotypes in an etiologic approach. Targeted panel testing may be recommended as a first-tier testing approach for children with DD/ID. Family-based trio testing by WES/WGS can be used as a second test for DD/ ID in undiagnosed children who previously tested negative on a targeted panel. The role of NGS in molecular diagnostics, treatment, prediction of prognosis will continue to increase further in the coming years. Given the rapid pace of changes in the past 10 years, all medical providers should be aware of the changes in the transformative genetics field.

Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients

Few studies have explored the real-world experiences and strategies of genetic counselors involved in the process of returning secondary findings (SFs). This study aimed to describe and categorize the experiences for the return of SFs from clinical sequencing. Semi-structured telephone interviews with 21 genetic counselors representing 56 incidences were conducted. A content analysis was conducted on the transcripts through an iterative, team-based approach. Four common categories emerged across all interviews. These included (a) the importance of pretest counseling for the return of SFs, (b) how primary test results influenced the level of importance placed on the SFs, (c) patients' emotional reactions from receiving SF results, and (d) how returning SFs changed future pretest counseling and consent. This study identified experiences and common practices by genetic counselors who returned SFs. More research is needed to assess how genetic counselors' specific strategies improve patient comprehension and medical actions.

Choices, attitudes, and experiences of genetic screening in Latino/a and Ashkenazi Jewish individuals

Genetic screening to inform personal risk has only recently become an option as the cost of sequencing decreases, and our ability to interpret sequence variants improves. Studies have demonstrated that people want to learn about their genetic information and do well after learning it, but minorities are underrepresented in these studies. We surveyed Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) and Latino/a participants in a genetic screening study to solicit choices about genetic results to return, as well as their experience with learning these results and attitudes about genetic information secrecy and security. Participants had the option to proceed through the study self-guided, and few elected to have traditional pre-test genetic education and counseling. Despite this, the majority were satisfied with the process of selecting and receiving genetic results and felt that they understood their results. Concerns about privacy and confidentiality of genetic data were minimal, though some participants expressed modest concerns about keeping any potential results secret or the confidentiality of their genetic information. Our results support the feasibility of the option of self-guided genetic screening. Additional care will need to be taken when designing population-based screening studies to meet the needs of participants who come from communities with different experiences with genetics.

Diagnostic uncertainties, ethical tensions, and accounts of role responsibilities in genetic counseling communication

Diagnostic uncertainties are intricately associated with genomic testing-especially concerning new technologies such as exome sequencing-with test results being either inconclusive or generating secondary findings or showing variants of uncertain significance. In the process of genetic counseling, diagnostic uncertainties have to be managed even when test results for an individual client are either positive or negative because of differential implications for family members. Previous studies have investigated diagnostic uncertainties in relation to clients wanting to know or not know the test results; here, we extend this line of research by addressing how genetic counselors and clients account for the management of diagnostic uncertainties vis-à-vis the attendant ethical tensions in the complex communicative environment in the clinic setting. Our dataset from the Norwegian context is longitudinal, consisting of ten audio-recorded pre-test genetic counseling sessions. It involves one extended family with a high burden of colorectal cancer. Through theme-oriented discourse analysis, we demonstrate how diagnostic uncertainties give rise to tensions concerning risks and benefits of knowing in both professional and familial spheres, which then map onto accounts of various role responsibilities. For instance, in looking for certainty via advanced genomic testing to reduce diagnostic uncertainty for clients, genetic counselors are confronted with tensions regarding what can be communicated and made known because of their role responsibilities toward what may be regarded as scientific others and clinical others. Likewise, clients are faced with tensions concerning wanting to know/not know, which invokes various familial others and may align or not align with genetic counselors' preferences, especially relating to management of diagnostic uncertainties and secondary findings.

German and Italian Users of Web-Accessed Genetic Data: Attitudes on Personal Utility and Personal Sharing Preferences. Results of a Comparative Survey (n=192)

Genetic information is increasingly provided outside of the traditional clinical setting, allowing users to access it directly via specialized online platforms. This development is possibly resulting in changing ethical and social challenges for users of predictive genetic tests. Little is known about the attitudes and experiences of users of web-accessed genetic information. This survey analyzes data from two European countries with regard to the utility of genetic information, the users' ways of making use of and dealing with information, and their sharing behavior. Particular focus is given to ethical and social questions regarding the motivation to share personal genetic results with others. Social factors tested for are national background, gender, and marital, parental, and educational status. This study will contribute to public discourse and offer ethical recommendations. The study will also serve to validate the developed questionnaire for use in population representative surveys.

Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions

The evolving evidence base for the interpretation of variants identified in genetic and genomic testing has presented the genetics community with the challenge of variant reinterpretation. In particular, it is unclear whether an ethical duty of periodic reinterpretation should exist, who should bear that duty, and what its dimensions should be. Based on an analysis of the ethical arguments for and against a duty to reinterpret, we conclude that a duty should be recognized. Most importantly, by virtue of ordering and conducting tests likely to produce data on variants that cannot be definitively interpreted today, the health-care system incurs a duty to reinterpret when more reliable data become available. We identify four elements of the proposed ethical duty: data storage, initiation of reinterpretation, conduct of reinterpretation, and patient recontact, and we identify the parties best situated to implement each component. We also consider the reasonable extent and duration of a duty, and the role of the patient's consent in the process, although we acknowledge that some details regarding procedures and funding still need to be addressed. The likelihood of substantial patient benefit from a systematic approach to reinterpretation suggests the importance for the genetics community to reach consensus on this issue.

Ethical values supporting the disclosure of incidental and secondary findings in clinical genomic testing: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings (IFs) and secondary findings (SFs), being results that are unrelated to the diagnostic question, are the subject of an important debate in the practice of clinical genomic medicine. Arguments for reporting these results or not doing so typically relate to the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and beneficence. However, these principles frequently conflict and are insufficient by themselves to come to a conclusion. This study investigates empirically how ethical principles are considered when actually reporting IFs or SFs and how value conflicts are weighed.

METHODS

A qualitative focus group study has been undertaken, including a multidisciplinary group of professionals from Belgian centres for medical genetics. The data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

All eight Belgian centres participated in this study. Ethical values were frequently referred to for disclosure policies on IFs and SFs. Participants invoked respect for patient autonomy to support the disclosure of IFs and opt-out options for IFs and SFs, non-maleficence for the professional delineation of reportable IFs and opt-out options for IFs and SFs and (the particular scope of) beneficence for the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs, the delineation of reportable IFs and a current decline of actively pursued SFs. Professional assumptions about patients' genetic literacy were an important factor in the weighing of values.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with the traditional bioethical discourse, the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs might be interpreted as a "technological, soft paternalism". Restricting patients' choices might be acceptable, but then its motives should be valid and its beneficent outcomes highly plausible. Hence, the presuppositions of technological, soft paternalism - patients' inability to make informed decisions, normative rationality, the efficacy of beneficent outcomes and the delineated spectrum of beneficence - should be approached critically. Moreover, distributive justice should be considered an important value in the delineation of the current scope of the ethical debate on IFs and SFs. This study of guiding values may stimulate the debate on the ethical grounds for a solid policy on IFs and SFs internationally.

Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND

Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.

Attitudes of French populations towards the disclosure of unsolicited findings in medical genetics

Next-generation sequencing techniques enable unsolicited findings to be detected. This discovery raises ethical questions concerning the return of these findings. Our study aimed to highlight the views of the general public, patients under supervision and health professionals concerning the acceptability of disclosing unsolicited results to patients. In total, 449 participants assessed scenarios, consisted of all combinations of three factors (patient's information and consent, prevention and treatment of the unsolicited disease and doctor's decision). The response profiles were grouped into six clusters. The participants took ethical aspects into account, but health professionals also considered the medical aspects to a greater extent.

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project

OBJECTIVES

Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project.

DESIGN

Interview study using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Four National Health Service hospitals in London.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 'consenters' from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project.

RESULTS

Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues.

Development of patient "profiles" to tailor counseling for incidental genomic sequencing results

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

Secondary findings from next generation sequencing: Psychological and ethical issues. Family and patient perspectives

Access to active search for actionable secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a major psychological and ethical issue for genomic medicine. In this study, we analyzed the preferences of patients and their families regarding SF and identified the reporting procedures necessary for informed consent. We interviewed parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases potentially eligible for exome sequencing and patients affected by the diseases listed in the ACMG recommendations. Four focus groups (FG) were formed: parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases (FG1, n = 5); patients with hereditary cancers (FG2, n = 10); patients with hereditary cardiac conditions (FG3, n = 3); and patients with metabolic diseases (FG4, n = 3). Psychologists presented three broad topics for discussion: 1. Favorable or not to SF access, 2. Reporting procedures, 3. Equity of access. Discussions were recorded and analyzed using simplified Grounded Theory. Overall, 8 participants declared being favorable to SF because of the medical benefit (mainly FG1); 11 were unfavorable because of the psychological consequences (mainly FG2, FG3, FG4); 2 were ambivalent. The possibility of looking for SF in minors was debated. The 4 key information-based issues for participants ranked as follows: explanation of SF issues, autonomy of choice, importance of a reflection period, and quality of interactions between patients and professionals. Examining equity of access to SF led to philosophical discussions on quality of life. In conclusion, individual experience and life context (circumstances) were decisive in participants' expectations and fears regarding access to SF. Additional longitudinal studies based on actual SF disclosure announcements are needed to establish future guidelines.

Pandora's pregnancy: NIPT, CMA, and genome sequencing-A new era for prenatal genetic testing

OBJECTIVES

We delineate in this article a shift from the "traditional" technologies of karyotyping in PND to the current phase of advanced genetic technologies including noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and whole-exome sequencing (WES) with their higher detection rate and related abundance of uncertain data.

METHODS

Conceptual analysis based on seminal works that shaped the socioethical discourse surrounding the experiences of parents as well as professionals with prenatal diagnosis in the last 30 years.

RESULTS

We consider the implications of this new era of PND for patients and health professionals by drawing on previous studies documenting how probability and uncertainty affect informed consent/choice, health risks communication, customer satisfaction and decision making, and parent-child bonding.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that these changes move us beyond the idioms and realities of the tentative pregnancy and moral pioneering, to uncertainty, probability-based counseling, and moral/translational gambling. We conclude by discussing what is needed to maintain hope in the era of Pandora's pregnancy.

Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies

PURPOSE

As exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) Consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants' psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings.

METHODS

We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item), depressive symptoms (HADS/Personal Health Questionnaire 9-item), and multidimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale).

RESULTS

Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to postdisclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants' anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses.

CONCLUSION

Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

SUMMARY

We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.

Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

Beyond medical actionability: Public perceptions of important actions in response to hypothetical genetic testing results

Rationales for returning results from whole genome sequencing (WGS) and genetic testing have historically focused on medical utility. Understanding the wide array of actions individuals might take following genetic testing results could have important implications for clinical care. We aimed to survey the public regarding their perceptions of the importance of a wide variety of different actions one might take upon receiving hypothetical results from a WGS test where the results indicate a high risk of developing a genetic condition. We assessed whether demographic characteristics, type of condition, and perceived severity of the condition differentially affected importance ratings of actions they would take. In a survey administered at the 2015 Minnesota State Fair, 909 participants imagined that they had a blood test that looked at their genes and indicated that they were at high risk of developing one of three randomized conditions (Alzheimer's disease, macular degeneration, or colon cancer). Participants rated the importance of 35 actions. Principal component analysis, used to categorize actions, yielded eight categories: (1) medical management and communication; (2) partner support; (3) support and life fulfillment; (4) diet and exercise; (5) distal planning; (6) religion/spiritual support; (7) reproductive actions; and (8) proximal planning. Participants rated a wide range of actions as important, with medical management and communication, and partner support receiving the highest mean ratings. Linear regression yielded significant associations between importance ratings and demographics variables (age and gender), genetic condition, and perceived severity of the condition for different action categories. Genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals should consider a variety of possible patient actions beyond medical actionability when discussing genetic testing results.

Exome sequencing in clinical settings: preferences and experiences of parents of children with rare diseases (SEQUAPRE study)

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized diagnostic procedures in medical genetics, particularly for developmental diseases. The variety and complexity of the information produced has raised issues regarding its use in a clinical setting. Of particular interest are patients' expectations regarding the information disclosed, the accompaniment provided, and the value patients place on these. To explore these issues in parents of children with developmental disorders and no diagnosis with known etiology, a multidisciplinary group of researchers from social and behavioral sciences and patient organizations conducted a mixed-methodology study (quantitative and qualitative) in two centers of expertise for rare diseases in France. The quantitative study aimed to determine the preferences of 513 parents regarding the disclosure of ES results. It showed that parents wished to have exhaustive information, including variants of unknown significance possibly linked to their child's disorder and secondary findings. This desire for information could be a strategy to maximize the chances of obtaining a diagnosis. The qualitative study aimed to understand the expectations and reactions of 57 parents interviewed just after the return of ES results. In-depth analysis showed that parents had ambivalent feelings about the findings whatever the results returned. The contrasting results from these studies raise questions about the value of the information provided and parents' high expectations regarding the results. The nature of parental expectations has emerged as an important topic in efforts to optimize accompaniment and support for families during the informed decision-making process and after disclosure of the results in an overall context of uncertainty.

Physician Communication of Genomic Results in a Diagnostic Odyssey Case Series

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The availability of whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasing in clinical care, and WGS is a promising tool in diagnostic odyssey cases. Physicians' ability to effectively communicate genomic information with patients, however, is unclear. In this multiperspective study, we assessed physicians' communication of patient genome sequencing information in a diagnostic odyssey case series.

METHODS

We evaluated physician communication of genome sequencing results in the context of an ongoing study of the utility of WGS for the diagnosis of rare and idiopathic diseases. A modified version of the Medical Communication Competence Scale was used to compare patients' ratings of their physicians' communication of general medical information to communication of genome sequencing information. Physician self-ratings were also compared with patient ratings.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients, parents, and physicians across 11 diagnostic odyssey cases participated. In 6 of 11 cases (54%), the patient respondent rated the physician's communication of genome sequencing information as worse than that of general medical information. In 9 of 11 cases (82%), physician self-ratings of communication of genome sequencing information were worse than the patient respondent's rating. Identification of a diagnosis via WGS was positively associated with physician self-ratings (P = .021) but was not associated with patient respondent ratings (P = .959).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal that even in diagnostic odyssey cases, in which genome sequencing may be clinically beneficial, physicians may not be well-equipped to communicate genomic information to patients. Future studies may benefit from multiperspective approaches to assessing and understanding physician-patient communication of genome-sequencing information.

French People’s Views on the Appropriateness of Disclosing an Unsolicited Finding in Medical Genetics: A Preliminary Study

With progress in medical genetics, genome-sequencing techniques are becoming more and more efficient. However, these genetic tests may lead to the detection of unsolicited genetic findings, i.e. findings that are not the primary purpose of the screening. New ethical issues have emerged, in particular the question of whether to disclose these unsolicited findings to the patient or not. Forty-seven patients under supervision in a Medical Genetics service, 15 health professionals and 107 members of the French general population expressed their opinion regarding the appropriateness of disclosing an unsolicited high penetrance genetic finding in 36 scenarios containing three pieces of information on: a) patient information and consent;b) possibility of prevention and treatment of the detected genetic disease; and c) disclosure of the results by the physician (e.g., no disclosure of the unsolicited results). Four positions were found that were called Respect for patient’s autonomy, Beneficence to patient, Non-maleficence, and Always appropriate.

Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings

BACKGROUND

The use of genomic sequencing techniques is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream health care. However, there is a lack of agreement on how "incidental findings" (IFs) should be managed and a dearth of research on patient perspectives.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews were carried out with 31 patients undergoing genomic sequencing at a regional genetics service in England. Interviews explored decisions around IFs and were comparatively analyzed with published recommendations from the literature.

RESULTS

Thirteen participants opted to receive all IFs from their sequence, 12 accepted some and rejected others, while six participants refused all IFs. The key areas from the literature, (a) genotype/phenotype correlation, (b) seriousness of the condition, and (c) implications for biological relatives, were all significant; however, patients drew on a broader range of social and cultural information to make their decisions.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the range of costs and benefits for patients of receiving IFs from a genomic sequence. While largely positive views toward the dissemination of genomic data were reported, ambivalence surrounding genetic responsibility and its associated behaviors (e.g., duty to inform relatives) was reported by both IF decliners and accepters, suggesting a need to further explore patient perspectives on this highly complex topic area.

Opening the "black box" of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study

Purpose

Little is known about how health-care professionals communicate with patients about consenting to genome sequencing. We therefore examined what topics health-care professionals covered and what questions patients asked during consent conversations.

Methods

Twenty-one genome sequencing consent appointments were audio recorded and analyzed. Participants were 35 individuals being invited to participate in the 100,000 Genomes Project (14 participants with rare diseases, 21 relatives), and 10 health-care professionals (“consenters”).

Results

Two-thirds of participants’ questions were substantive (e.g., genetics and inheritance); one-third administrative (e.g., filling in the consent form). Consenters usually (19/21) emphasized participant choice about secondary findings, but less often (13/21) emphasized the uncertainty about associated disease risks. Consenters primarily used passive statements and closed-ended, rather than open-ended, questions to invite participants’ questions and concerns. In two appointments, one parent expressed negative or uncertain views about secondary findings, but after discussion with the other parent opted to receive them.

Conclusion

Health-care professionals need to be prepared to answer patients’ questions about genetics to facilitate genome sequencing consent. Health-care professionals’ education also needs to address how to effectively listen and elicit each patient’s questions and views, and how to discuss uncertainty around the disease risks associated with secondary findings.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

OBJECTIVES

Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR).

METHODS

Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature

With the development of next generation sequencing, beyond identifying the cause of manifestations that justified prescription of the test, other information with potential interest for patients and their families, defined as secondary findings (SF), can be provided once patients have given informed consent, in particular when therapeutic and preventive options are available. The disclosure of such findings has caused much debate. The aim of this work was to summarize all opinion-based studies focusing on SF, so as to shed light on the concerns that this question generate. A review of the literature was performed, focusing on all PubMed articles reporting qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies that interviewed healthcare providers, participants, or society regarding this subject. The methodology was carefully analysed, in particular whether or not studies made the distinction between actionable and non-actionable SF, in a clinical or research context. From 2010 to 2016, 39 articles were compiled. A total of 14,868 people were interviewed (1259 participants, 6104 healthcare providers, 7505 representatives of society). When actionable and non-actionable SF were distinguished (20 articles), 92% of respondents were keen to have results regarding actionable SF (participants: 88%, healthcare providers: 86%, society: 97%), against 70% (participants: 83%, healthcare providers: 62%, society: 73%) for non-actionable SF. These percentages were slightly lower in the specific situation of children probands. For respondents, the notion of the «patient's choice» is crucial. For healthcare providers, the importance of defining policies for SF among diagnostic lab, learning societies and/or countries is outlined, in particular regarding the content and extension of the list of actionable genes to propose, the modalities of information, and the access to information about adult-onset diseases in minors. However, the existing literature should be taken with caution, since most articles lack a clear definition of SF and actionability, and referred to hypothetical scenarios with limited information to respondents. Studies conducted by multidisciplinary teams involving patients with access to results are sadly lacking, in particular in the medium term after the results have been given. Such studies would feed the debate and make it possible to measure the impact of such findings and their benefit-risk ratio.

Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health

Information on patients’ preferences is essential to guide the development of more efficient genomic counseling service delivery models. We examined patient preferences in the context of use of a post-test genomic counseling framework on patients (n = 44) with chronic disease receiving online test reports for eight different diseases and one drug-response result. We also explored patients’ disease risk awareness, recall of test report information, and confidence in knowing what to do with their test results. Prior to the post-test genomic counseling session, all participants viewed at least one test report; 81.6% of available test reports were reviewed in total. Participants requested more phone (36) than in-person counseling sessions (8), and phone sessions were shorter (mean 29.1 min; range 12–75 min) than in-person sessions (mean 52.8 min; range 23–85 min). A total of 182 test reports were discussed over the course of 44 counseling sessions (mean 4.13, range 1–9). Thirty-six (81.8%) participants requested assessment for additional medical/family history concerns. In exploring patient experiences of disease risk awareness and recall, no significant differences were identified in comparison to those of participants (n = 199) that had received in-person post-test genomic counseling in a parent study randomized controlled trial (RCT). In summary, a novel post-test genomic counseling framework allowed for a tailored approach to counseling based on the participants’ predetermined choices.

How do consent forms for diagnostic high-throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysis

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are increasingly being offered to patients in the clinical setting. Yet, the question of whether, and to what extent, unsolicited findings (UF) and/or secondary findings (SF) should be returned to patients remains open and little is known about how diagnostic consent forms address this issue. We systematically identified consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing online and used inductive content analysis to determine if and how they discuss reporting of UF and SF, and whether patients are given options regarding the return of these results. Fifty-four forms representing 38 laboratories/clinics were analyzed. A quarter of the forms did not mention UF or SF. Forms used a variety of terms to discuss UF and SF, sometimes using these interchangeably or incorrectly. Reporting policies for UF varied: 5 forms stated that UF will not be returned, 15 indicated UF may be returned, and 28 did not specify their policy. One-third indicated their laboratory returns SF. Addressing inconsistent terminology and providing sufficient information about UF/SF in consent forms will increase patient understanding and help ensure adequate informed consent.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results

Purpose

Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term “unsolicited genomic results” (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and: 1) perceived need for actionability, 2) impact on patients, 3) health care workflow, 4) return of results process, and 5) responsibility for results.

Results

Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based “paths” for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs.

Conclusion

The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample

In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.

Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study

The impact of returning secondary results from exome sequencing (ES) on patients/participants is important to understand as ES is increasingly utilized in clinical care and research. Participants were recruited from studies using ES and were separated into two arms: 107 who had ES and were offered the choice to learn secondary results (ES group) and 85 who had not yet had ES (No ES group). Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 1 and 12 months, following results disclosure (ES group) or enrollment (No ES group). While the majority (65%) elected to learn all results following pre-test counseling, it was reduced from the 76% who indicated a desire for all results at baseline. Thirty-seven percent received results associated with an increased personal disease risk. There were no differences in changes in any of the psychological and social measures from baseline to post-results disclosure between the ES and No ES groups. Receiving a wide range of secondary findings appeared to have little measurable impact on most participants. The experience of learning secondary results may be related to participants' previous experiences with genetics, as well as the genetic counseling provided. Future research with a more diverse, genetically naïve group, as well as scalable methods of delivery, is needed.

A comparison of Australian and French families affected by sarcoma: perceptions of genetics and incidental findings

AIM

To compare Australian and French perceptions of genetics and preferences regarding the return of incidental findings.

METHODS

Participants from the International Sarcoma Kindred Study received a survey at intake to cancer referral units. A total of 1442 Australian and 479 French individuals affected by sarcoma and their unaffected family members responded to four hypothetical scenarios depicting hereditary conditions of varying treatability and severity.

RESULTS

Australians' preference for the return of incidental findings was consistently higher than French for all scenarios. Country group differences were significant for two scenarios when individual characteristics were controlled through multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the need for guidelines that are sensitive to sociocultural context and promote autonomous decision-making.

Predictors of next-generation sequencing panel selection using a shared decision-making approach

The introduction of next-generation sequencing panels has transformed the approach for genetic testing in cancer patients, however, established guidelines for their use are lacking. A shared decision-making approach has been adopted by our service, where patients play an active role in panel selection and we sought to identify factors associated with panel selection and report testing outcomes. Demographic and clinical data were gathered for female breast and/or ovarian cancer patients aged 21 and over who underwent panel testing. Panel type was classified as ‘breast cancer panel’ (BCP) or ‘multi-cancer panel’ (MCP). Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify clinical factors most predictive of panel selection. Of the 265 included subjects, the vast majority selected a broader MCP (81.5%). Subjects who chose MCPs were significantly more likely to be ≥50 years of age (49 vs. 31%; p < 0.05), Chinese (76 vs. 47%; p < 0.001) and have a personal history of ovarian cancer (41 vs. 8%; p < 0.001) with the latter two identified as the best predictors of panel selection. Family history of cancer was not significantly associated with panel selection. There were no statistically significant differences in result outcomes between the two groups. In summary, our findings demonstrate that the majority of patients have a preference for interrogating a larger number of genes beyond those with established testing guidelines, despite the additional likelihood of uncertainty. Individual factors, including cancer history and ethnicity, are the best predictors of panel selection.

Thanks to next-generation sequencing (NGS) it is possible to test multiple genes for cancer susceptibility quickly and cheaply. At the National Cancer Centre Singapore, shared decision-making is used to actively encourage the involvement of patients in the selection of either a ‘breast cancer panel’ (BCP) or a broader ‘multi-cancer panel’ (MCP) test. Joanne Ngeow at the Centre’s Cancer Genetics Service and colleagues examined the choices made by 265 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer following detailed pre-test counselling by the genetics team. The majority of patients selected the MCP, potentially highlighting a willingness to accept the additional uncertainty that comes with broader NGS panels. Interestingly, a personal history of ovarian cancer and Chinese ethnicity, but not a family history of cancer, were significantly associated with panel selection.

The Right to Know: A Revised Standard for Reporting Incidental Findings

During the course of biomedical research, researchers sometimes obtain information on participants that is outside the aim of the study but may nonetheless be relevant to the participants. These incidental findings, as they are known, have been the focus of a substantial amount of discussion in the bioethics literature, and a consensus has begun to emerge about what researchers should do in light of the possibility of incidental findings. A consensus, however, is not necessarily correct. In this article, we address the common view that reporting of incidental findings should be based primarily on the possibility of medical benefit, factoring in the findings' validity, clinical actionability, and significance to health or reproduction. While such medical beneficence should not be discarded, the need to give proper attention to participants' autonomy, privacy, and interests (especially considering discussion of participants' right not to know) suggests an alternative standard for when to report incidental findings: even if they are of no direct medical benefit, incidental findings should be reported based on the extent to which the participant can be expected to comprehend the information. We will offer a preliminary defense of this alternative as best respecting participants' autonomy and privacy and promoting their interests. However, we acknowledge that the standard would face significant practical barriers, and these barriers lead us to propose a metaconsent addendum that would allow subjects to essentially waive the comprehension standard when resource or other constraints make meeting it impracticable.

Oncologists' Use of Genomic Sequencing Data to Inform Clinical Management

PURPOSE

To determine whether oncologists intended to change treatment as a result of tumor sequencing, and subsequently, whether patients experienced an alteration of clinical management or derived clinical benefit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective survey of oncologists referring adult patients with rare, advanced, or refractory cancer to the Michigan Oncology Sequencing program was conducted from June 2014 to March 2015 to assess the use of and intent to disclose sequencing findings. Oncologists' responses were compared with the referred patients' self-reported survey responses, and a content analysis of disclosure documented in the medical record was performed. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to determine if clinical management was informed or changed by sequencing results.

RESULTS

Oncologists (response rate, 93%) referring 112 consecutive patients were surveyed. Medical records of patients were reviewed for changes in clinical management on the basis of sequencing findings. Oncologists intended to change the treatment of 22% of patients (n = 24) on the basis of sequencing findings. Of these patients, 37.5% (n = 9) had an actual change in clinical management. Thirty-four patients with postsequencing survey data reported that a results disclosure discussion did not occur, despite documentation of disclosure by the physician in the medical record.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate that many oncologists view next-generation sequencing results to be potentially valuable in directing subsequent therapy for their patients; however, barriers in communicating results to patients and implementing them in clinical management remain.

Parental preferences toward genomic sequencing for non-medically actionable conditions in children: a discrete-choice experiment

PurposeApplication of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing is likely to increase in clinical practice, public health contexts, and research. We investigated how parental preference for acquiring information from genome-scale testing is influenced by the characteristics of non-medically actionable genetic disorders in children, as well as whether the preferences differed by gender and between African-American and white respondents.MethodsWe conducted a Web-based discrete-choice experiment with 1,289 parents of young children. Participants completed "choice tasks" based on pairs of profiles describing sequencing results for hypothetical genetic disorders, selected the profile in each pair that they believed represented the information that would be more important to know, and answered questions that measured their level of distress.ResultsKnowing the likelihood that the disorder would develop given a true-positive test result was most important to parents. Parents showed greater interest in learning sequencing results for disease profiles with more severe manifestations. This was associated with greater distress. Differences by gender and race reflected small differences in magnitude, but not direction.ConclusionParents preferred to learn results about genetic disorders with more severe manifestations, even when this knowledge was associated with increased distress. These results may help clinicians support parental decision making by revealing which types of sequencing results parents are interested in learning.

"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.

Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs)

Whole genome or exome sequencing is increasingly used in the clinical contexts, and ‘incidental’ findings are generated. There is need for an adequate policy for the reporting of these findings to individuals. Such a policy has been suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). We argue that ACMG’s policy is overly paternalistic, and that an adequate policy must take into account population preferences. We conducted a choice based conjoint survey of population preferences for reporting in a representative sample of the Danish population. In a 12 task survey respondents were asked about their preference for reporting in relation to three scenarios with seven different attributes. Of 1200 respondents 66.4% participated. We show that population preferences for reporting differs from ACMG’s recommendations, and suggest a new policy based on both medically and patient actionable genes.

The Precision Medicine Nation

The United States' ambitious Precision Medicine Initiative proposes to accelerate exponentially the adoption of precision medicine, an approach to health care that tailors disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle. It aims to achieve this by creating a cohort of volunteers for precision medicine research, accelerating biomedical research innovation, and adopting policies geared toward patients' empowerment. As strategies to implement the PMI are formulated, critical consideration of the initiative's ethical and sociopolitical dimensions is needed. Drawing on scholarship of nationalism and democracy, we discuss the PMI's construction of what we term "genomic citizenship"; the possible normative obligations arising therefrom; and the ethical, legal, and social challenges that will ensue. Although the PMI is a work in progress, discussion of the existing and emerging issues can facilitate the development of policies, structures, and procedures that can maximize the initiative's ability to produce equitable and socially sensitive outcomes. Our analysis can also be applied to other population-based, precision medicine research programs.

Cancer Screening Recommendations for Individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an autosomal dominantly inherited condition caused by germline mutations of the TP53 tumor suppressor gene encoding p53, a transcription factor triggered as a protective cellular mechanism against different stressors. Loss of p53 function renders affected individuals highly susceptible to a broad range of solid and hematologic cancers. It has recently become evident that children and adults with LFS benefit from intensive surveillance aimed at early tumor detection. In October 2016, the American Association for Cancer Research held a meeting of international LFS experts to evaluate the current knowledge on LFS and propose consensus surveillance recommendations. Herein, we briefly summarize clinical and genetic aspects of this aggressive cancer predisposition syndrome. In addition, the expert panel concludes that there are sufficient existing data to recommend that all patients with LFS be offered cancer surveillance as soon as the clinical or molecular LFS diagnosis is established. Specifically, the panel recommends adoption of a modified version of the "Toronto protocol" that includes a combination of physical exams, blood tests, and imaging. The panel also recommends that further research be promoted to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of these risk-adapted surveillance and cancer prevention strategies while addressing the psychosocial needs of individuals and families with LFS. Clin Cancer Res; 23(11); e38-e45. ©2017 AACRSee all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.