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

Psychological and ethical issues raised by genomic in paediatric care pathway, a qualitative analysis with parents and childhood cancer patients

In paediatric oncology, genomics raises new ethical, legal and psychological issues, as somatic and constitutional situations intersect throughout the care pathway. The discovery of potential predisposition in this context is sometimes carried out outside the usual framework. This article focuses on the views of children, adolescents, and young adults (AYA) with cancer and their parents about their experience with genomic testing. Forty-eight semi-structured interviews were performed with children or AYAs with cancer and one of their parents, before and/or after receiving the genetic test results. The interviews were fully transcribed, coded and thematically analysed using an inductive method. This analysis revealed several themes that are key issues: perceived understanding and consenting, apprehension about the test outcomes (expectations and fears), perception and attitude towards incidental findings. The main expectation was an aetiological explanation. Children and AYAs also emphasised the altruistic meaning of genetic testing, while parents seemed to expect a therapeutic and preventive approach for their child and the rest of the family. Parents were more concerned about a family risk, while patients were more afraid of cancer relapse or transmission to their descendants. Both groups suggested possible feelings of guilt concerning family transmission and imaginary representations of what genomics may allow. Incidental findings were not understood by patients, while some parents perceived the related issues and hesitated between wanting or not to know. A multidisciplinary approach would be an interesting way to help parents and children and AYAs to better grasp the complexity of genetic and/or genomic testing.

Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

The genetic composition of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be examined with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Until recently, PGT was limited to detecting single-gene, high-risk pathogenic variants, large structural variants, and aneuploidy. Recent advances have made genome-wide genotyping of IVF embryos feasible and affordable, raising the possibility of screening embryos for their risk of polygenic diseases such as breast cancer, hypertension, diabetes, or schizophrenia. Despite a heated debate around this new technology, called polygenic embryo screening (PES; also PGT-P), it is already available to IVF patients in some countries. Several articles have studied epidemiological, clinical, and ethical perspectives on PES; however, a comprehensive, principled review of this emerging field is missing.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review has four main goals. First, given the interdisciplinary nature of PES studies, we aim to provide a self-contained educational background about PES to reproductive specialists interested in the subject. Second, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of arguments for and against the introduction of PES, crystallizing and prioritizing the key issues. We also cover the attitudes of IVF patients, clinicians, and the public towards PES. Third, we distinguish between possible future groups of PES patients, highlighting the benefits and harms pertaining to each group. Finally, our review, which is supported by ESHRE, is intended to aid healthcare professionals and policymakers in decision-making regarding whether to introduce PES in the clinic, and if so, how, and to whom.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for PubMed-indexed articles published between 1/1/2003 and 1/3/2024 using the terms 'polygenic embryo screening', 'polygenic preimplantation', and 'PGT-P'. We limited the review to primary research papers in English whose main focus was PES for medical conditions. We also included papers that did not appear in the search but were deemed relevant.

OUTCOMES

The main theoretical benefit of PES is a reduction in lifetime polygenic disease risk for children born after screening. The magnitude of the risk reduction has been predicted based on statistical modelling, simulations, and sibling pair analyses. Results based on all methods suggest that under the best-case scenario, large relative risk reductions are possible for one or more diseases. However, as these models abstract several practical limitations, the realized benefits may be smaller, particularly due to a limited number of embryos and unclear future accuracy of the risk estimates. PES may negatively impact patients and their future children, as well as society. The main personal harms are an unindicated IVF treatment, a possible reduction in IVF success rates, and patient confusion, incomplete counselling, and choice overload. The main possible societal harms include discarded embryos, an increasing demand for 'designer babies', overemphasis of the genetic determinants of disease, unequal access, and lower utility in people of non-European ancestries. Benefits and harms will vary across the main potential patient groups, comprising patients already requiring IVF, fertile people with a history of a severe polygenic disease, and fertile healthy people. In the United States, the attitudes of IVF patients and the public towards PES seem positive, while healthcare professionals are cautious, sceptical about clinical utility, and concerned about patient counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The theoretical potential of PES to reduce risk across multiple polygenic diseases requires further research into its benefits and harms. Given the large number of practical limitations and possible harms, particularly unnecessary IVF treatments and discarded viable embryos, PES should be offered only within a research context before further clarity is achieved regarding its balance of benefits and harms. The gap in attitudes between healthcare professionals and the public needs to be narrowed by expanding public and patient education and providing resources for informative and unbiased genetic counselling.

Advancing precision oncology through systematic germline and tumor genetic analysis: The oncogenetic point of view on findings from a prospective multicenter clinical trial of 666 patients

INTRODUCTION

With the emergence of targeted therapies, there is a need to accurately identify more tumor biomarkers. The EXOMA trial was designed to offer tumor and germline exome sequencing (ES) to patients with solid malignant tumors and facing therapeutic failure. As hereditary cancer predispositions could be identified, with genetic counseling and health management implications, a genetic consultation was systematically established. This design needs to be discussed as genetic human resources are limited and indication of theranostic tests will increase.

METHODS

Genetic counseling was conducted within 15 days following inclusion in the study for patients recruited between December 2015 and July 2019. In silico analyses from theranostic ES were limited to 317 genes involved in oncogenesis, from both tumor and blood DNA.

RESULTS

Six hundred and sixty six patients had a genetic consultation before ES. In 65/666 patients, 66 germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants were identified in 16 actionable genes and seven non-actionable genes according to French guidelines. 24/65 patients had previously received genetic analysis for diagnostic purposes, and for 17 of them, a P/LP variant had already been identified. Among the 48/65 remaining cases for which the EXOMA protocol revealed a previously unknown P/LP variant, only 19 met the criteria for genetic testing for inherited cancer risk after familial survey. These criteria had not been identified by the oncologist in 10 cases. In 21/65 cases, the variant was considered incidental.

DISCUSSION

In 7.4% of patients, an undiagnosed hereditary genetic predisposition was identified, whether or not related to the clinical presentation, and germline analysis impacted oncological management for only 6.3% of the cohort. This low percentage should be weighed against the burden of systematic genetic consultation and urgent circuits. Information or training tools to form oncologists to the prescription of germline genetic analyses should be explored, as well as information supports and patient preferences.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Protocol for a Prospective, Observational Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Returning Secondary Findings of Genome Sequencing for Unexplained Suspected Genetic Conditions

PURPOSE

Although costly, genome-wide sequencing (GWS) detects an extensive range of variants, enhancing our ability to diagnose and assess risk for an increasing number of diseases. In addition to detecting variants related to the indication for testing, GWS can detect secondary variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other genes for which early intervention may improve health. As the list of secondary findings grows, there is increased demand for surveillance and management by multiple specialists, adding pressure to constrained health care budgets. Secondary finding testing is actively debated because some consider it opportunistic screening for future health risks that may not manifest. Given the economic implications of secondary finding testing and follow-up and its unproven clinical utility, the objective is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of secondary finding ascertainment per case detected and per unit of improved clinical utility in families of children with unexplained suspected genetic conditions undergoing clinical GWS.

METHODS

Those undergoing trio genome or exome sequencing are eligible for the study. Positive secondary finding index cases will be matched to negative controls (1:2) based on age group, primary result(s) type, and clinical indication. During the 2-year study, 71 cases and 142 matched controls are expected. Health service use will be collected in patients and 1 adult family member every 6 months. The per-child and per-dyad total cost will be determined by multiplying use of each resource by a corresponding unit price and summing all cost items. Costs will be estimated from the public and societal payer perspectives. The mean cost per child and per dyad for secondary finding-positive and secondary finding-negative groups will be compared statistically. If important demographic differences are observed between groups, ordinary least-squares regression, log transformation, or other nonparametric technique will be used to compare adjusted mean costs. The ratio of the difference in mean cost to the secondary finding yield will be used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness. In secondary analyses, effectiveness will be estimated using the number of clinical management changes due to secondary findings or the Clinician-Reported Genetic Testing Utility Index (C-GUIDE) score, a validated measure of clinical utility. Sensitivity analysis will be undertaken to assess the robustness of the findings to variation in key parameters.

IMPLICATIONS

This study generates key evidence to inform clinical practice and funding allocation related to secondary finding testing. The inclusion of family members and a new measure of clinical utility represent important advancements in economic evaluation in genomics.

Offering and Returning Secondary Findings in the Context of Exome Sequencing for Hearing Loss: Clinicians' Views and Experiences

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding whether and under which circumstances secondary findings (SF) should be offered in the pediatric context. Although studies have examined patient perspectives on receiving SF, little research has been conducted examining the experiences of clinicians offering SF to parents of newborns receiving genomic sequencing for a recently diagnosed medical condition.

METHODS

To address this, we conducted qualitative interviews exploring the views and experiences of 12 clinicians who offered SF to parents of infants who had diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) to identify the cause of their hearing loss. Interviews explored clinicians' accounts of parents' choices and decision-making about receiving SF, their views on whether and when to offer SF, their experiences returning SF, and any ethical challenges they encountered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported parents who declined all SF often felt finding out about future conditions unrelated to their child's hearing loss may be unhelpful, or even harmful, or were overwhelmed by their child's diagnosis. Clinicians also reported that some parents chose SF because they felt obliged to, even if they did not want to receive them. They explained that while some parents experienced decision-making regarding SF as positive, for others, this process was challenging or distressing. While clinicians generally agreed SF should be offered, mainly to promote parental choice, most felt SF should be offered after disclosing diagnostic results, primarily to avoid overwhelming parents. Clinicians encountered several ethical challenges, including balancing parental autonomy with non-maleficence, wanting to report or not report certain SF, and questioning whether parents can make an autonomous choice regarding SF.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings, which are novel as they relate to parents of young infants with a recent diagnosis of hearing loss, add new insights into clinicians' and parents' decision-making regarding SF in pediatrics.

Expectations, concerns, and attitudes regarding whole-genome sequencing studies: a survey of cancer patients, families, and the public in Japan

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is being used in research and clinical settings in cancer genomics. Studies show that cancer patients generally have positive attitudes toward tumor profiling tests; however, few works revealed their attitudes toward WGS. This study clarifies the expectations, concerns, and result preferences of cancer patients (CPs), family members (FMs) and general adults (GAs) regarding WGS study in Japan. We conducted an anonymous survey with 1204 CPs, 5968 FMs, and 2915 GAs in 2021. Despite low awareness of the WGS studies, CPs had the highest expectations for it. FMs had a higher level of concern than CPs and GAs; feeling anxious by knowing the results, being treated unfavorably if germline findings were detected. Both the FMs and CPs were highly concerned about the protection of genetic information. CPs preferred results with actionability, however, only half preferred to know germline findings. Given the possibility of detecting variants across multidisciplinary diseases and the long-term continuity of WGS research, a system is needed in which study participants can consult and receive decision-making support at any time according to their needs.

Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) are routinely offered the option to receive secondary findings (SF). However, little is known about the views of individuals from underrepresented minority pediatric or prenatal populations regarding SF.

METHODS

We explored the preferences for receiving hypothetical categories of SF (H-SF) and reasons for accepting or declining actual SF through surveying (n = 149) and/or interviewing (n = 47) 190 families undergoing pediatric or prenatal ES.

RESULTS

Underrepresented minorities made up 75% of the probands. In total, 150 families (79%) accepted SF as part of their child/fetus's ES. Most families (63%) wanted all categories of H-SF. Those who declined SF as part of ES were less likely to want H-SF across all categories. Interview findings indicate that some families did not recall their SF decision. Preparing for the future was a major motivator for accepting SF, and concerns about privacy, discrimination, and psychological effect drove decliners.

CONCLUSION

A notable subset of families (37%) did not want at least 1 category of H-SF, suggesting more hesitancy about receiving all available results than previously reported. The lack of recollection of SF decisions suggests a need for alternative communication approaches. Results highlight the importance of the inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research.

Genetic Testing for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review of Ethical Aspects

Genetic testing is associated with many ethical challenges on the individual, organizational and macro level of health care systems. The provision of genetic testing for rare diseases in particular requires a full understanding of the complexity and multiplicity of related ethical aspects. This systematic review presents a detailed overview of ethical aspects relevant to genetic testing for rare diseases as discussed in the literature. The electronic databases Pubmed, Science Direct and Web of Science were searched, resulting in 55 relevant publications. From the latter, a total of 93 different ethical aspects were identified. These ethical aspects were structured into three main categories (process of testing, consequences of the test outcome and contextual challenges) and 20 subcategories highlighting the diversity and complexity of ethical aspects relevant to genetic testing for rare diseases. This review can serve as a starting point for the further in-depth investigation of particular ethical issues, the education of healthcare professionals regarding this matter and for informing international policy development on genetic testing for rare diseases.

Être psychologue au sein d’une équipe d’oncogénétique : défis, enjeux et limites autour de la place du « psy »

Le développement des séquençages génétiques tumoraux et constitutionnels, lié aux progrès technologiques récents, a permis d’améliorer les connaissances en oncogénétique et d’ouvrir de multiples champs de recherche de nouvelles mutations génétiques prédisposant aux cancers pédiatriques. Cet article questionne la place du psychologue au sein d’une équipe d’oncogénétique en pédiatrie, tant auprès des familles concernées par ces problématiques qu’auprès des soignants, mettant en avant la nécessité d’une pensée groupale et transdisciplinaire.

Revisiting Secondary Information Related to Pharmacogenetic Testing

Incidental or secondary findings have been a major part of the discussion of genomic medicine research and clinical applications. For pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, secondary findings arise due to the pleiotropic effects of pharmacogenes, often related to their endogenous functions. Unlike the guidelines that have been developed for whole exome or genome sequencing applications for management of secondary findings (though slightly different from PGx testing in that these refer to detection of variants in multiple genes, some with clinical significance and actionability), no corresponding guidelines have been developed for PGx clinical laboratories. Nonetheless, patient and provider education will remain key components of any PGx testing program to minimize adverse responses related to secondary findings.

A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings

Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients’ interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients’ needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient’s lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient’s family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information’s family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients’ lived illness experiences and family context.

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.

Novel Variant Findings and Challenges Associated With the Clinical Integration of Genomic Testing: An Interim Report of the Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) Study

IMPORTANCE

A targeted genomic sequencing platform focused on diseases presenting in the first year of life may minimize financial and ethical challenges associated with rapid whole-genomic sequencing.

OBJECTIVE

To report interim variants and associated interpretations of an ongoing study comparing rapid whole-genomic sequencing with a novel targeted genomic platform composed of 1722 actionable genes targeting disorders presenting in infancy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Genomic Medicine in Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study is a prospective, multicenter clinical trial with projected enrollment of 400 patients. The study is being conducted at 6 US hospitals. Hospitalized infants younger than 1 year of age suspected of having a genetic disorder are eligible. Results of the first 113 patients enrolled are reported here. Patient recruitment began in July 2019, and the interim analysis of enrolled patients occurred from March to June 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient (proband) and parents (trios, when available) were tested simultaneously on both genomic platforms. Each laboratory performed its own phenotypically driven interpretation and was blinded to other results.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Variants were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics standards of pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), or variants of unknown significance (VUS). Chromosomal and structural variations were reported by rapid whole-genomic sequencing.

RESULTS

Gestational age of 113 patients ranged from 23 to 40 weeks and postmenstrual age from 27 to 83 weeks. Sixty-seven patients (59%) were male. Diagnostic and/or VUS were returned for 51 patients (45%), while 62 (55%) had negative results. Results were concordant between platforms in 83 patients (73%). Thirty-seven patients (33%) were found to have a P/LP variant by 2 or both platforms and 14 (12%) had a VUS possibly related to phenotype. The median day of life at diagnosis was 22 days (range, 3-313 days). Significant alterations in clinical care occurred in 29 infants (78%) with a P/LP variant. Incidental findings were reported in 7 trios. Of 51 positive cases, 34 (67%) differed in the reported result because of technical limitations of the targeted platform, interpretation of the variant, filtering discrepancies, or multiple causes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

As comprehensive genetic testing becomes more routine, these data highlight the critically important variant detection capabilities of existing genomic sequencing technologies and the significant limitations that must be better understood.

Incidental findings in a series of 2500 gene panel tests for a genetic predisposition to cancer: Results and impact on patients

With next generation sequencing, physicians are faced with more complex and uncertain data, particularly incidental findings (IF). Guidelines for the return of IF have been published by learned societies. However, little is known about how patients are affected by these results in a context of oncogenetic testing. Over 4 years, 2500 patients with an indication for genetic testing underwent a gene cancer panel. If an IF was detected, patients were contacted by a physician/genetic counsellor and invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to assess their understanding of the result, the change in medical care, the psychological impact, and the transmission of results to the family. Fourteen patients (0.56%) were delivered an IF in a cancer predisposition gene (RAD51C, PMS2, SDHC, RET, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDKN2A, CDH1, SUFU). Two patients did not collect the results and another two died before the return of results. Within the 10 patients recontacted, most of them reported surprise at the delivery of IF, but not anxiety. The majority felt they had chosen to obtain the result and enough information to understand it. They all initiated the recommended follow-up and did not regret the procedure. Information regarding the IF was transmitted to their offspring but siblings or second-degree relatives were not consistently informed. No major adverse psychological events were found in our experience. IF will be inherent to the development of sequencing, even for restricted gene panels, so it is important to increase our knowledge on the impact of such results in different contexts.

Stakeholder views on opportunistic genomic screening in the Netherlands: a qualitative study

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such 'opportunistic genomic screening' (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected 'secondary findings' be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical 'screening' framework, rather than as a form of 'good patient care'. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a 'fiduciary duty' to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient's informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.