Reflecting on earlier experiences with unsolicited findings: points to consider for next-generation sequencing and informed consent in diagnostics

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

Chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis: ethical considerations of the Belgian approach

Detection of genetic aberrations in prenatal samples, obtained through amniocentesis or chorion villus biopsy, is increasingly performed using chromosomal microarray (CMA), a technique that can uncover both aneuploidies and copy number variants throughout the genome. Despite the obvious benefits of CMA, the decision on implementing the technology is complicated by ethical issues concerning variant interpretation and reporting. In Belgium, uniform guidelines were composed and a shared database for prenatal CMA findings was established. This Belgian approach sparks discussion: it is evidence-based, prevents inconsistencies and avoids parental anxiety, but can be considered paternalistic. Here, we reflect on the cultural and moral bases of the Belgian reporting system of prenatally detected variants.

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.

Bioinformatics for precision oncology

Molecular profiling of tumor biopsies plays an increasingly important role not only in cancer research, but also in the clinical management of cancer patients. Multi-omics approaches hold the promise of improving diagnostics, prognostics and personalized treatment. To deliver on this promise of precision oncology, appropriate bioinformatics methods for managing, integrating and analyzing large and complex data are necessary. Here, we discuss the specific requirements of bioinformatics methods and software that arise in the setting of clinical oncology, owing to a stricter regulatory environment and the need for rapid, highly reproducible and robust procedures. We describe the workflow of a molecular tumor board and the specific bioinformatics support that it requires, from the primary analysis of raw molecular profiling data to the automatic generation of a clinical report and its delivery to decision-making clinical oncologists. Such workflows have to various degrees been implemented in many clinical trials, as well as in molecular tumor boards at specialized cancer centers and university hospitals worldwide. We review these and more recent efforts to include other high-dimensional multi-omics patient profiles into the tumor board, as well as the state of clinical decision support software to translate molecular findings into treatment recommendations.

NGS-Based genetic testing for heritable cardiovascular diseases. Specific requirements for obtaining informed consent

Clinical genetic testing in cardiovascular genetic medicine has undergone rapid changes. Next generation sequencing allows simultaneous testing of all genes associated with any cardiovascular phenotype, and molecular genetic testing for multiple genes has become the standard of practice for cardiovascular medicine. While technical and clinical advantages of multigenic approaches are evident, informed consent procedures have become more complex and challenging to the physician ordering such a test, particularly due to the increased potential for unsolicited findings. Based on the EuroGentest "Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing" we here propose a set of disease-specific requirements for obtaining informed consent for NGS-based genetic testing in a cardiogenetic clinic. We can show that it is often not feasible to obtain informed consent for every detail and suggest, in such cases, to reach general consent beforehand and discuss specific implications of unsolicited findings after the test results are available.

Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is expected to revolutionize health care. NGS allows for sequencing of the whole genome more cheaply and quickly than previous techniques. NGS offers opportunities to advance medical diagnostics and treatments, but also raises complicated ethical questions that need to be addressed.

AREAS CONSIDERED

This article draws from the literature on research and clinical ethics, as well as next-generation sequencing, in order to provide an overview of the ethical challenges involved in next-generation sequencing. This article includes a discussion of the ethics of NGS in research and clinical contexts.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of NGS in clinical and research contexts has features that pose challenges for traditional ethical frameworks for protecting research participants and patients. NGS generates massive amounts of data and results that vary in terms of known clinical relevance. It is important to determine appropriate processes for protecting, managing and communicating the data. The use of machine learning for sequencing and interpretation of genomic data also raises concerns in terms of the potential for bias and potential implications for fiduciary obligations. NGS poses particular challenges in three main ethical areas: privacy, informed consent, and return of results.

A Tale of Two Capacities: Including Children and Decisionally Vulnerable Adults in Biomedical Research

The participation of individuals who lack decision-making capacity is essential for advancing genomics research and neuroscience, but raises ethical and legal challenges relating to vulnerability, consent, and exclusion. Capacity differences between populations and individuals, the dynamics of capacity over time, and evolving legal consent and capacity regimes all raise uncertainty for researchers, institutional review boards, and policy makers. We review international ethical and legal best practices for including children and decisionally vulnerable adults in health research. Research ethics norms and literature tend to split such groups into narrow silos, which results in inconsistency and conceptual confusion, or to lump them together, which fails to take into account morally relevant differences. Through a narrative review of international norms, we identify challenges common to both groups, while drawing out distinctions reflecting their opposite capacity trajectories. Our comparison between these two populations clarifies underlying ethical concepts and offers opportunities for critique. Children need protection to foster their long-term autonomy, while decisionally vulnerable adults need to be provided with support in order to exercise their autonomy. This leads to differences in how researchers determine who lacks capacity, who has authority to consent, and what criteria guide such decision-making. We also consider how capacity issues color contemporary research governance debates over broad consent, data protection compliance, data sharing, and the return of individual research results and incidental findings.

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

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

Is it research or is it clinical? Revisiting an old frontier through the lens of next-generation sequencing technologies

As next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) are increasingly used in the clinic, one issue often pointed out in the literature is the fact that their implementation "blurs the line" between research and healthcare. Indeed, NGS data obtained through research study may have clinical significance, and patients may consent that their data is shared in international databases used in research. This blurred line may increase the risk of therapeutic misconception, or that of over-reporting incidental findings. The law has been used to impose a distinction between the two contexts, but this distinction may not always be as clear in the practice of clinical genomics. To illustrate this, we reviewed the legal frameworks in France and Quebec on the matter, and asked the opinion of stakeholders who use NGS to help cancer and rare disease patients in practice. We found that while there are clear legal distinctions between research and clinical care, bridges between the two contexts exist, and the law focuses on providing appropriate protections to persons, whether they are patients or research participants. The technology users we interviewed expressed that their use of NGS was designed to help patients, but harbored elements pertaining to research as well as care. We hence saw that NGS technologies are often used with a double objective, both individual care and the creation of collective knowledge. Our results highlight the importance of moving towards research-based care, where clinical information can be progressively enriched with evolutive research results. We also found that there can be a misalignment between scientific experts' views and legal norms of what constitutes research or care, which should be addressed. Our method allowed us to shed light on a grey zone at the edge between research and care, where the full benefits of NGS can be yielded. We believe that this and other evidence from the realities of clinical research practice can be used to design more stable and responsible personalized medicine policies.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Towards precision nephrology: the opportunities and challenges of genomic medicine

The expansion of genomic medicine is furthering our understanding of many human diseases. This is well illustrated in the field of nephrology, through the characterization, discovery, and growing insight into various renal diseases through use of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. This review will provide an overview of the diagnostic opportunities of using genetic testing in the clinical setting by describing notable discoveries regarding inherited forms of renal disease that have advanced the field and by highlighting some of the potential benefits of establishing a molecular diagnosis in a clinical practice. In addition, it will discuss some of the challenges associated with the expansion of genetic testing into the clinical setting, including clinical variant interpretation and return of genetic results.

Variation among Consent Forms for Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing

The goal of this study was to explore variation among informed consent documents for clinical whole exome sequencing (WES) in order to identify the level of consistency with the recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) regarding informed consent for clinical WES. Recommendations were organized into a framework of key points for analysis. Content analysis was conducted on a sample of informed consent documents for clinical WES downloaded from 18 laboratory websites. We observed considerable variability in the content of informed consent documents among the sample of 18 laboratories. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, a measure of readability, of the consent forms was 10.8, above the recommended 8th grade level. For each of the individual ACMG and Bioethics Commission recommendations, the frequency of inclusion ranged from 11% to 100%. For the overall list of 18 consent items, inclusion ranged from 11 to 17 items (Mean = 13.44, Mode = 14). This analysis will be useful to laboratories that wish to create informed consent documents that comply with these recommendations. The consistent use of standardized informed consent process could improve communication between clinicians and patients and increase understanding of genetic testing.

Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences

BACKGROUND

Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations.

METHODS

Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

WES/WGS Reporting of Mutations from Cardiovascular "Actionable" Genes in Clinical Practice: A Key Role for UMD Knowledgebases in the Era of Big Databases

High-throughput next-generation sequencing such as whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing are being rapidly integrated into clinical practice. The use of these techniques leads to the identification of secondary variants for which decisions about the reporting or not to the patient need to be made. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently published recommendations for the reporting of these variants in clinical practice for 56 "actionable" genes. Among these, seven are involved in Marfan Syndrome And Related Disorders (MSARD) resulting from mutations of the FBN1, TGFBR1 and 2, ACTA2, SMAD3, MYH11 and MYLK genes. Here, we show that mutations collected in UMD databases for MSARD genes (UMD-MSARD) are rarely reported, including the most frequent ones, in global scale initiatives for variant annotation such as the NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP), the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), and ClinVar. The predicted pathogenic mutations reported in global scale initiatives but absent in locus-specific databases (LSDBs) mainly correspond to rare events. UMD-MSARD databases are therefore the only resources providing access to the full spectrum of known pathogenic mutations. They are the most comprehensive resources for clinicians and geneticists to interpret MSARD-related variations not only primary variants but also secondary variants.

Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening

This document of the European Society of Human Genetics contains recommendations regarding responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Carrier screening is defined here as the detection of carrier status of recessive diseases in couples or persons who do not have an a priori increased risk of being a carrier based on their or their partners' personal or family history. Expanded carrier screening offers carrier screening for multiple autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders, facilitated by new genetic testing technologies, and allows testing of individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Carrier screening aims to identify couples who have an increased risk of having an affected child in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. In previous decades, carrier screening was typically performed for one or few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life-expectancy and often because of a considerable higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. New genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes or sequence variants. Expanded carrier screening panels that have been introduced to date have been advertised and offered to health care professionals and the public on a commercial basis. This document discusses the challenges that expanded carrier screening might pose in the context of the lessons learnt from decades of population-based carrier screening and in the context of existing screening criteria. It aims to contribute to the public and professional discussion and to arrive at better clinical and laboratory practice guidelines.

The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents' Experiences

Genomic microarray may detect susceptibility loci (SL) for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and epilepsy, with a yet unquantifiable risk for the fetus. The prenatal disclosure of susceptibility loci is a topic of much debate. Many health care professionals fear that reporting susceptibility loci may put a psychological burden on pregnant couples. It is our policy to disclose prenatal susceptibility loci as we recognize them as actionable for prospective parents. The aim of this report was to evaluate the psychological impact of disclosing a prenatal diagnosis of susceptibility loci. The psychological impact of disclosing susceptibility loci was evaluated in the first patients who received such results. Eight out of 15 women who had a susceptibility locus disclosed and four of their partners consented to share their experiences through a telephonic evaluation (n = 12). Follow-up time ranged from 3 to 15 months after their prenatal test result. The reporting of susceptibility loci was initially ‘shocking’ for five parents while the other seven felt ‘worried’. Ten out of 12 participants indicated they would like to be informed about the susceptibility locus again, two were unsure. Most had no enduring worries. Participants unanimously indicated that pregnant couples should have an individualized pre-test choice about susceptibility loci (non)disclosure. We observed no negative psychological impact with the prenatal diagnosis and disclosure of SL on participants. A key factor in mitigating parental anxiety with SL disclosure appears to be post-test genetic counseling. Our report confirms that pregnant women and their partners prefer an individualized choice regarding the scope of prenatal testing.

A scoping study to explore the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing compared with traditional genetic testing for the diagnosis of learning disabilities in children

BACKGROUND

Learning disability (LD) is a serious and lifelong condition characterised by the impairment of cognitive and adaptive skills. Some cases of LD with unidentified causes may be linked to genetic factors. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques are new approaches to genetic testing that are expected to increase diagnostic yield.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping study focused on the diagnosis of LD in children and the objectives were to describe current pathways that involve the use of genetic testing; collect stakeholder views on the changes in service provision that would need to be put in place before NGS could be used in clinical practice; describe the new systems and safeguards that would need to be put in place before NGS could be used in clinical practice; and explore the cost-effectiveness of using NGS compared with conventional genetic testing.

METHODS

A research advisory group was established. This group provided ongoing support by e-mail and telephone through the lifetime of the study and also contributed face-to-face through a workshop. A detailed review of published studies and reports was undertaken. In addition, information was collected through 33 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders.

RESULTS

NGS techniques consist of targeted gene sequencing, whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Targeted gene panels, which are the least complex, are in their infancy in clinical settings. Some interviewees thought that during the next 3-5 years targeted gene panels would be superseded by WES. If NGS technologies were to be fully introduced into clinical practice in the future a number of factors would need to be overcome. The main resource-related issues pertaining to service provision are the need for additional computing capacity, more bioinformaticians, more genetic counsellors and also genetics-related training for the public and a wide range of staff. It is also considered that, as the number of children undergoing genetic testing increases, there will be an increase in demand for information and support for families. The main issues relating to systems and safeguards are giving informed consent, sharing unanticipated findings, developing ethical and other frameworks, equity of access, data protection, data storage and data sharing. There is little published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of NGS technologies. The major barriers to determining cost-effectiveness are the uncertainty around diagnostic yield, the heterogeneity of diagnostic pathways and the lack of information on the impact of a diagnosis on health care, social care, educational support needs and the wider family. Furthermore, as NGS techniques are currently being used only in research, costs and benefits to the NHS are unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS technologies are at an early stage of development and it is too soon to say whether they can offer value for money to the NHS as part of the LD diagnostic process. Substantial organisational changes, as well as new systems and safeguards, would be required if NGS technologies were to be introduced into NHS clinical practice. Considerable further research is required to establish whether using NGS technologies to diagnose learning disabilities is clinically effective and cost-effective.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know

The debate on the 'right (not) to know' has simmered on for over 30 years. New examples where a right to be informed is contrasted to a right to be kept in ignorance occasionally surface and spark disagreement on the extent to which patients and research subjects have a right to be self-determining concerning the health related information they receive. Up until now, however, this debate has been unsatisfactory with regard to the question what type of rights-if any-are in play here and to what extent they can provide a normative basis for informed consent. This paper provides an analysis of informed consent in the context of 'epistemic interventions': interventions which involve the communication of (health-related) information. First, I offer an analysis of the concept of a 'right not to know' in the context of consent to epistemic interventions. I argue that the scope of the consent is determined by the extent to which this intervention can be seen as an infringement of the private sphere. After that I show how this analysis affects the scope and standards of informed consent.

Screening for Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Children: What Can We Learn From Adult Screening Programs?

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), an autosomal dominant atherosclerotic disease, is a common monogenic subtype of cardiovascular disease. Patients with FH suffer an increased risk of early onset heart disease. Early identification of abnormally elevated cholesterol signpost clinicians to interventions that will significantly decrease risk of related morbidity and mortality. Cascade genetic testing can subsequently identify at-risk relatives. Accordingly, a number of screening approaches have been implemented for FH in countries including the UK and the Netherlands. However, incomplete identification of cases remains a challenge. Moreover, the potential for early intervention is now raising questions about the value of implementing universal cholesterol screening approaches that focus on children. In this report, we briefly discuss the potential benefit of such screening. Additionally, we submit that ever increasing genome technological capability will force a discussion of including genetic tests in these screening programs. We discuss the opportunities and challenges presented by such an approach. We close with recommendations that the success of such screening endeavors will rely on a better integrated practice model in public health genomics that bridges stakeholders including practitioners in primary care, clinical genetics and public health.

Illustrative case studies in the return of exome and genome sequencing results

Whole genome and exome sequencing tests are increasingly being ordered in clinical practice, creating a need for research exploring the return of results from these tests. A goal of the Clinical Sequencing and Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium is to gain experience with this process to develop best practice recommendations for offering exome and genome testing and returning results. Genetic counselors in the CSER consortium have an integral role in the return of results from these genomic sequencing tests and have gained valuable insight. We present seven emerging themes related to return of exome and genome sequencing results accompanied by case descriptions illustrating important lessons learned, counseling challenges specific to these tests and considerations for future research and practice.

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.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

Next-generation diagnostics: gene panel, exome, or whole genome?

Although the benefits of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for the diagnosis of heterogeneous diseases such as intellectual disability (ID) are undisputed, there is little consensus on the relative merits of targeted enrichment, whole-exome sequencing (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS). To answer this question, WES and WGS data from the same nine samples were compared, and WES was shown not to miss any variants identified by WGS in a gene panel including ∼500 genes linked to ID (500GP). Additionally, deeply sequenced WES data were shown to adequately cover ∼99% of the 500GP; thus, little additional benefit was to be expected from a targeted enrichment approach. To reduce costs, minimal sequencing criteria were determined by investigating the relation between sequenced reads and outcome parameters such as coverage and variant yield. Our analysis indicated that 60 million reads yielded a mean coverage of ∼60×: ∼97% of the 500GP sequences were sufficiently covered to exclude variants, whereas variant yield was ∼99.5% and false-positive and false-negative rates were controlled. Our findings indicate that WES is currently the optimal approach to ID diagnostics. This result depends on the capture kit and sequencing strategy used. The developed framework however is amenable to other sequencing approaches.

Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing

This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.

Illustrative case studies in the return of exome and genome sequencing results

Whole genome and exome sequencing tests are increasingly being ordered in clinical practice, creating a need for research exploring the return of results from these tests. A goal of the Clinical Sequencing and Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium is to gain experience with this process to develop best practice recommendations for offering exome and genome testing and returning results. Genetic counselors in the CSER consortium have an integral role in the return of results from these genomic sequencing tests and have gained valuable insight. We present seven emerging themes related to return of exome and genome sequencing results accompanied by case descriptions illustrating important lessons learned, counseling challenges specific to these tests and considerations for future research and practice.

Pregnant couples at increased risk for common aneuploidies choose maximal information from invasive genetic testing

Genomic array detects more pathogenic chromosome aberrations than conventional karyotyping (CK), including genetic variants associated with a susceptibility for neurodevelopmental disorders; susceptibility loci (SL). Consensus regarding the scope of invasive prenatal diagnosis (PND) pregnant couples should be offered is lacking. This study examined pregnant couples' preferences, doubts and satisfaction regarding the scope of invasive PND. Eighty-two couples choosing prenatal screening (PNS) and 59 couples choosing invasive PND were offered a choice between 5 (comparable to CK) and 0.5 Mb resolution array analysis outcomes, the latter with or without reporting SL. A pre-test self-report questionnaire and post-test telephone interview assessed their choices in-depth. Actual (PND) and hypothetical (PNS) choices differed significantly (p < 0.001). Ninety-five percent of the couples in the PND group chose 0.5 Mb array, vs 69% in the PNS group. Seven percent of the PND group wished not to be informed of SL. Ninety percent was satisfied with their choice and wished to decide about the scope themselves. Pregnant couples wish to make their own choices regarding the scope of invasive PND. It therefore seems justified to offer them a choice in both the resolution of array and disclosure of SL.

First steps in exploring prospective exome sequencing of consanguineous couples

Consanguinity is one of the most frequent risk factors for congenital disorders. In theory, prospective exome sequencing of consanguineous couples could identify couples who both are carriers of autosomal recessive diseases, and empower such couples to make informed reproductive decisions. To investigate this, we sent blood samples to our laboratory of four pairs of consanguineous parents having one or more children affected by an autosomal recessive disorder, without revealing any diagnostic information. The study was restricted to find identical, previously described, or evidently pathogenic mutations in both parents of each couple, in over 400 genes known to result in severe autosomal recessive disorders. Out of the six autosomal recessive disorders known to the four couples studied, two were correctly identified. Carrier status of one not previously known autosomal recessive disorder was discovered. As expected, given the pipeline used, large deletions, mutations in genes not present in the gene list, mutations outside the exons and consensus splice sites, and mutations that were not evidently pathogenic and previously not reported, were not identified. The restriction to detecting only couples with identical mutations diminishes the risk of revealing unsolicited findings and shortens the time needed for analysis, but also results in missing couples with different mutations in the same gene. In addition to the proposed pipeline, couples should be offered testing for carrier status of frequent disorders that can present themselves by large deletions, non-exonic mutations or compound heterozygous mutations (e.g. thalassemia, spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis). Even though sensitivity is reduced, offering exome sequencing prospectively will increase reproductive options for consanguineous couples.

Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings

Contrasting opinions exist regarding the disclosure of incidental findings detected through clinical genomic testing. This study used a discrete choice experiment to investigate genetic health professionals' preferences for the disclosure of incidental findings in an Australian paediatric setting. Four attributes of conditions relating to incidental findings were investigated: availability of prevention and treatment, chance of symptoms ever developing, age of onset and severity. Questionnaires from 59 Australian genetic health professionals were analysed. Results show that when evaluating incidental findings for disclosure, these professionals value the availability of prevention and treatment for the condition above all other characteristics included in the study. The framework of this discrete choice experiment can be used to investigate the preferences of other stakeholders such as paediatricians and parents about disclosure of incidental findings. The results of this study may be considered when assessing which categories of incidental findings are most suitable for disclosure in clinical practice.

Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine

Advances in genome sequencing technology have fostered a new era of clinical genomic medicine. Genetic counselors, who have begun to support patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, will review brief clinical vignettes, and discuss early experiences with clinical genomic testing. Their experiences will frame a discussion about how current testing may challenge patient understanding and expectations toward the evaluation of cancer risk and downstream preventive behaviors.

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.

Patient experiences with gene panels based on exome sequencing in clinical diagnostics: high acceptance and low distress

The Radboud University Medical Center was among the first to implement two-step exome sequencing in clinical genetic diagnostics. This study is the first to evaluate patient experiences with gene panels based on exome sequencing, using quantified psychological variables: acceptance, psychological distress, expectations of heredity and unsolicited findings. Between August 2011 and July 2012, 177 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal/kidney cancer, deafness, blindness or movement disorder consented to diagnostic exome sequencing offered by clinical geneticists. Baseline questionnaires were sent to 141 adults, returned by 111 with median age of 49 [22-79] years and positive family history in 81%. Follow-up included 91 responders at median 4 [2-22] weeks after results from known gene panels per diagnosis group; exome-wide analysis is ongoing. Confirmed or possibly pathogenic mutations were found in 31% with one unsolicited finding (oncogenetic panel). Most patients (92%) were satisfied. There were no significant changes in heredity-specific distress (18% at baseline, 17% at follow-up) and expectations of heredity. Fewer patients expected unsolicited findings at follow-up (29% vs 18%, p = 0.01). Satisfaction and distress were equal in those with vs without mutations. In conclusion, most adults accepted and were satisfied with gene panels based on diagnostic exome sequencing, few reporting distress.

Views of primary care providers regarding the return of genome sequencing incidental findings

Sequencing of the entire exome or genome is increasingly used in clinical practice. Debate continues, however, regarding which incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and who should be involved in those decisions. Previous empirical research regarding stakeholder attitudes to the return of IFs has primarily involved genetics professionals; non-genetics health professionals have not been widely surveyed. Given this, a survey regarding return of IFs was administered at the Best Practices in Pediatrics Conference following an educational presentation on genetics terminology and genetic condition examples. A total of 258 participants completed the survey. Of particular note, respondents who were positively disposed to sequencing did not always report wanting to learn about IFs, even if actionable. This is noteworthy given recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines recommending particular actionable IF be returned 'without reference to patient preference'. This study's findings are important because they provide insight regarding the attitudes to the return of genome sequencing results for an important professional group, primary care providers. Ultimately, as likely gatekeepers to referrals for this technology, their opinions about the test will be key to its successful deployment.

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

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