Am I My Family's Keeper? Disclosure Dilemmas in Next-Generation Sequencing

Consensus Statements on Precision Oncology in the China Greater Bay Area

BACKGROUND

Next-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic panels (NGS CGPs) have enabled the delivery of tailor-made therapeutic approaches to improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. Within the China Greater Bay Area (GBA), territorial differences in clinical practices and health care systems and strengthening collaboration warrant a regional consensus to consolidate the development and integration of precision oncology (PO). Therefore, the Precision Oncology Working Group (POWG) formulated standardized principles for the clinical application of molecular profiling, interpretation of genomic alterations, and alignment of actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapy to deliver clinical services of excellence and evidence-based care to patients with cancer in the China GBA.

METHODS

Thirty experts used a modified Delphi method. The evidence extracted to support the statements was graded according to the GRADE system and reported according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, version 2.0.

RESULTS

The POWG reached consensus in six key statements: harmonization of reporting and quality assurance of NGS; molecular tumor board and clinical decision support systems for PO; education and training; research and real-world data collection, patient engagement, regulations, and financial reimbursement of PO treatment strategies; and clinical recommendations and implementation of PO in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

POWG consensus statements standardize the clinical application of NGS CGPs, streamline the interpretation of clinically significant genomic alterations, and align actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapies. The POWG consensus statements may harmonize the utility and delivery of PO in China's GBA.

The ethical aspects of exposome research: a systematic review

In recent years, exposome research has been put forward as the next frontier for the study of human health and disease. Exposome research entails the analysis of the totality of environmental exposures and their corresponding biological responses within the human body. Increasingly, this is operationalized by big-data approaches to map the effects of internal as well as external exposures using smart sensors and multiomics technologies. However, the ethical implications of exposome research are still only rarely discussed in the literature. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the academic literature regarding both the exposome and underlying research fields and approaches, to map the ethical aspects that are relevant to exposome research. We identify five ethical themes that are prominent in ethics discussions: the goals of exposome research, its standards, its tools, how it relates to study participants, and the consequences of its products. Furthermore, we provide a number of general principles for how future ethics research can best make use of our comprehensive overview of the ethical aspects of exposome research. Lastly, we highlight three aspects of exposome research that are most in need of ethical reflection: the actionability of its findings, the epidemiological or clinical norms applicable to exposome research, and the meaning and action-implications of bias.

Genetic testing and family entanglements

The development of the 'new genetics' in the early 1990's opened up a new space which required some patients and families to understand and navigate genetic testing. The social science literature that has grown alongside the 'new genetics', now spanning more than thirty years, has continued to explore and question assumptions about attitudes and responses towards genetic technologies. In this article we highlight how individual experience of genetic disease and personal responses towards genetic technologies can only be understood by considering their context. We focus on the rich literature on family within sociology, science and technology studies, anthropology, and family studies, to explore the myriad ways in which family is implicated in the patient experience of genetic testing. We explore these connections by drawing on a set of interviews held with individuals who have undergone a predictive test for a genetic condition, including Huntington's Disease and breast cancer. Five themes were developed: family disclosure, family gatekeeping, going for testing, individual and collective communication practices, and receiving a negative test result. To conclude, we highlight how these connections might be considered through the lens of entanglement, explaining the complex mechanisms through which family and genetics are intimately entwined.

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

METHODS

In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance).

RESULTS

In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Mini-gut feelings: perspectives of people with cystic fibrosis on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking

Aim: Organoid technology has enormous potential for precision medicine, such as has recently been demonstrated in the field of cystic fibrosis. However, storage and use of organoids has been associated with ethical challenges and there is currently a lack of harmony in regulation and guidelines to govern the rapid emergence of 'organoid medicine'. Developing sound governance demands incorporation of the perspectives of patients as key stakeholders. Materials & methods: We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with people with cystic fibrosis to explore their perspectives on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. Results: We identified three themes: prioritization of research and trust, ambivalent views on commercial involvement and transparency and control. Conclusion: Our study offers important insights for ethically robust governance of 'organoid medicine'.

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

Responsibility in dealing with genetic risk information

Predictive testing information raises questions about risk communication, health responsibility, and about how to deal with the gap between knowledge of risks and options to act on this knowledge. For some diseases identified by predictive testing, specific treatments or interventions are available, while other diseases, thus far, remain untreatable or unpreventable; this triggers different forms of responsibility. Gender also often intersects with moral responsibility, regarding risk communication but also responsibilities of care which may become necessary with a family member’s onset of disease. The aim of the study was to analyze laypeople’s attitudes towards predictive testing with a special focus on forms of responsibility arising while dealing with uncertainty of risk information. We conducted seven focus groups with laypeople (n = 43) in four German cities in 2016. Participants were provided with different genetic testing scenarios (breast cancer, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, pharmacogenetics in rectal cancer) for discussing their responsibilities and risk perceptions. We identified three different forms of responsibility: self-responsibility and self-care, family responsibility and care for others, and professional responsibility. For laypeople, the decision for predictive genetic testing seems voluntary and free from external constraint; however, both family and professional conditions influence an individual’s decision.

A tailored approach towards informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In current practice, probands are asked to inform relatives about the possibility of predictive DNA testing when a pathogenic variant causing an inherited cardiac condition (ICC) is identified. Previous research on the uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in relatives suggests that not all relatives are sufficiently informed. We developed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored approach in which probands decide together with the genetic counsellor which relatives they inform themselves and which relatives they prefer to have informed by the genetic counsellor. Here, we present the study protocol of this randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

A multicentre randomised controlled trial with parallel-group design will be conducted in which an intervention group receiving the tailored approach will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. Adult probands diagnosed with an ICC in whom a likely pathogenic or pathogenic variant is identified will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group (total sample: n=85 probands). Primary outcomes are uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing by relatives (total sample: n=340 relatives). Secondary outcomes are appreciation of the approach used and impact on familial and psychological functioning, which will be assessed using questionnaires. Relatives who attend genetic counselling will be asked to fill out a questionnaire as well.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres (MEC 2017-145), the Netherlands. All participants will provide informed consent prior to participation in the study. Results of the study on primary and secondary outcome measures will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR6657; Pre-results.

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that ‘tick-box’ forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients’—and relatives’—interests.

Primary brain calcification: an international study reporting novel variants and associated phenotypes

Primary familial brain calcification (PFBC) is a rare cerebral microvascular calcifying disorder with a wide spectrum of motor, cognitive, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. It is typically inherited as an autosomal-dominant trait with four causative genes identified so far: SLC20A2, PDGFRB, PDGFB, and XPR1. Our study aimed at screening the coding regions of these genes in a series of 177 unrelated probands that fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for primary brain calcification regardless of their family history. Sequence variants were classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or of uncertain significance (VUS), based on the ACMG-AMP recommendations. We identified 45 probands (25.4%) carrying either pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (n = 34, 19.2%) or VUS (n = 11, 6.2%). SLC20A2 provided the highest contribution (16.9%), followed by XPR1 and PDGFB (3.4% each), and PDGFRB (1.7%). A total of 81.5% of carriers were symptomatic and the most recurrent symptoms were parkinsonism, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric disturbances (52.3%, 40.9%, and 38.6% of symptomatic individuals, respectively), with a wide range of age at onset (from childhood to 81 years). While the pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants identified in this study can be used for genetic counseling, the VUS will require additional evidence, such as recurrence in unrelated patients, in order to be classified as pathogenic.

How to support cancer genetics counselees in informing at-risk relatives? Lessons from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

In hereditary and familial cancer, counselees are requested to inform their at-risk relatives. We developed an intervention to support counselees in this task.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted aimed at improving cancer genetic counselees' i) knowledge, ii) motivation to disclose information, and ii) self-efficacy in this regard. Eligible participants were randomized to telephonic counseling (n = 148), or standard care (n = 157) and assessed at baseline, 1 week post-intervention, and 4 months after study enrolment.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found in participants' knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy. Knowledge concerning which second-degree relatives to inform was lower compared to first-degree relatives. About 60% of the participants was of the opinion that they needed to inform more relatives than stated in their summary letter and only about 50% were correctly aware of which information to disclose. Of note, at baseline, almost 80% of the participants had already correctly informed their at-risk relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Since, unexpectedly, counselees already informed most of their relatives before the intervention was offered, efficacy of the intervention could not convincingly be determined. Counselees' knowledge about whom to inform about what is suboptimal.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future interventions should target a more homogeneous sample and address counselees' understanding and recall.

Genetic diseases and information to relatives: practical and ethical issues for professionals after introduction of a legal framework in France

Health professionals have a role to play in assisting patients to communicate genetic information to their relatives. In France, a specific unique legal framework has been implemented concerning this issue. We questioned professionals about their practice and how it has evolved in this new frame. The French law has opted to lay responsibility for disclosure on the person concerned by a positive test result, without totally excluding some responsibility on the part of the professionals involved, in the information to be disclosed and in the transmission of the information if a patient refuses to do it themselves (indirect disclosure). We designed and validated an online survey to be sent out to healthcare professionals to explore their practice and how they went about implementing the legal provisions. We also sought to determine how healthcare professionals dealt with a patient's refusal to disclose information to their relatives, and whether the legal framework was helpful. We carried out a statistical analysis of the responses to questionnaires to interpret the results by professional category, field of medicine and genetic disorder. The results show that professionals agreed on the relevance of disclosure to relatives. However, they show a range of practices and varying representations of the genetic issue in the framework of disclosure to relatives according to their medical field, their role in the health system and their own interpretations. They indicated a lack of resources, raised some ethical issues and put forward some arguments against contacting relatives themselves.

Molecular Tumor Boards: current practice and future needs

Background

Due to rapid technical advances, steeply declining sequencing costs, and the ever-increasing number of targeted therapies, it can be expected that extensive tumor sequencing such as whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will soon be applied in standard care. Clinicians will thus be confronted with increasingly complex genetic information and multiple test-platforms to choose from. General medical training, meanwhile, can hardly keep up with the pace of innovation. Consequently, there is a rapidly growing gap between clinical knowledge and genetic potential in cancer care. Multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) have been suggested as a means to address this disparity, but shared experiences are scarce in literature and no quality requirements or guidelines have been published to date.

Methods

Based on literature review, a survey among hospitals in The Netherlands, and our own experience with the establishment of a nationally operating MTB, this article evaluates current knowledge and unmet needs and lays out a strategy for successful MTB implementation.

Results

Having access to an MTB can improve and increase the application of genetics-guided cancer care. In our survey, however, <50% of hospitals and only 5% of nonacademic hospitals had access to an MTB. In addition, current MTBs vary widely in terms of composition, tasks, tools, and workflow. This may not only lead to variation in quality of care but also hinders data sharing and thus creation of an effective learning community.

Conclusions

This article acknowledges a leading role for MTBs to govern (extensive) tumor sequencing into daily practice and proposes three basic necessities for successful MTB implementation: (i) global harmonization in cancer sequencing practices and procedures, (ii) minimal member and operational requirements, and (iii) an appropriate unsolicited findings policy. Meeting these prerequisites would not only optimize MTB functioning but also improve general interpretation and application of genomics-guided cancer care.

Clinician-Stakeholders' Perspectives on Using Patient Portals to Return Lynch Syndrome Screening Results

Test results for genetic conditions, such as Lynch Syndrome (LS), have traditionally been returned by genetic counselors or other providers who can explain results implications and provide psychosocial support. Returning genetic results through an Electronic Health Record's patient portal may increase the efficiency of returning results and could activate patient follow-up; however, stakeholder input is necessary to determine acceptability and appropriate implementation for LS. Twenty interviews were conducted with clinicians from six specialties involved in LS screening that represent a range of settings. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and thematic analysis across content categories. Participants felt that patient portals could supplement personal calls, but the potential sensitive nature of LS screening results indicated the need for caution. Others felt that LS results could be returned through portals if there were clear explanations of the result, reputable additional information available within the portal, urging follow up confirmatory testing, and a referral to a genetics specialist. Patient portals were seen as helpful for prompting patient follow-up and providing resources to notify at-risk family members. There is potential for patient portals to return LS screening and other genetic results, however we raise several issues to resolve before implementation is warranted.

Addressing Hereditary Cancer Risk at the End of Life

Oncology guidelines clearly outline evidence-based recommendations for patients with newly diagnosed cancer to help oncologists determine which patients are appropriate for a genetic assessment. Ideally, patients with newly diagnosed cancer, who have personal or family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer predisposition, are referred for genetics work up in the nonurgent setting. However, in some cases, a genetics work up is delayed until the end of life. This is a time of heightened stress and additional obstacles, including discordance between family members regarding the obtainment of genetic information, paying for testing, selecting a surrogate to receive and disperse information in the case of a patient's death, and the use of DNA banking for future evaluation. To meaningfully participate and support patients, family members, and our colleagues facing requests at the end of life for genetic testing, we provide a practical approach and highlight resources to effectively engage in this rising challenge.

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

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

Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach

Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care.