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

Returning Incidental Research Findings From 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Participants: A Survey of Investigators From a Clinical Trial of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

There are limited data on researchers' attitudes and beliefs on returning and managing incidental research findings from whole body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) imaging.

METHODS

Site principal investigators (PIs) who enrolled participants for the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on FDG PET/CT (TARGET) trial were surveyed.

RESULTS

Of the 28 TARGET site PIs eligible for the study, 18 consented to participate (response rate: 64%). Many site PIs returned incidental findings to participants (61%), and the most common finding that was returned was serious (but not life-threatening) and treatable (54.5%). More than half of the investigators believed that adequacy of clinical follow up (58.8%) and legal liability if incidental findings are not disclosed (55.6%) were extremely important factors in returning incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT. All investigators felt very obligated to return incidental research findings if scans revealed a treatable, high-risk medical condition. Most investigators felt very obligated to disclose incidental findings with important health implications (94.4%), for which proven preventive or therapeutic interventions exist (77.8%), that provide early detection of a health problem (72.2%), if participants ask for their incidental findings (72.2%), and if scans have established validity for a particular medical condition (61.1%).

CONCLUSION

Although it is recommended that researchers report and manage incidental research findings, our data show differing views and uncertainties on what and how to return, and the extent of follow up needed to manage, incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT; this highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR.

RESULTS

Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non-clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Participant views on practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic research results: a case study from Botswana

Key to discussions around feedback of individual results from genomics research are practical questions on how such results should be fed back, by who and when. However, there has been virtually no work investigating these practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic results in the context of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Africa. Consequently, we conducted deliberative focus group discussions with 6 groups of adolescents (n = 44) who previously participated in a genomics study in Botswana as well as 6 groups of parents and caregivers (n = 49) of children who participated in the same study. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 6 adolescents and 6 parents or caregivers. Our findings revealed that both adolescents and parents would prefer to receive their individual genetic results in person, with adolescents preferring researchers to provide feedback, while parents preferred doctors who are associated with the study. Both adolescents and parents further expressed that feedback should be supported by counselling but differed on the timing of feedback, with preferences ranging from feedback as quickly as possible to feedback at project end. In conclusion, decisions on practicalities for feedback of results should be done in account of participants' context and considerations of participants' preferences.

Frequency of actionable Exomic secondary findings in 160 Colombian patients: Impact in the healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

By 2021, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published the last version of their secondary findings (SF) reporting recommendations for cases in which a person receives a genetic test.

OBJECTIVE

To determine in a sample of the Colombian population the prevalence of SF for the 59 genes on the ACMG SF v2.0 list associated with 27 genetic diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analytical cross-sectional study was developed by examining the sequences of 160 exomes. Based on the ACMG guidelines, a variant classification algorithm was designed to filter and select reportable SF.

RESULTS

Eleven pathogenic variants were identified in 13/160 (8.13%) patients in genes APOB, BRCA2, CACNA1S, COL3A1, LDLR, MYBPC3, PCSK9, PKP2, PMS2 and RYR2. No association was found between the sociodemographic variables and the SF to report (P > 0,05).

CONCLUSION

We reported the first approach of actionable pathogenic variants spectrum in the Colombian population. Given the frequency found in this study and the clinical impact of genomic variants on health, it is essential to actively search for SF having the opportunity to receive genetic counselling, prevention and clinical management.

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.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

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.

Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations

The lack of data on perspectives of racial and ethnic minority populations regarding family disclosure of individual research results (IRR) hinders the development of return of IRR policies and practices that are meaningful and culturally appropriate in diverse populations. This research aims to uncover preferences regarding family disclosure of IRR and identify factors that may shape the preferences in three minority populations. Nine focus groups with 68 adult African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were willing to share IRR with relatives who elected to know and preferred a participant-driven (vs. researcher-driven) decision-making process. Privacy of personal information was deemed important, as were anticipated familial benefits from genetic information, except when improper use of the information was suspected. Factors influencing family disclosure decisions included the family's biological and emotional closeness, and participants' perceived mental preparedness of the relative. Family disclosure of IRR among racial and ethnic minority individuals is a complex decision-making process wherein issues of individual privacy are entangled with family dynamic and familial benefit considerations. These data suggest that policies surrounding family disclosure of IRR should carefully consider participant preferences and adopt a participant-driven approach.

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

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

Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research

PURPOSE

Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR.

METHODS

In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups.

RESULTS

The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.

Clinical application of genomic high-throughput data: Infrastructural, ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects

Genomic high-throughput technologies (GHTT) such as next-generation sequencing represent a fast and cost-effective tool toward a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular background of complex diseases. However, technological advances contrast with insufficient application in clinical practice. Thus, patients, physicians, and other professionals are faced with tough challenges that forestall the efficient and effective implementation. With the increasing application of genetic testing, it is of paramount importance that physicians and other professionals in healthcare recognize the restrictions and potential of GHTT, in order to understand and interpret the complex data in the context of health and disease. At the same time, the growing volume and complexity of data is forever increasing the need for sustainable infrastructure and state-of-the-art tools for efficient data management, including their analysis and integration. The large pool of sensitive information remains difficult to interpret and fundamental questions spanning from billing to legal, social, and ethical issues have still not been resolved. Here we summarize and discuss these obstacles in an interdisciplinary context and suggest ways to overcome them. Continuous discussion with clinicians, data managers, biostatisticians, systems medicine experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and patients illuminates the strengths, weakness, and current practices in the pipeline from biomaterial to sequencing and data management. This discussion also highlights the new, cross-disciplinary working collaborations to realize the wide-ranging challenges in clinical genomics including the exceptional demands placed on the staff preparing and presenting the data, as well as the question as to how to report the data and results to patients.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Interview study using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Four National Health Service hospitals in London.

PARTICIPANTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Research participants' experiences with return of genetic research results and preferences for web-based alternatives

BACKGROUND

While there is increasing interest in sharing genetic research results with participants, how best to communicate the risks, benefits and limitations of research results remains unclear.

METHODS

Participants who received genetic research results answered open and closed-ended questions about their experiences receiving results and interest in and advantages and disadvantages of a web-based alternative to genetic counseling.

RESULTS

107 BRCA1/2 negative women with a personal or family history of breast cancer consented to receive genetic research results and 82% completed survey items about their experience. Most participants reported there was nothing they disliked (74%) or would change (85%) about their predisclosure or disclosure session (78% and 89%). They most frequently reported liking the genetic counselor and learning new information. Only 24% and 26% would not be willing to complete predisclosure counseling or disclosure of results by a web-based alternative, respectively. The most frequently reported advantages included convenience and reduced time. Disadvantages included not being able to ask questions, the risk of misunderstanding and the impersonal nature of the encounter.

CONCLUSION

Most participants receiving genetic research results report high satisfaction with telephone genetic counseling, but some may be willing to consider self-directed web alternatives for both predisclosure genetic education and return of results.

Opportunities, resources, and techniques for implementing genomics in clinical care

Advances in technologies for assessing genomic variation and an increasing understanding of the effects of genomic variants on health and disease are driving the transition of genomics from the research laboratory into clinical care. Genomic medicine, or the use of an individual's genomic information as part of their clinical care, is increasingly gaining acceptance in routine practice, including in assessing disease risk in individuals and their families, diagnosing rare and undiagnosed diseases, and improving drug safety and efficacy. We describe the major types and measurement tools of genomic variation that are currently of clinical importance, review approaches to interpreting genomic sequence variants, identify publicly available tools and resources for genomic test interpretation, and discuss several key barriers in using genomic information in routine clinical practice.

Factors associated with participation by African Americans in a study of the genetics of glaucoma

Objective: African Americans have been historically underrepresented in research studies. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing enrollment in the Primary Open-Angle African American Glaucoma Genetics (POAAGG) study. Design: Patients approached to enroll in the POAAGG study were asked to complete a 15-item survey addressing demographic characteristics, knowledge of genetics and glaucoma, and opinions on human research. Survey responses were compared between subjects who enrolled (Enrollers) and did not enroll (Decliners) in the POAAGG study. Results: Enrollers (N = 190) were 3.7 years younger (P = 0.007) and had similar gender, education, and income level to Decliners (N = 117). Knowledge about genetics and glaucoma was similar between groups. Enrollers were more comfortable providing DNA for research studies (93.1% vs 54.1%; P < 0.001) and more likely to have participated in prior studies (P = 0.003) and consider participating in future studies (P < 0.001). Among Decliners, lack of time was the primary reason given for not enrolling. Conclusion: To increase participation of African Americans in genetic research studies, efforts should be made to raise comfort with DNA donation.

Genetics professionals' attitudes toward prenatal exome sequencing

Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) currently has limited use in the clinical setting, but research suggests that it has added diagnostic utility over karyotyping and array techniques for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses presenting with ultrasound abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of genetics professionals toward the clinical implementation of prenatal ES in order to guide development of professional guidelines. A survey was developed using themes identified in previous qualitative studies and was distributed to members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). A total of 498 participants completed some portion of the survey. There was consensus among participants that there would be clinical utility of prenatal ES when used for diagnosis, pregnancy management, and termination decisions. The majority also agreed that prenatal ES was distinct from its current use in the pediatric and adult settings. There were many areas of contention regarding which types of results should be returned to families and whether or not the current ACMG guidelines for return of incidental findings should also apply to the prenatal setting. Overall, professional guidance is needed to address the continuing concerns surrounding prenatal ES as its utilization in this setting is expected to grow.

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.

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

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

Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience

BACKGROUND

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is primarily used to address specific clinical concerns by detecting risk of future disease, clarifying diagnosis, or directing treatment. Additionally, CGES makes possible the disclosure of autosomal recessive and X-linked carrier results as additional secondary findings, and research about the impact of carrier results disclosure in this context is needed.

METHODS

Representatives from 11 projects in the clinical sequencing exploratory research (CSER) consortium collected data from their projects using a structured survey. The survey focused on project characteristics, which variants were offered and/or disclosed to participants as carrier results, methods for carrier results disclosure, and project-specific outcomes. We recorded quantitative responses and report descriptive statistics with the aim of describing the variability in approaches to disclosing carrier results in translational genomics research projects.

RESULTS

The proportion of participants with carrier results was related to the number of genes included, ranging from 3% (three genes) to 92% (4,600 genes). Between one and seven results were disclosed to those participants who received any positive result. Most projects offered participants choices about whether to receive some or all of the carrier results. There were a range of approaches to communicate results, and many projects used separate approaches for disclosing positive and negative results.

CONCLUSION

Future translational genomics research projects will need to make decisions regarding whether and how to disclose carrier results. The CSER consortium experience identifies approaches that balance potential participant interest while limiting impact on project resources.

The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing plays an increasing role in genetic research, also in psychiatry. This raises challenges concerning the validity and type of the informed consent and the return of incidental findings. However, no solution currently exists on the best way to obtain the informed consent and deliver findings to research subjects.

AIMS

This study aims to explore the attitudes among potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research toward the consenting procedure and the delivery of incidental findings.

METHODS

We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey among five groups of stakeholders. A total of 2637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with a mental disorder, 671 relatives, 1623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists.

RESULTS

The stakeholders wanted active involvement as 92.7% preferred a specific consent and 85.1% wanted to receive information through a dynamic consent procedure. The majority of stakeholders preferred to receive genomic information related to serious or life-threatening health conditions through direct contact (69.5%) with a health professional, i.e. face-to-face consultation or telephone consultation (82.4%). Persons with mental disorders and relatives did not differ in their attitudes from the other stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

The findings illustrate that the stakeholders want to be more actively involved and consider consent as a reciprocal transaction between the involved subjects and the researchers in the project. The results highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers and clinical geneticists as the latter are trained, through their education and clinical experience, to return and explain genomic data to patients, relatives, and research subjects.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines

Background

The use of Next Generation Sequencing such as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is a promising step towards a better understanding and treatment of neurological diseases. WGS can result into unexpected information (incidental findings, IFs), and information with uncertain clinical significance. In the context of a Genome Canada project on ‘Personalized Medicine in the Treatment of Epilepsy’, we intended to address these challenges surveying neurologists’ opinions about the type of results that should be returned, and their professional responsibility toward recontacting patients regarding new discovered mutations.

Methods

Potential participants were contacted through professional organizations or direct invitations.

Results

A total of 204 neurologists were recruited. Fifty nine percent indicated that to be conveyed, WGS results should have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment. Yet, 41% deemed appropriate to return results without clinical utility, when they could impact patients’ reproductive decisions, or on patients’ request. Current use of targeted genetic testing and age of patients influenced respondents’ answers. Respondents stated that analysis of genomics data resulting from WGS should be limited to the genes likely to be relevant for the patient’s specific medical condition (69%), so as to limit IFs. Respondents felt responsible to recontact patients and inform them about newly discovered mutations related to the medical condition that triggered the test (75%) for as long as they are following up on the patient (55%). Finally, 53.5% of the respondents felt responsible to recontact and inform patients of clinically significant, newly discovered IFs.

Conclusion

Our results show the importance of formulating professional guidelines sensitive to the various – and sometimes opposite – viewpoints that may prevail within a same community of practice, as well as flexible so as to be attuned to the characteristics of the neurological conditions that triggered a WGS.

Factors influencing NCGENES research participants' requests for non-medically actionable secondary findings

Purpose:

Genomic sequencing can reveal variants with limited to no medical actionability. Previous research has assessed individuals’ intentions to learn this information, but few report the decisions they made and why.

Methods:

The NCGENES (North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing) project evaluated adult patients randomized to learn up to six types of “non-medically actionable secondary findings” (NMASF). We previously found that most participants intended to request NMASF and intentions were strongly predicted by anticipated regret. Here we examine discrepancies between intentions and decisions to request NMASF, hypothesizing that anticipated regret would predict requests but that this association would be mediated by participants’ intentions.

Results:

Of the 76% who expressed intentions to learn results, only 42% made one or more requests. Overall, only 32% of the 155 eligible participants requested NMASF. Analyses support a plausible causal link between anticipated regret, intentions, and requests.

Conclusions:

The discordance between participants’ expressed intentions and their actions provide insight into factors that influence patients’ preferences for genomic information that has little to no actionability. These findings have implications for the timing and methods of eliciting preferences for NMASF and suggest that decisions to learn this information have cognitive and emotional components.

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.

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial

Purpose

Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole genome sequencing (WGS).

Methods

One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses, and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.

Results

The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared to family history alone. Mean six month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = −$1,560, 95%CI −$7,558 to $3,866, p=0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95%CI −$884 to $2,171, p=0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.

Conclusion

Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream healthcare. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing of children in research raises complex ethical issues. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research and towards the disclosure of pertinent and incidental findings to the parents and the child.

METHODS

Qualitative data were collected from interviews with a wide range of informants: experts engaged in genomic research, clinical geneticists, persons with mental disorders, relatives, and blood donors. Quantitative data were collected from a cross-sectional web-based survey among 1227 parents and 1406 non-parents who were potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research.

RESULTS

Participants generally expressed positive views on children's participation in genomic research. The informants in the qualitative interviews highlighted the age of the child as a critical aspect when disclosing genetic information. Other important aspects were the child's right to an autonomous choice, the emotional burden of knowing imposed on both the child and the parents, and the possibility of receiving beneficial clinical information regarding the future health of the child. Nevertheless, there was no consensus whether the parent or the child should receive the findings. A majority of survey stakeholders agreed that children should be able to participate in genomic research. The majority agreed that both pertinent and incidental findings should be returned to the parents and to the child when of legal age. Having children does not affect the stakeholder's attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research.

CONCLUSION

Our findings illustrate that both the child's right to autonomy and the parents' interest to be informed are important factors that are found valuable by the participants. In future guidelines governing children as subjects in genomic research, it would thus be essential to incorporate the child's right to an open future, including the right to receive information on adult-onset genetic disorders.

Oncologists' Use of Genomic Sequencing Data to Inform Clinical Management

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

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.

Return and Disclosure of Research Results: Parental Attitudes and Needs Over Time in Pediatric Oncology

OBJECTIVES

To explore parental attitudes regarding the return and disclosure of research findings in pediatric cancer trials over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Two surveys were set up to evaluate the stability of parental attitudes. One survey was carried out among 581 parents whose child was diagnosed recently (response rate, 53.5%). A second, population-based survey was set up with a time interval of 4 years between first cancer diagnosis and survey in which 1465 parents were included (response rate, 55.1%).

RESULTS

Almost all surveyed parents stated a parental right to receive aggregate research results. Fifty-five percent of the parents who recently participated in trials and 62% of those asked after a multiyear time interval thought that disclosure of individual findings is in any case necessary (P = .0034). The respondents wanted to restrict the duty to disclose study results to the child according to their notion of the child's well-being, composed of child's maturity, impairment of the parent-child relationship, and the quality of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes of parents regarding the return of research findings change over time. Shortly after diagnosis, parents are mainly interested in aggregate findings. Interest in individual findings appeared to increase as more time elapsed between cancer diagnosis and survey.

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.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 incidentally revealed in a biobank research study: experiences from re-contacting mutation carriers and relatives

Once an incidental finding (IF) is discovered in the course of genomic research, the researchers are faced with the question of whether or not that finding should be reported back to the study participant. A large number of hypothetical studies and policy documents on this issue have been published, but there are very few empirical studies to inform the bioethics debate. Within a biobank research study of somatic mutations in breast carcinomas, ten germline BRCA1/2 mutations were incidentally detected. After thorough discussions within a group of experts, the mutation carriers (n = 7) or relatives of deceased carriers (n = 3) were re-contacted and informed about the findings. Eight out of ten accepted to receive the information and underwent confirmatory testing. One year later, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with three of the study participants. All of them felt that BRCA mutations discovered in the course of research should be reported back to the individual study participants. In this paper, we report our step-by-step experiences of the re-contacting process. We hope that our detailed reporting will be helpful for other researchers and clinicians that are faced with similar situations. The results of our study lend empirical support to opinion that IFs that meet the three baseline criteria of analytic validity, clinical significance, and actionability should be reported back to the individual study participants.

"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.

Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research

Increasingly more psychiatric research studies use whole genome sequencing or whole exome sequencing. Consequently, researchers face difficult questions, such as which genomic findings to return to research participants and how. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes among potential research participants and health professionals toward receiving pertinent and incidental findings. A cross-sectional online survey was developed to investigate the attitudes among research participants toward receiving genomic findings. A total of 2,637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with mental disorders, 671 relatives, 1,623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists. Stakeholders wanted both pertinent findings (95%) and incidental findings (91%) to be made available for research participants. The majority (77%) stated that researchers should not actively search for incidental findings. Persons with mental disorders and relatives were generally more positive about receiving any kind of findings than clinical geneticists and psychiatrists. Compared with blood donors, persons with mental disorders reported to be more positive about receiving raw genomic data and information that is not of serious health importance. Psychiatrists and clinical geneticists were less positive about receiving genomic findings compared with blood donors. The attitudes toward receiving findings were very positive. Stakeholders were willing to refrain from receiving incidental information if it could compromise the research. Our results suggest that research participants consider themselves as altruistic participants. This study offers valuable insight, which may inform future programs aiming to develop new strategies to target issues relating to the return of findings in genomic research.

Pathogenic variants in the healthy elderly: unique ethical and practical challenges

: Genetic research into ageing, longevity and late-onset disease is becoming increasingly common. Yet, there is a paucity of knowledge related to clinical actionability and the return of pathogenic variants to otherwise healthy elderly individuals. Whether or not genetic research in the elderly should be managed differently from standard practices adapted for younger populations has not yet been defined. In this article, we provide an overview of ethical and practical challenges in preparing for a genetic study of over 14 000 healthy Australians aged 70 years or older enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) Healthy Ageing Biobank. At the time of consent, all participants in this study were free of life-threatening illness, cardiovascular disease or cognitive impairment. ASPREE is thus a cohort of healthy elderly individuals with seemingly minimal burden of genetic disease recruited without ascertainment bias. The cohort presents a unique opportunity to address the penetrance of known pathogenic variants in a population without disease symptoms; however, it also raises a number of ethical concerns regarding the interpretation and disclosure of variants with known clinical actionability. Some of the challenges include (a) how to manage the interpretation, disclosure and actioning of pathogenic variants found in otherwise healthy elderly adults without disease symptoms, (b) whether or not to disclose findings for the benefit of family members rather than elderly consented donors themselves, (c) how to manage the return of genetic findings to the elderly individuals who are now in severe cognitive decline or terminal illness, (d) how to ensure quality of information and clinical service upon disclosure of results to this demographic and (e) how to prepare for the insurance implications of disclosing genetic information under Australian law. We discuss these and other dilemmas and propose a defensible plan of management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN83772183.

Controversy and debate on clinical genomics sequencing-paper 2: clinical genome-wide sequencing: don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Genome-wide (exome or whole genome) sequencing with appropriate genetic counseling should be considered for any patient with a suspected Mendelian disease that has not been identified by conventional testing. Clinical genome-wide sequencing provides a powerful and effective means of identifying specific genetic causes of serious disease and improving clinical care.

Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results

There are ongoing debates on issues relating to returning individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) generated by genetic research in population-based biobanks. To understand how to appropriately return genetic results from biobank studies, we surveyed preferences for returning IRRs and IFs among participants of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (TMM). We mailed a questionnaire to individuals enrolled in the TMM cohort study (Group 1; n=1031) and a group of Tohoku region residents (Group 2; n=2314). The respondents were required to be over 20 years of age. Nearly 90% of Group 1 participants and over 80% of Group 2 participants expressed a preference for receiving their genetic test results. Furthermore, over 60% of both groups preferred to receive their genetic results ‘from a genetic specialist.’ A logistic regression analysis revealed that engaging in ‘health-conscious behaviors’ (such as regular physical activity, having a healthy diet, intentionally reducing alcohol intake and/or smoking and so on) was significant, positively associated with preferring to receive their genetic test results (odds ratio=2.397 (Group 1) and 1.897 (Group 2)). Our findings provided useful information and predictors regarding the return of IRRs and IFs in a population-based biobank.

Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm?

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the consequences of returning whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in paediatrics and facilitate its evidence-based clinical implementation, we studied parents' experiences with WGS and their preferences for the return of adult-onset secondary variants (SVs)-medically actionable genomic variants unrelated to their child's current medical condition that predict adult-onset disease.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with parents whose children were undergoing WGS as part of the SickKids Genome Clinic, a research project that studies the impact of clinical WGS on patients, families, and the healthcare system. Interviews probed parents' experience with and motivation for WGS as well as their preferences related to SVs. Interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Of 83 invited, 23 parents from 18 families participated. These parents supported WGS as a diagnostic test, perceiving clear intrinsic and instrumental value. However, many parents were ambivalent about receiving SVs, conveying a sense of self-imposed obligation to take on the 'weight' of knowing their child's SVs, however unpleasant. Some parents chose to learn about adult-onset SVs for their child but not for themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite general enthusiasm for WGS as a diagnostic test, many parents felt a duty to learn adult-onset SVs. Analogous to 'inflicted insight', we call this phenomenon 'inflicted ought'. Importantly, not all parents of children undergoing WGS view the best interests of their child in relational terms, thereby challenging an underlying justification for current ACMG guidelines for reporting incidental secondary findings from whole exome and WGS.

Patient Decisions to Receive Secondary Pharmacogenomic Findings and Development of a Multidisciplinary Practice Model to Integrate Results Into Patient Care

Whole exome sequencing (WES) has the potential of identifying secondary findings that are predictive of poor pharmacotherapy outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients’ wishes regarding the reporting of secondary pharmacogenomic findings. WES results (n = 106 patients) were retrospectively reviewed to determine the number of patients electing to receive secondary pharmacogenomic results. Phenotypes were assigned based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. The percent of patients with a predicted phenotype associated with a gene‐based CPIC dosing recommendation was determined. Ninety‐nine patients (93.4%) elected to receive secondary pharmacogenomic findings. For each gene–drug pair analyzed, the number of patients with an actionable phenotype ranged from two (2%) to 43 patients (43.4%). Combining all gene–drug pairs, 84 unique patients (84.8%) had an actionable phenotype. A prospective multidisciplinary practice model was developed for integrating secondary pharmacogenomic findings into clinical practice. Our model highlights a unique collaboration between physician‐geneticists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.

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.

Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: Perspectives of laboratory personnel

While next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enormous potential to identify genetic causes of disease, the nature of the technology means that it can also identify additional information about the individual receiving sequencing that is unrelated to the original rationale for testing. Reporting these unsolicited findings (UF) to clinicians, and subsequently to patients, could lead to potentially lifesaving interventions. Most international guidelines provide limited specific recommendations as to whether these UF should be reported. Little research has been conducted exploring which of these variants are reported in practice. Twenty-six interviews were conducted with 27 laboratory personnel, representing 24 laboratories in Europe (12), Canada (five), and Australasia (Seven) to explore their reporting practices. There is considerable variation between laboratories in the reporting of UF. While some limit their reporting to findings that are relevant to the clinical question, others report UF to varying degrees. In addition, most laboratory personnel interviewed said that their laboratories do not actively search for secondary findings in disease-causing genes unrelated to the clinical question, such as those suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Our study highlights that laboratories are still grappling with decisions about which UF to report from NGS and are calling for more guidance.

Ethical considerations surrounding germline next-generation sequencing of children with cancer

INTRODUCTION

The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has introduced an exciting new era in biomedical research. NGS forms the foundation of current genetic testing approaches, including targeted gene panel testing, as well as more comprehensive whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing. Together, these approaches promise to provide critical insights into the understanding of health and disease. However, with NGS testing come many ethical questions and concerns, particularly when testing involves children. These concerns are especially relevant for children with cancer, where the testing of tumor and germline tissues is increasingly being incorporated into clinical care. Areas covered: In this manuscript, we explore the key ethical considerations related to conducting germline NGS testing in pediatric oncology, focusing on the four main principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. Expert commentary: The ethical issues surrounding germline NGS testing are complex and result in part from our limited understanding of the medical relevance of many of the results obtained and poor knowledge of the impacts of testing, both beneficial and detrimental, on patients and their families. In this article we discuss the risks and benefits of germline NGS testing and the arguments for and against such testing in children with cancer.

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.

Preferences for the provision of whole genome sequencing services among young adults

Objectives

As whole genome sequencing (WGS) becomes increasingly available, clinicians will be faced with conveying complex information to individuals at different stages in life. The purpose of this study is to characterize the views of young adults toward obtaining WGS, learning different types of genomic information, and having choice about which results are disclosed.

Methods

A mixed-methods descriptive study was conducted with a diverse group of 18 and 19-years-olds (N = 145). Participants watched an informational video about WGS and then completed an online survey.

Results

Participants held a positive attitude toward obtaining WGS and learning about a range of health conditions and traits. Increased interest in learning WGS information was significantly associated with anticipated capacity to handle the emotional consequences if a serious risk was found (β = 0.13, P = .04). Young adults wanted the ability to choose what types of genomic risk information would be returned and expressed decreased willingness to undergo WGS if clinicians made these decisions (t(138) = -7.14, P <.01). Qualitative analysis showed that young adults emphasized procedural factors in WGS decision-making and that perceived health benefits of WGS had a substantial role in testing preferences and anticipated usage of WGS results.

Conclusions

Clinicians are likely to encounter enthusiasm for obtaining WGS results among young adults and may need to develop strategies for ensuring that this preference is adequately informed.