Views of genetics health professionals on the return of genomic results

Chapitre 8. Annoncer ou pas la découverte d’anomalies non sollicitées lors d’un test génétique à séquençage haut débit ?

OBJECTIVE

New genome sequencing techniques allow new approaches in medical genetics, in particular by facilitating the diagnosis of genetic diseases. However, their use also leads to unsolicited genetic findings being uncovered. This type of discovery raises ethical, legal and psychological considerations. The objective of this psychological research was to study the different positions of patients, health professionals and general public regarding the acceptability of the announcement of unsolicited findings revealed during a high-throughput sequencing genetic test.

METHOD

the first exploratory study aimed, through non-directive research interviews conducted with 13 patients of a medical genetics service, to understand the psychological repercussions linked to the announcement of a result of a targeted genetic test and to know the patients’ desires regarding the announcement of unsolicited findings if the test had been a high-throughput genetic test. The second study, using a quantitative methodology, aimed to identify the judgment policies of 144 patients, 94 healthcare professionals and 211 people from the general public concerning the acceptability of this type of disclosure.

RESULTS

The cluster analyses highlighted six judgment policies as to whether or not to disclose the discovery of unsolicited anomalies: “Tell everything”, “Tell even in part”, “Tell everything unless desperate”, “Undecided”, “Do not tell” and “Do not tell if no prevention”. The participants positioned themselves differently, in particular according to the patient’s consent.

CONCLUSION

This research shows the variability of positioning and the importance of consent in the acceptability of the disclosure of unsolicited findings. However, one of the limitations of the study lies in the fact that in medical clinic, acceptability and acceptance may vary over time. A longitudinal study would undoubtedly afford a better understanding of the psychological progress of patients in this type of care pathway..

Attitudes on pharmacogenomic results as secondary findings among medical geneticists

OBJECTIVES

As evidence mounts supporting the utility of pharmacogenomic-guided medication management, incorporating pharmacogenomic genes into secondary finding results from sequencing panels is increasingly under consideration. We studied medical geneticists' attitudes on receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding.

METHODS

Four focus groups with 16 medical geneticists total were conducted followed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All participants ordered genetic sequencing tests; however, the majority had rarely or never ordered pharmacogenomic tests (10/16) or prescribed medications with established response variability (11/16). In total 81.3% expressed low comfort interpreting pharmacogenomic results without appropriate clinical resources (13/16). The positives of receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding included prevention of adverse drug reactions in adults, grateful information-seeking patients, the ability to rapidly prescribe more effective treatments and appreciation of the recent advances in both pharmacogenomic knowledge and available guidelines. Negatives included laboratory reporting issues, exclusivity of pharmacogenomic results to certain populations, lengthy reports concealing pharmacogenomic results in patient charts and laboratories marketing to individuals without prior pharmacogenomic knowledge or targeting inappropriate populations. The most desirable pharmacogenomic resources included a universal electronic health record clinical decision support tool to assist identifying and implementing pharmacogenomic results, a specialized pharmacist as part of the care team, additional pharmacogenomic training during medical/graduate school, and a succinct interpretation of pharmacogenomic results included on laboratory reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants agreed that adding certain actionable pharmacogenomic genes to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF list is reasonable; however, this was qualified with a need for additional resources to support implementation.

Patient Recommendations for the Content and Design of Electronic Returns of Genetic Test Results: Interview Study Among Patients Who Accessed Their Genetic Test Results via the Internet

BACKGROUND

Genetic test results will be increasingly made available electronically as more patient-facing tools are developed; however, little research has been done that collects data on patient preferences for content and design before creating results templates.

OBJECTIVE

This study identifies patient preferences for the electronic return of genetic test results, including what considerations should be prioritized for content and design.

METHODS

Following user-centered design methods, 59 interviews were conducted by using semistructured protocols. The interviews explored the content and design issues of patient portals that facilitated the return of test results to patients. We interviewed patients who received electronic results for specific types of genetics tests (pharmacogenetic tests, hereditary blood disorder tests, and tests for the risk of heritable cancers) or electronically received any type of genetic or nongenetic test results.

RESULTS

In general, many of participants felt that there always needed to be some clinician involvement in electronic result returns and that electronic coversheets with simple summaries would be helpful for facilitating this. Coversheet summaries could accompany, but not replace, the more detailed report. Participants had specific suggestions for such results summaries, such as only reporting the information that was the most important for patients to understand, including next steps, and doing so by using clear language that is free of medical jargon. Electronic result returns should also include explicit encouragement for patients to contact health care providers about questions. Finally, many participants preferred to manage their care by using their smartphones, particularly in instances when they needed to access health information on the go.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants recommended that a patient-friendly front section should accompany the more detailed report and made suggestions for organization, content, and wording. Many used their smartphones regularly to access test results; therefore, health systems and patient portal software vendors should accommodate smartphone app design and web portal design concomitantly when developing platforms for returning results.

Reporting Genetic Findings to Individual Research Participants: Guidelines From the Swiss Personalized Health Network

In 2017 the Swiss federal government established the Swiss Personalized Health Network (SPHN), a nationally coordinated data infrastructure for genetic research. The SPHN advisory group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was tasked with the creation of a recommendation to ensure ethically responsible reporting of genetic research findings to research participants in SPHN-funded studies. Following consultations with expert stakeholders, including geneticists, pediatricians, sociologists, university hospitals directors, patient representatives, consumer protection associations, and insurers, the ELSI advisory group issued its recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants" in May 2020. In this paper we outline the development of this recommendation and the provisions it contains. In particular, we discuss some of its key features, namely: (1) that participation in SPHN-funded studies as a research subject is conditional to accepting that medically relevant genetic research findings will be reported; (2) that a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) should be created to support researchers' decision-making processes about reporting individual genetic research findings; (3) that such Multidisciplinary Expert Panel will make case-by-case decisions about whether to allow reporting of genetic findings, instead of relying on a pre-defined list of medically relevant variants; (4) that research participants shall be informed of the need to disclose genetic mutations when applying for private insurance, which may influence individual decisions about participation in research. By providing an account of the procedural background and considerations leading to the SPHN recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants," we seek to promote a better understanding of the proposed guidance, as well as to contribute to the global dialog on the reporting of genetic research findings.

The Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing on the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Hereditary Neuromuscular Disorders

The impact of high-throughput sequencing in genetic neuromuscular disorders cannot be overstated. The ability to rapidly and affordably sequence multiple genes simultaneously has enabled a second golden age of Mendelian disease gene discovery, with flow-on impacts for rapid genetic diagnosis, evidence-based treatment, tailored therapy development, carrier-screening, and prevention of disease recurrence in families. However, there are likely many more neuromuscular disease genes and mechanisms to be discovered. Many patients and families remain without a molecular diagnosis following targeted panel sequencing, clinical exome sequencing, or even genome sequencing. Here we review how massively parallel, or next-generation, sequencing has changed the field of genetic neuromuscular disorders, and anticipate future benefits of recent technological innovations such as RNA-seq implementation and detection of tandem repeat expansions from short-read sequencing.

Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs.

CONCLUSION

This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Returning Results of Stored Biological Samples and Biobanks: Perspectives of Saudi Arabian Biomedical Researchers

Scientific medical research involving human samples often leads to improved diagnosis, the discovery of treatment modalities, or the identification of possible risk factors for many diseases. Some findings, including incidental findings, may be important to donors, and some may require intervention. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of health care professionals in their use of stored biological samples for biomedical research regarding the concept of the research results and the challenges of informing donors regarding the results. This qualitative study involved 19 medical researchers doing research with stored biological samples and biobanks. The data were gathered during face-to-face interviews in English using a semistructured interview technique. The participants provided rich and illuminating experiences, framed in the following themes: the professional duty of researchers to return the research results and the right of donors to know; factors affecting informing donors of results (e.g., severity of disease; impact of the provided information; reliability of the research results; and donor approval); challenges to physically returning the results; and the nature of the informed consent, as well as the elements required in the informed consent documentation. Although the majority of researchers agree on the importance of returning research results, some have contradictory views such as that returning research results is not the researcher's responsibility. The study results also support the view that a number of elements should be included in the informed consent, such as the intention of informing the donors of the results as well as the benefits and risks.

Germline whole genome sequencing in pediatric oncology in Denmark-Practitioner perspectives

BACKGROUND

With the implementation of a research project providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) to all pediatric cancer patients in Denmark (2016-2019), we sought to investigate healthcare professionals' views on WGS as it was actively being implemented in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with pediatric oncologists, clinical geneticists, and research coordinating nurses (N = 17), followed by content analysis of transcribed interviews. Interviews were supplemented by ethnographic observations on Danish pediatric oncology wards. Additionally, questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals concerning when they found it appropriate to approach families regarding WGS. The response rate was 74%.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals see imbalances in doctor-patient relationship, especially the double role doctors have as clinicians and researchers. Some were concerned that it might not be possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from all families following diagnosis. Still, 94% of respondents found it acceptable to approach families during the first 4 weeks from the child's diagnosis. Views on the utility of WGS, treatment adaptation, and surveillance differed among interviewees.

CONCLUSION

Overall, healthcare professionals see dilemmas arising from WGS in the pediatric oncology clinic, and some advocate for further educational sessions with families and healthcare professionals. Despite concerns, healthcare professionals overwhelmingly supported early approach of families regarding WGS. Interviewees disagree on the benefits of surveillance based on genetic findings.

Stakeholder perspectives of the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic testing in solid organ transplantation

Aims: To assess stakeholder perspectives regarding the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing following kidney, liver, and heart transplantation. Methods: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups with kidney, liver, and heart transplantation patients and providers. We analyzed the qualitative data to identify salient themes. Results: The study enrolled 36 patients and 24 providers. Patients lacked an understanding about PGx, but expressed interest in PGx testing. Providers expressed willingness to use PGx testing, but reported barriers to implementation, such as lack of knowledge, lack of evidence demonstrating clinical utility, and patient healthcare burden. Conclusion: Patient and provider educational efforts, including foundational knowledge, clinical evidence, and applications to patient care beyond just immunosuppression, may be useful to facilitate the use of PGx testing in transplant medicine.

Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres

Background

Incidental and secondary findings (IFs and SFs) are subject to ongoing discussion as potential consequences of clinical exome sequencing (ES). International policy documents vary on the reporting of these findings. Discussion points include the practice of unintentionally identified IFs versus deliberately pursued SFs, patient opt-out possibilities and the spectrum of reportable findings. The heterogeneity of advice permits a non-standardised disclosure but research is lacking on actual reporting practices. Therefore, this study assessed national reporting practices for IFs and SFs in clinical ES and the underlying professional perspectives.

Methods

A qualitative focus group study has been undertaken, including professionals from Belgian centres for medical genetics (CMGs). Data were analysed thematically.

Results

All Belgian CMGs participated in this study. Data analysis resulted in six main themes, including one regarding the reporting criteria used for IFs. All CMGs currently use ES-based panel testing. They have limited experience with IFs in clinical ES and are cautious about the pursuit of SFs. Two main reporting criteria for IFs were referred to by all CMGs: the clinical significance of the IF (including pathogenicity and medical actionability) and patient-related factors (including the patient’s preference to know and patient characteristics). The consensus over the importance of these criteria contrasted with their challenging interpretation and application. Points of concern included IFs’ pathogenicity in non-symptomatic persons, IFs concerning variants of uncertain significance, the requirement and definition of medical actionability and patient opt-out possibilities. Finally, reporting decisions were guided by the interaction between the clinical significance of the IF and patient characteristics. This interaction questions the possible disclosure of findings with context-dependent and personal utility, such as IFs concerning a carrier status. To evaluate the IF’s final relevance, a professional and case-by-case deliberation was considered essential.

Conclusions

The challenging application of reporting criteria for IFs results in diversified practices and policy perspectives within Belgian CMGs. This echoes international concerns and may have consequences for effective policy recommendations.

Large next-generation sequencing gene panels in genetic heart disease: challenges in clinical practice

Background

Next-generation sequencing gene panels are increasingly used for genetic diagnosis in inherited cardiac diseases. Besides pathogenic variants, multiple variants, variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and incidental findings can be detected. Such test results can be challenging for counselling and clinical decision making.

Methods

We present patient cases to illustrate the challenges that can arise when unclear genetic test results are detected in cardiogenetic gene panels.

Results

We identified three types of challenging gene panel results: 1) one or more VUS in combination with a pathogenic variant, 2) variants associated with another genetic heart disease, and 3) variants associated with a syndrome involving cardiac features.

Conclusion

Large gene panels not only increase the detection rates of pathogenic variants but also of variants with uncertain pathogenicity, multiple variants and incidental findings. Gene panel results can be challenging for genetic counselling and require proper pre-test and post-test counselling. We advise evaluation of challenging cases by a multidisciplinary team.

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.

Non-interventional cardiologists' perspectives on the role of pharmacogenomic testing in cardiovascular medicine

AIM

To evaluate factors influencing cardiologists' perspectives about pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in clinical practice.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Semistructured interviews with practicing cardiologists were qualitatively analyzed to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified among 16 cardiologists from four specialties (n = 5 general cardiology, n = 3 electrophysiology, n = 2 adult congenital and n = 6 heart failure/transplant): cardiologists' knowledge and needs, perceived clinical validity and utility of PGx testing, dissemination and management of PGx results, patient-related considerations and incidental findings.

CONCLUSION

Lack of evidence was considered by many cardiologists to be a major barrier hindering the use of PGx testing. However, they would consider adopting PGx if they were provided additional education, ongoing support and evidence supporting the clinical utility of PGx testing in cardiovascular medicine.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

"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.

A primer to clinical genome sequencing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genome sequencing is now available as a clinical diagnostic test. There is a significant knowledge and translation gap for nongenetic specialists of the processes necessary to generate and interpret clinical genome sequencing. The purpose of this review is to provide a primer on contemporary clinical genome sequencing for nongenetic specialists describing the human genome project, current techniques and applications in genome sequencing, limitations of current technology, and techniques on the horizon.

RECENT FINDINGS

As currently implemented, genome sequencing compares short pieces of an individual's genome with a reference sequence developed by the human genome project. Genome sequencing may be used for obtaining timely diagnostic information, cancer pharmacogenomics, or in clinical cases when previous genetic testing has not revealed a clear diagnosis. At present, the implementation of clinical genome sequencing is limited by the availability of clinicians qualified for interpretation, and current techniques in used clinical testing do not detect all types of genetic variation present in a single genome.

SUMMARY

Clinicians considering a genetic diagnosis have wide array of testing choices which now includes genome sequencing. Although not a comprehensive test in its current form, genome sequencing offers more information than gene-panel or exome sequencing and has the potential to replace targeted single-gene or gene-panel testing in many clinical scenarios.

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.

Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice

The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.

How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Background

The increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

Methods

We conducted 60 semistructured, in‐person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10.

Results

The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining.

Conclusions

A critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision‐making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned.

While the issue of what genome sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person.

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

PURPOSE

As whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate regarding secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit.

METHODS

We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning "actionable" findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients' views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, whereas views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience with genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision making about SF and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.Genet Med 19 3, 283-293.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing

The increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics makes imperative the development of guidelines and policies about how to handle secondary findings. For reasons both practical and ethical, the creation of these guidelines must take into consideration the informed opinions of the lay public. As part of a larger Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, we organized a deliberative democracy (DD) session that engaged 66 participants in dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing. Participants were educated about the scientific and ethical aspects of the disclosure of secondary findings by experts in medical genetics and bioethics, and then engaged in facilitated discussion of policy options for the disclosure of three types of secondary findings: 1) medically actionable results; 2) adult onset disorders found in children; and 3) carrier status. Participants' opinions were collected via surveys administered one month before, immediately following, and one month after the DD session. Post DD session, participants were significantly more willing to support policies that do not allow access to secondary findings related to adult onset conditions in children (Χ ² (2, N = 62) = 13.300, p = 0.001) or carrier status (Χ ² (2, N = 60) = 11.375, p = 0.003). After one month, the level of support for the policy denying access to secondary findings regarding adult-onset conditions remained significantly higher than the pre-DD level, although less than immediately post-DD (Χ ² (1, N = 60) = 2.465, p = 0.041). Our findings suggest that education and deliberation enhance public appreciation of the scientific and ethical complexities of genome sequencing.

Constellation: a tool for rapid, automated phenotype assignment of a highly polymorphic pharmacogene, CYP2D6, from whole-genome sequences

An important component of precision medicine-the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to guide lifelong healthcare-is electronic decision support to inform drug choice and dosing. To achieve this, automated identification of genetic variation in genes involved in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and response (ADMER) is required. CYP2D6 is a major enzyme for drug bioactivation and elimination. CYP2D6 activity is predominantly governed by genetic variation; however, it is technically arduous to haplotype. Not only is the nucleotide sequence of CYP2D6 highly polymorphic, but the locus also features diverse structural variations, including gene deletion, duplication, multiplication events and rearrangements with the nonfunctional, neighbouring CYP2D7 and CYP2D8 genes. We developed Constellation, a probabilistic scoring system, enabling automated ascertainment of CYP2D6 activity scores from 2×100 paired-end WGS. The consensus reference method included TaqMan genotyping assays, quantitative copy-number variation determination and Sanger sequencing. When compared with the consensus reference Constellation had an analytic sensitivity of 97% (59 of 61 diplotypes) and analytic specificity of 95% (116 of 122 haplotypes). All extreme phenotypes, i.e., poor and ultrarapid metabolisers were accurately identified by Constellation. Constellation is anticipated to be extensible to functional variation in all ADMER genes, and to be performed at marginal incremental financial and computational costs in the setting of diagnostic WGS.

Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

While experts have made recommendations, information is needed regarding what genome sequencing results patients would want returned. We investigated what results women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want returned and why. We conducted 60 semi-structured, in-person individual interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined interest in six types of incidental findings and reasons for interest or disinterest in each type. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Most participants were at least somewhat interested in all six result types, but strongest interest was in actionable results (i.e. variants affecting risk of a preventable or treatable disease and treatment response). Reasons for interest varied between different result types. Some participants were not interested or ambivalent about results not seen as currently actionable. Participants wanted to be able to choose what results are returned. Participants distinguished between types of individual genome sequencing results, with different reasons for wanting different types of information. The findings suggest that a focus on actionable results can be a common ground for all stakeholders in developing a policy for returning individual genome sequencing results.

Professionals' attitudes regarding large-scale genetic information generated through next generation sequencing in research: a pilot study

Under the auspices of a multi-national European scientific project involving whole genome sequencing, GEUVADIS, we set out to investigate the attitudes of the participating scientists of having their own genome sequenced. The views of such researchers on this subject have not been fully explored before and we utilized questionnaires and discussion groups to elicit their opinions. Many said that it was the first time that they had an opportunity to discuss ethical and social issues about sequencing. The many ongoing multi-national science projects present a good opportunity for social science research involving scientists and would benefit from rigorous research methodology, taking into account any language barriers.

Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research

Whole exome/ genome sequencing (WES/WGS) is now commonly used in research and is increasingly used in clinical care to identify the genetic basis of rare and unknown diseases. The management of incidental findings (IFs) generated through these analyses is debated within the research community. To examine how views regarding genomic research IFs are associated with researcher characteristics and experiences, we surveyed genetic professionals and assessed the effect of professional background and experience on their opinions. Researchers who did not have clinical training, provide clinical care to research participants, or have prior experience returning research results were in general more inclined to offer return of IFs than their colleagues with these characteristics. Understanding this will be important to fully appreciate the impact that policies on return of genetic IFs could have on participants, researchers, and genomic research.

Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing: Incorporation of the 2013 ACMG Recommendations into Current Practices of Genetic Counseling

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) March 2013 recommendations for reporting incidental findings (IFs) have influenced current practices of genetic counselors involved in utilizing whole exome sequencing (WES) for clinical diagnosis. An online survey was sent to all members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; members were eligible to participate if they currently offered WES for clinical diagnosis. Forty-six respondents completed the survey of whom 34 were in practice prior to the March 2013 ACMG recommendations. Half of respondents (N = 19, 54.9 %) in practice prior to March 2013 reported that the ACMG recommendations have had a significant impact on the content of their counseling sessions. Approximately half of respondents (N = 21, 45.5 %) report all IFs, regardless of patient age, while one third (N = 14, 30.4 %) consider factors such as age and parent preference in reporting IFs. Approximately 40 % (N = 18) of respondents reported that the testing laboratory's policy for returning IFs has an influence on their choice of laboratory; of those, 72.2 % (N = 13) reported that the option to opt out of receiving reports of IFs has a significant influence on their choice of laboratory. A majority of respondents (N = 43, 93.5 %) found that most patients want to receive reports of IFs. However, respondents report there are patients who wish to decline receiving this information. This study querying genetic counselors identified benefits and challenges that the 2013 ACMG recommendations elicited. Some challenges, such as not having the option to opt out of IFs, have been addressed by the ACMG's most recent updates to their recommendations. Further investigation into larger and more inclusive provider populations as well as patient populations will be valuable for the ongoing discussion surrounding IFs in WES.

Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to survey American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics members about secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was mailed to 1,687 members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Exploratory factor analysis identified underlying factors assessed by survey items. Linear regression assessed associations between factor scores and respondent characteristics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 29%. Four factors explained 51% of the survey variance: best practices, patient preferences, guidance, and informed consent. Most agreed with "best practice" items describing seeking and reporting of secondary findings as consistent with medical standards, having sufficient evidence, and, for adults, the benefits generally outweighing potential harms. There was lack of agreement regarding benefits versus harms for children and impact on health-care resources. The majority agreed that patient preferences should be considered, including ability to opt out, and that informed consent was feasible and critical. Characteristics significantly associated with factor scores included country of residence, sequencing experience, and years in practice.

CONCLUSION

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics should update a list of genes to be assessed when clinical genome-scale sequencing is performed. Informed consent is necessary, and reporting of secondary findings should be optional. Research on implementation of secondary findings reporting is needed.

Non-invasive prenatal testing: UK genetic counselors' experiences and perspectives

To date, NIPT in the UK has been predominately used in the health service for early sexing of pregnancies at known risk of sex-linked conditions. Developments in the technology are broadening its use to diagnostic testing for paternally inherited genetic conditions and for detection of aneuploidy. This study aimed to examine the experiences of UK genetic counselors with offering NIPT for sexing, and to explore their views on future uses of the technology. Twenty interviews with practicing GC's from four centres were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using modified grounded theory. Participants all had experience of counseling patients around prenatal diagnosis and 18/20 had experience of offering NIPT. GCs reported initially feeling cautious about offering the test, although they saw it as a positive advance for their patients at genetic risk. Emphasis was placed on accuracy, adequate counseling provision and gatekeeping with concerns expressed about broadening its use in the routine antenatal setting. Findings indicate the genetics model for offering prenatal testing to high risk patients can incorporate NIPT and the profession may have a role in informing its implementation in wider healthcare settings. In a wider context this study highlights the challenges new technologies bring to genetic counselors' practice and service structure.

Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing

Professional recommendations for the return of results from exome and whole-genome sequencing (ES/WGS) have been controversial. The lack of clear guidance about whether and, if so, how to return ES/WGS incidental results limits the extent to which individuals and families might benefit from ES/WGS. The perspectives of genetics professionals, particularly those at the forefront of using ES/WGS in clinics, are largely unknown. Data on stakeholder perspectives could help clarify how to weigh expert positions and recommendations. We conducted an online survey of 9,857 genetics professionals to learn their attitudes on the return of incidental results from ES/WGS and the recent American College of Medical Genetic and Genomics Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Of the 847 respondents, 760 completed the survey. The overwhelming majority of respondents thought that incidental ES/WGS results should be offered to adult patients (85%), healthy adults (75%), and the parents of a child with a medical condition (74%). The majority thought that incidental results about adult-onset conditions (62%) and carrier status (62%) should be offered to the parents of a child with a medical condition. About half thought that offered results should not be limited to those deemed clinically actionable. The vast majority (81%) thought that individual preferences should guide return. Genetics professionals' perspectives on the return of ES/WGS results differed substantially from current recommendations, underscoring the need to establish clear purpose for recommendations on the return of incidental ES/WGS results as professional societies grapple with developing and updating recommendations.

Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing

While there is ongoing discussion about the details of implementation of whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES), there appears to be a consensus amongst geneticists that the widespread use of these approaches is not only inevitable, but will also be beneficial [1]. However, at the present time, we are unable to anticipate the full range of uses, consequences and impact of implementing WGS and WES. Nevertheless, the already known ethical issues, both in research and in clinical practice are diverse and complex and should be addressed properly presently. Herein, we discuss the ethical aspects of WGS and WES by particularly focussing on three overlapping themes: (1) informed consent, (2) data handling, and (3) the return of results.

Translating personalized medicine using new genetic technologies in clinical practice: the ethical issues

The integration of new genetic technologies into clinical practice holds great promise for the personalization of medical care, particularly the use of large-scale DNA sequencing for genome-wide genetic testing. However, these technologies also yield unprecedented amounts of information whose clinical implications are not fully understood, and we are still developing technical standards for measuring sequence accuracy. These technical and clinical challenges raise ethical issues that are similar to but qualitatively different from those that we are accustomed to dealing with for traditional medical genetics. The sheer amount of information afforded by genome sequencing requires rethinking of how to implement core ethical principles including, but not limited to: informed consent, privacy and data ownership and sharing, technology regulation, issues of access, particularly as new technology is integrated into clinical practice, and issues of potential stigma and impact on perceptions of disability. In this article, we will review the issues of informed consent, privacy, data ownership and technology regulation as they relate to the emerging field of personalized medicine and genomics.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.