Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing

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.

Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling

Objective

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) can inform advanced cancer patients' treatment decisions, and also reveal secondary germline findings-information about inherited risks for cancer and other disorders. We sought to develop a measure of patient perceptions of the clinical and personal utility of secondary germline findings.

Methods

We developed a draft survey based on literature and patient interview data (n=40). We evaluated and refined the survey through cognitive interviews with advanced cancer patients who received secondary germline findings from TGP (n=10). The survey was psychometrically validated with data from two independent samples of advanced cancer patients undergoing TGP (total n=349).

Results

Cognitive interviews offered opportunities for survey refinement and confirmation of its comprehensible nature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the survey identified 16 items across three subscales with strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.79): perceived utility for others, perceived utility for self and health, and confidence in secondary findings.

Conclusion

We developed a novel valid scale with promise for measuring advanced cancer patients' perceptions of the utility of secondary germline findings.

Innovation

We offer a new patient-derived measure of perceived utility of and confidence in secondary germline findings with potential applications for precision oncology research and clinical communication.

Parents' Perspectives on Secondary Genetic Ancestry Findings in Pediatric Genomic Medicine

PURPOSE

With advances in genome sequencing technologies, large-scale genome-wide sequencing has advanced our understanding of disease risk and etiology and contributes to the rapidly expanding genomic health services in pediatric settings. Because it is possible to return ancestry estimates following clinical genomic sequencing, it is important to understand the interest in ancestry results among families who may have the option of receiving these results.

METHODS

We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews of parents with children/newborns with likely genetic conditions from two studies of clinical genome sequencing. Using a purposive sampling approach, we selected parents from the SouthSeq cohort, Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER Phase 2) project active in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, or an earlier Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER Phase 1) initiative based in the same region. Our interviews focused on parental knowledge about, attitudes on, interest in, and preferences for receiving genetic ancestry results following clinical genome sequencing in the neonatal intensive care unit or in pediatric clinics.

FINDINGS

Overall, parents prioritized clinical results or results that would help guide the diagnosis and treatment of their child, but they were also interested in any genetic result, including genetic ancestry, that potentially could enhance the meaning of information on disease risk, prevention and screening guidance, or family planning. While parents thought that ancestry results would help them learn about themselves and their heritage, the had concerns over the privacy, security, and accuracy of genetic ancestry information, although parents indicated that they had greater trust in ancestry findings provided as part of clinical care compared with those offered commercially. Parents also wanted ancestry results to be returned in a timely manner by knowledgeable staff, with kid-friendly materials and online tools available to aid, as needed, in the understanding of their results.

IMPLICATIONS

Taken together, our results highlight that despite being in high-stress situations, such as having a newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit, parents were interested in receiving genetic ancestry results along with their clinically relevant findings.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Ophthalmic genetic counselling: emerging trends in practice perspectives in Asia

Genetic counselling (GC) provides information to the patient and the family to make informed choices. Among the advanced Western countries and a few Asian countries, there are certified or trained professionals who perform GC. The Human Genome Project and next-generation sequencing diagnostics have provided an opportunity for increased genetic testing in the field of ophthalmology. The recent interventional therapeutic research strategies have also generated additional interest to seek GC globally, including in Asia. However, GC has several barriers to practise in the developing countries in Asia, namely, (a) shortage of qualified or trained genetic counsellors, (b) poor knowledge and reluctance in clinical adoption of genomics among the physicians in clinical practice, (c) overstretched public health services, and (d) negligible ophthalmic GC-related research and publications. The GC inadequacy in Asia is glaring in the most populous countries like China and India. Cultural differences, religious beliefs, misogyny, genetic discrimination, and a multitude of languages in Asia create unique challenges that counsellors in the West may only encounter with the immigrant minorities. Since there are currently 500 or more specific Mendelian genetic eye disorders, it is important for genetic counsellors to translate the genetic results at a level that the patient and family understand. There is therefore a need for governmental and healthcare organisations to train genetic counsellors in Asia and especially this practice must be included in the routine comprehensive ophthalmic care practice.

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..

Targeted Whole Exome Sequencing in Children With Early-Onset Epilepsy: Parent Experiences

This study investigated the experiences of 25 caregivers of children with early-onset, treatment-resistant epilepsy who pursued whole exome sequencing to determine the impact of the test results on their child's treatment. Caregivers who consented to be recontacted were recruited from a previous study investigating the diagnostic yield of whole exome sequencing. A semistructured interview addressed questions based on one of 2 study phases. The first phase discussed the decision-making process for genetic testing (15 interviews), which revealed 4 major themes: (1) prognosis, (2) engagement, (3) concerns, and (4) autonomy. The second phase discussed the impact of genetic testing on treatment (10 interviews), which revealed 3 major themes: (1) testing features, (2) emotional impact, and (3) treatment outcomes. Overall, parents pursued genetic testing to obtain a clear prognosis, inform treatment decisions, engage with other families, and exercise autonomy. Caregivers felt that early testing is warranted to inform their child's diagnostic odyssey.

Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

Parental motivations for and adaptation to trio-exome sequencing in a prospective prenatal testing cohort: Beyond the diagnosis

PURPOSE

To understand motivations for and parental interpretation of results from trio-exome sequencing (ES) for fetal anomalies with a negative standard genetic diagnosis.

METHODS

Analysis of an ongoing, prospective prenatal trio-ES study of pregnancies with ultrasound-identified congenital anomalies and lack of a standard genetic diagnosis. After determination of pregnancy disposition, participants completed questionnaires and a semi-structured interview pre- and post-sequencing. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology to identify themes. Associations between themes and ES result were also examined.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-six trios have been sequenced. Of those, 45 (36%) resulted in fetal diagnosis. One hundred twenty-five women completed pre-sequencing surveys, and 91 women completed post-sequencing surveys. The main themes identified include (1) variable reasons to pursue ES, (2) limited expectations but high hopes from ES, (3) parental adaptation to uncertain results, (4) impact on personal health and reproduction, and (5) gratitude for the process.

CONCLUSION

Participants pursued ES for various reasons, most often to identify a diagnosis and guide reproduction. Post-sequencing, most participants described the process, their interpretation of results, and the impact of receiving the results. Less frequently, but of most concern, participants expressed anxiety about testing and implications for themselves, relationships, and other family members, thus identifying an area of high need for additional support among patients undergoing prenatal ES.

Implementation matters: How patient experiences differ when genetic counseling accompanies the return of genetic variants of uncertain significance

Precision medicine presents challenges for effective return of results (ROR) to patients, particularly for variants of uncertain significance (VUS) where the need for genetic counseling and the impact of results are underexplored. We investigated patients' experiences with VUS ROR. Through interviews we compared experiences of patients who were referred to genetic counseling with those not referred. Although participants from both groups (n=16) reported curious enthusiasm and relief after ROR, the 5 referred participants reported less confusion, less disappointment, and better confidence in understanding their results than the 11 non-referred participants. Although VUS did not impact healthcare or daily lives, some participants who shared VUS fostered communication about future healthcare. Suggested ROR improvements included patient-friendly terminology, on-demand education, and ongoing consultation. Although patient experience of VUS improved when ROR involved expert consultation, scarcity of genetic counselors presents challenges. Improving the ROR process with patient-centered solutions could enhance the patient experience of receiving VUS.

A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways

Background

Whether and how to disclose genomic findings obtained in the course of genomic clinical practice and medical research has been a controversial global bioethical issue over the past two decades. Although several recommendations and judgment tools for the disclosure of genomic findings have been proposed, none are sufficiently systematic or inclusive or even consistent with each other. In order to approach the disclosure/non-disclosure practice in an ethical manner, optimal and easy-to-use tools for supporting the judgment of physicians/researchers in genomic medicine are necessary.

Methods

The bioethics literature on this topic was analyzed to parse and deconstruct the somewhat overlapping and therefore ill-defined key concepts of genomic findings, such as incidental, primary, secondary, and other findings. Based on the deconstruction and conceptual analyses of these findings, we then defined key parameters from which to identify the strength of duty to disclose (SDD) for a genomic finding. These analyses were then applied to develop a framework with the SDD matrix and systematic decision-making pathways for the disclosure of genomic findings.

Results

The following six major parameters (axes), along with sub-axes, were identified: Axis 1 (settings and institutions where findings emerge); Axis 2 (presence or absence of intention and anticipatability in discovery); Axis 3 (maximal actionability at the time of discovery); Axis 4 (net medical importance); Axis 5 (expertise of treating physician/researcher); and Axis 6 (preferences of individual patients/research subjects for disclosure). For Axes 1 to 4, a colored SDD matrix for genomic findings was developed in which levels of obligation for disclosing a finding can be categorized. For Axes 5 and 6, systematic decision-making pathways were developed via the SDD matrix.

Conclusion

We analyzed the SDD of genomic findings and developed subsequent systematic decision-making pathways of whether and how to disclose genomic findings to patients/research subjects and their relatives in an ethical manner. Our comprehensive framework may help physicians and researchers in genomic medicine make consistent ethical judgments regarding the disclosure of genomic findings.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Knowledge and attitudes toward expanded carrier screening between the medical staff and general population in China

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward expanded carrier screening (ECS) between the medical staff and general population in China.

STUDY DESIGN

It was a survey-based cross-sectional study in Chinese. We provided an online survey for the general public nationwide. We classified the population into the medical staff and general population to evaluate the knowledge gap and provide a reference for ECS's education programs. Except for obstetrician-gynecologists and nurses in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, other medical staff were not included in our study. A total of 1947 questionnaires were collected from July 11, 2020 to February 10, 2021. Two hundred and eighty-four questionnaires were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 1663 cases were incorporated into the final analysis. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26. Comparisons between categorical variables were tested by the use of crosstabs and χ2 test.

RESULTS

The total awareness rates of the knowledge about monogenic diseases and ECS in the respondents were low, with 35.7%, 26.1%, 3.3%, 23.3%, 24.1%, 55.2%, and 23.4% for questions Q1-Q7, respectively. Medical staff had more knowledge than general population. Knowledge about monogenic diseases and ECS was positively correlated with educational level. Most respondents showed a positive attitude toward ECS: 54.4% thought ECS was necessary, and 80.5% wanted to know more about monogenic diseases.

CONCLUSION

Although the public had little knowledge about monogenic disease and ECS, most of them showed a positive attitude. Our cross-analysis showed that medical staff had more knowledge compared to general population. Pre-test education for ECS can be carried out by medical staff who are not qualified for genetic counseling. ECS training for medical staff, especially obstetrician-gynecologist and nurse in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, can reduce the workload of genetic counseling.

Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

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

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

Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Objectives: Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty. Design: This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Results: We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. Conclusion: While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.

Public engagement with genomic medicine: a summary of town hall discussions

Engaging with the public for their input about genomic medicine is critical before it is implemented into routine healthcare practice. In order to inform discussion and planning for the introduction of genome sequencing into clinical care in an Eastern Canadian province, we implemented a program of public engagement activities. Here, we report a qualitative summary of two town hall discussions utilizing a hybrid information-consultation approach with 20 residents of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Discussion revealed largely positive attitudes towards genomic medicine; however, critical reflection around informed consent models, the return of sequencing findings, and access to qualified healthcare professionals revealed numerous public concerns. Public support will be important to realize the potential benefits of genomics and precision medicine to health outcomes. Our findings highlight public concerns that must be addressed in educational and informed consent documents related to sequencing. Town hall attendees endorsed ongoing public education and awareness-building initiatives which could help foster transparency and trust as genomics is integrated into healthcare systems.

Impact of prenatal exome sequencing for fetal genetic diagnosis on maternal psychological outcomes and decisional conflict in a prospective cohort

PURPOSE

To evaluate associations between prenatal trio exome sequencing (trio-ES) and psychological outcomes among women with an anomalous pregnancy.

METHODS

Trio-ES study enrolling patients with major fetal anomaly and normal microarray. Women completed self-reported measures and free response interviews at two timepoints: pre- (1) and post- (2) sequencing. Pre-sequencing responses were compared with post-sequencing responses; post-sequencing responses were stratified by women who received trio-ES results that may explain fetal findings, secondary findings (medically actionable or couples with heterozygous variants for the same recessive disorder), or negative results.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen trios were enrolled. Of those, 41/115 (35.7%) received results from trio-ES, including 36 (31.3%) who received results that may explain the fetal phenotype. These women had greater post-sequencing distress compared with women who received negative results, including generalized distress (p = 0.03) and test-related distress (p = 0.2); they also had worse psychological adaptation to results (p = 0.001). Genomic knowledge did not change from pre- to post-sequencing (p = 0.51).

CONCLUSION

Women show more distress after receiving trio-ES results compared with those who do not, suggesting that women receiving results may need additional support or counseling to inform current and future reproductive decisions.

Preferences of Italian patients for return of secondary findings from clinical genome/exome sequencing

Exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) is increasingly becoming routine in clinical genetic diagnosis, yet issues regarding how to disclose and manage secondary findings (SFs) remain to be addressed, and limited evidence is available on patients' preferences. We carried out semi-structured interviews with 307 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing to explore their preferences for return of SFs in the hypothetical scenario that their test would be performed using ES/GS. Participants were 254 females (82.7%) and 53 males (17.3%), aged 18-86 years; 73.9% (81.1% of those with lower education levels) reported no prior knowledge of ES/GS. Prior knowledge of ES/GS was more common among patients tested for Mendelian conditions (34.5%), compared to those undergoing cancer genetic testing (22.3%) or carrier screening (7.4%). Despite this reported lack of knowledge, most participants (213, 69.6%) stated they would prefer to be informed of all possible results. Reasons in favor of disclosure included wanting to be aware of any risks (168; 83.6%) and to help relatives (23; 11.4%), but also hope that preventive measures might become available in the future (10, 5%). Conversely, potential negative impact on quality of life was the commonest motivation against disclosure. Among 179 participants seen for cancer genetic counseling who were interviewed again after test disclosure, 81.9% had not heard about ES/GS in the meantime; however, the proportion of participants opting for disclosure of any variants was lower (116; 64.8%), with 36 (20.1%) changing opinion compared to the first interview. Based on these findings, we conclude that genetic counseling for ES/GS should involve enhanced education and decision-making support to enable informed consent to SFs disclosure.

Attitudes towards genetic testing and information: does parenthood shape the views?

This study examines how parents of pediatric patients might differ in their views and attitudes towards genetic technology and information when compared to adult patients. There is surprisingly little evidence on how parents compare to other parts of population in their attitudes. Previous empirical studies often relate health-related preferences and attitudes to factors such as age, education, and income instead of parental status, thus evading comparison of parents to others as health-related decision makers. Findings related to the parental status can be useful when implementing genetic technology in clinical practice. We conducted a survey of views on genetic technology and information for groups of adult neurology patients (n = 68) and parents of pediatric neurology patients (n = 31) to shed some light on this issue. In addition to our own survey instrument, we conducted other surveys to gain insight on psychosocial factors that might affect these attitudes. The results suggest that parents are more concerned about their children's genetic risk factors when compared to the attitudes of adult patients about their own risk. For both groups, negative emotional state was associated with more concerns towards genetic information. Our study provides insights on how parental views might affect the acceptance of genetic technology and information.

Disclosure of secondary findings in exome sequencing of 2480 Japanese cancer patients

High-throughput sequencing has greatly contributed to precision medicine. However, challenges remain in reporting secondary findings (SFs) of germline pathogenic variants and managing the affected patients. The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of SFs in Japanese cancer patients using whole exome sequencing (WES) and to understand patient preferences regarding SF disclosure. WES was conducted for 2480 cancer patients. Genomic data were screened and classified for variants of 59 genes listed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF v2.0 and for an additional 13 hereditary cancer-related genes. Majority of the participants (68.9%; 1709/2480) opted for disclosure of their SFs. Thirty-two pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, including BRCA1 (7 patients), BRCA2 (4), CHEK2 (4), PTEN (3), MLH1 (3), SDHB (2), MSH6 (1), NF1 (1), EXT2 (1), NF1 (1), NTRK1 (1), MYH7 (3), MYL2 (1), TNNT2 (1), LDLR (2), FBN1 (1), and KCNH2 (1) were recognized in 36 patients (1.5%). Twenty-eight (77.8%) patients underwent genetic counseling and received their SF results. Eighteen (64.3%) patients underwent clinical management for SFs. Genetic validation tests were administered significantly more frequently to patients with than without a SF-related personal history (P = 0.025). This was a first attempt at a large-scale systematic exome analysis in Japan; nevertheless, many cancer patients opted for disclosure of SFs and accepted or considered clinical management.

Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network

PURPOSE

Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium.

METHODS

Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices.

RESULTS

Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes.

CONCLUSION

Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

A qualitative study of Latinx parents' experiences of clinical exome sequencing

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is an established method for genetic diagnosis and is used widely in clinical practice. Studies of the parental experience of CES, which inform guidelines for best practices for genetic counseling, have been predominately comprised of White, non-Latinx participants. The aim of this study was to explore the parental experiences of CES in a Latinx community and to understand how their experiences are influenced by culture and language. We conducted semi-structured interviews in English and Spanish with 38 Latinx parents of children who had CES. Some of the themes that emerged were common to those previously identified, including a sense of obligation to pursue testing and a mixed emotional response to their child's results. Parents who had lower education level and/or received care from a provider who did not share their language had more confusion about their child's CES results and greater dissatisfaction with care compared with parents who had higher education level and/or received care from a provider who spoke their language. We also found evidence of hampered shared decision making and/or disempowered patient decision making regarding CES testing. Our data suggest unique needs for Latinx families having CES, particularly those who are non-English speaking when an interpreter is used. Our data support the value in continuing to take steps to improve culturally competent care by improving interpretation services and recruiting and training a genetic workforce that is ethnically, linguistically, and culturally diverse.

First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants

Background: Health researchers and health research participants support the sharing of research results; however, results are typically only shared through peer-reviewed publications. Few studies have investigated researchers' ethical concerns related to sharing results with research participants. Methods: An explanatory approach was used to explore the ethical concerns researchers may have with returning aggregate results to research participants. Researchers (N = 414) responded to an online survey of open-ended questions that allowed researchers to provide in-depth explanations regarding their responses to closed-ended questions. Results: Across researchers, the mean percentage of studies for which ethical concerns were reported as a barrier to results sharing was 38.5% (SD= 30.7). Researchers' primary ethical concerns with returning results were articulated as an overarching desire to prevent harm to participants. Three broad ethical concerns emerged, each with underlying subthemes: 1) distress, 2) understanding, and 3) privacy. Conclusions: This is the first study to broadly explore researchers' ethical concerns with sharing aggregate research results with participants and reveals that researchers' ethical concerns are closely tied to the ethical obligation to do no harm. In order to increase results sharing, steps must be taken to help researchers understand how to minimize potential harm when sharing results.

Physicians' Attitudes and Ethical Obligations to Pharmacogenetic Testing

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increased utilization of pharmacogenetic (PGt) testing to guide drug therapy, little is known about the ethical challenges posed by the use of these genetic tools.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study aimed to address ethical issues related to ancillary genetic information, consent forms, and potential confidentiality breaches from physicians' perspectives. A questionnaire was administered to all practicing physicians working in KAUH.

RESULTS

Almost 49% and 65% of physicians were willing to recommend PGt testing for adult and pediatric patients, respectively. The findings showed that physicians attitudes towards the clinical utility of PGt testing became more preceptive. The majority (73.7%) indicated that PGt testing should not be treated as other routine laboratory tests. The finding also focused on potential conflicts regarding ancillary genetic information, in which 78.8% indicated that they would like to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of the patients and only 14.4% of physicians did not feel obligated to let patients know about any future risk that might be uncovered using PGt testing. The findings showed that collecting both verbal and written consents was imperative prior to testing. Seriousness and predictability of the diseases were reported to be legitimate circumstances that allow disclosure of genetic information.

DISCUSSION

Unless the field of PGt testing addresses the ethical challenges that might be encountered during PGt treatment, these issues might influence its acceptance in routine clinical settings. Establishing a minimal set of ethical standards may help emphasize the role of physicians and thus facilitate the implementation of PGt tests.

What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.

"The results are encouragements to make positive changes to be healthier:" qualitative evaluation of Marshallese participants' perceptions when receiving study results in a randomized control trial

Background

Study participants express a desire to receive the results of studies in which they have participated even when the results are not what researchers expected. Sharing results with participants is a core principle of community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, many researchers using a community-based participatory approach report that they encounter barriers to sharing results with study participants. Researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences established a CBPR partnership with Marshallese community stakeholders in an effort to reduce the health disparities of this vulnerable population. Marshallese are a Pacific Islander population that faces significant health disparities and have a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, obesity-related cancers, and other chronic diseases compared to the general US population.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive design was used to evaluate Marshallese participants' perceptions related to receiving results of a culturally adapted Diabetes Self-Management Education randomized control trial in which they participated. Participants were provided with a summary of their individual results as well as preliminary, overall aggregate study results. Interviews were conducted with half of (N = 111) of the 221 enrolled participants that provided them with the opportunity to share in-depth responses related to their perceptions of the study results they received.

Results

There was no statistically significant differences between study arms in participant desire to receive overall study results, desire to receive personal study results, or willingness to participate in future research. Participants described their desire for results and the effect of these results on their future behavior. Within the a priori theme of participants' desire for results, three subthemes emerged: 1) results showed current health status, 2) results showed improvement, and 3) demonstrated the overall results of the study. Within the a priori theme of effects of results on future behavior, two sub-themes emerged: 1) encourage future healthy behavior, and 2) encourage future research participation.

Conclusions

Participants overwhelmingly stated they wanted to receive personal and aggregate study results. This finding is consistent with previous qualitative studies that documented that participants want results. Marshallese participants also reported that receiving study results would affect their future health behavior. This study documents specifically how participants anticipate using the results of studies in which they participated.

Clinical trials registration information

The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02407132).

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.

Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

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.

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

The psychosocial and service delivery impact of genomic testing for inherited retinal dystrophies

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides diagnostic information for many rare conditions. The evolution of NGS for panel, exome, and genome testing is set to be the platform for transforming genomic diagnosis in the National Health Service (NHS). Inherited retinal dystrophies (IRDs) are a highly genetically heterogeneous disease group causing progressive visual impairment. IRDs are ideal for an NGS panel approach due to phenotypic overlap and were one of the first diagnostic panels to be developed in the NHS. While diagnostic yield for patients with IRD has improved significantly with NGS, a proportion of patients remain without a diagnosis. The clinical value of NGS testing is well understood; however, the patient experience of panel testing is not well documented. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 23 participants with IRD who had undergone NGS testing. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Participants' experiences were interpreted to explore the psychosocial and service delivery impact of this testing technology, inclusive of those who received a pathogenic, negative, carrier status or variant of uncertain significance result. Collectively, three core themes were identified: (1) the journey towards a genomic diagnosis, (2) the impact of NGS testing, (3) service delivery of NGS tests. Disclosure of results had no reported adverse implications. Participants appreciated an open discussion about the potential for an uncertain or unexpected result, prior to testing. They valued pre-test counselling discussions, expert opinions and on-going care from genomic services.

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

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

Rapid clinical exome sequencing in a pediatric ICU: Genetic counselor impacts and challenges

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized molecular diagnosis in children with genetic disease over the past decade. However, exome sequencing in the inpatient setting has traditionally been discouraged, in part due to an increased risk of providers failing to retrieve and act upon results, as many patients are discharged before results return. The development of rapid turn-around-times (TATs) for genomic testing has begun to shift this paradigm. Rapid exome sequencing (rES) is increasingly being used as a diagnostic tool for critically ill infants with likely genetic disease and presents significant challenges to execute. We implemented a program, entitled the Rapid Inpatient Genomic Testing (RIGhT) project, to identify critically ill children for whom a molecular diagnosis is likely to change inpatient management. Two important goals of the RIGhT project were to provide appropriate genetic counseling, and to develop protocols to ensure efficient test coordination- both of which relied heavily on laboratory and clinic-based genetic counselors (GCs). Here, rES was performed on 27 inpatient trios from October 2016 to August 2018; laboratory and clinical GCs encountered significant challenges in the coordination of this testing. The GCs involved retrospectively reviewed these cases and identified three common challenges encountered during pretest counseling and coordination. The aim of this paper is to define these challenges using illustrative case examples that highlight the importance of including GCs to support rES programs.

Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing

The increasing availability of exome sequencing to the general ("healthy") population raises questions about the implications of genomic testing for individuals without suspected Mendelian diseases. Little is known about this population's motivations for undergoing exome sequencing, their expectations, reactions, and perceptions of utility. In order to address these questions, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 participants recruited from a longitudinal multi-omics profiling study that included exome sequencing. Participants were interviewed after receiving exome results, which included Mendelian disease-associated pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants, pharmacogenetic variants, and risk assessments for multifactorial diseases such as type 2 diabetes. The primary motivation driving participation in exome sequencing was personal curiosity. While they reported feeling validation and relief, participants were frequently underwhelmed by the results and described having expected more from exome sequencing. All participants reported discussing the results with at least some family, friends, and healthcare providers. Participants' recollection of the results returned to them was sometimes incorrect or incomplete, in many cases aligning with their perceptions of their health risks when entering the study. These results underscore the need for different genetic counseling approaches for generally healthy patients undergoing exome sequencing, in particular the need to provide anticipatory guidance to moderate participants' expectations. They also provide a preview of potential challenges clinicians may face as genomic sequencing continues to scale-up in the general population despite a lack of full understanding of its impact.

Ethics as ritual: smoothing over moments of dislocation in biomedicine

Applications of biomedical R&D currently imply substantial societal concerns. This paper explores, based on semi-structured interviews with scientists in Norway, how biomedical researchers experience and tackle such concerns in their daily work. It shows how ritualised routine responses to dislocatory moments help maintain order in the daily work of the interviewed scientists; they do not address directly but instead smooth over concerns by a ritualised way of using ethics. This may foreclose substantive reflection and function as a stabiliser for 'business as usual'. Overall, the current way of responding to concerns as described by the interviewees may contribute to a depoliticisation of important issues. The paper contributes to sociological work on ethics by linking it to recent discussions on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and by the empirical research presented. The insights can also help improve science policies such as RRI.

Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes

PURPOSE

Expanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context.

METHODS

A 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50-100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite patients' beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.

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

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

High-frequency actionable pathogenic exome variants in an average-risk cohort

Exome sequencing is increasingly utilized in both clinical and nonclinical settings, but little is known about its utility in healthy individuals. Most previous studies on this topic have examined a small subset of genes known to be implicated in human disease and/or have used automated pipelines to assess pathogenicity of known variants. To determine the frequency of both medically actionable and nonactionable but medically relevant exome findings in the general population we assessed the exomes of 70 participants who have been extensively characterized over the past several years as part of a longitudinal integrated multiomics profiling study. We analyzed exomes by identifying rare likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants in genes associated with Mendelian disease in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database. We then used American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) guidelines for the classification of rare sequence variants. Additionally, we assessed pharmacogenetic variants. Twelve out of 70 (17%) participants had medically actionable findings in Mendelian disease genes. Five had phenotypes or family histories associated with their genetic variants. The frequency of actionable variants is higher than that reported in most previous studies and suggests added benefit from utilizing expanded gene lists and manual curation to assess actionable findings. A total of 63 participants (90%) had additional nonactionable findings, including 60 who were found to be carriers for recessive diseases and 21 who have increased Alzheimer's disease risk because of heterozygous or homozygous APOE e4 alleles (18 participants had both). Our results suggest that exome sequencing may have considerably more utility for health management in the general population than previously thought.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results

Guidelines recommend patients be informed of their incidental results (IR) when undergoing genomic sequencing (GS), yet there are limited tools to support patients' decisions about learning IR. The aim of this study is to develop and test the usability of a decision aid (DA) to guide patients' selection of IR, and to describe patients' preferences for learning IR following use of the DA. We developed and evaluated a DA using an iterative, mixed-methods process consisting of (1) prototype development, (2) feasibility testing, (3) cognitive interviews, (4) design and programming, and (5) usability testing. We created an interactive online DA called the Genomics ADvISER, a genomics decision AiD about Incidental SEquencing Results. The Genomics ADvISER begins with an educational whiteboard video, and then engages users in a values clarification exercise, knowledge quiz and final choice step, based on a 'binning' framework. Participants found the DA acceptable and intuitive to use. They were enthusiastic towards GS and IR; all selected multiple categories of IR. The Genomics ADvISER is a new patient-centered tool to support the clinical delivery of incidental GS results. The Genomics ADvISER fills critical care gaps, given the health care system's limited genomics expertise and capacity to convey the large volume of IR and their myriad of implications.

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

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

Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences

Opportunities to participate in genomic sequencing studies, as well as recommendations to screen for variants in 59 medically actionable genes anytime clinical genomic sequencing is performed, indicate adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about learning secondary findings from genome sequencing. However, how adolescents want to be involved in such decisions is unknown. We conducted five focus groups with adolescents (2) and parents (3) to learn their decisional preferences about return of genomic research results to adolescents. Discussions about decisional preferences centered around three themes: feelings about receiving genomic risk information, adolescent involvement and capacity to participate in decision-making, and recommendations for parental versus collaborative decision-making. We address the contested space between parental duties to act in their children's best interests when choosing which results to return and adolescents' desires to make autonomous decisions. A collaborative decision-making approach is recommended for obtaining consent from adolescents and their parents for genome sequencing research.