Genomic medicine and incidental findings: balancing actionability and patient autonomy

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Incidentaloma Discoveries in the Course of Neuroimaging Research

Among healthy volunteers in psychiatric brain functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research studies, the prevalence of incidentalomas can be as high as 34%, of which 10% show clinical significance. An incidentaloma is a lesion found by coincidence without clinical symptoms or suspicion. Like lesions and other types of accidental findings, it is found in healthy individuals recruited to take part in psychiatric studies. The prevalence of these accidental findings among specific psychiatric populations remains unknown. However, a precise understanding of cerebral neuroanatomy, neuroradiological expertise, and an appropriate choice of fMRI exploration sequences will increase the sensitivity of identifying these accidental findings and enable researchers to address their clinical relevance and nature. We present recommendations on how to appropriately inform patients or participants of the accidental findings. Additionally, we propose specific suggestions pertaining to the clinical research setting aimed for investigators and psychiatrists. Unlike current articles pertaining to incidentaloma, the current report provides a distinct focus on psychiatric issues and specific recommendations for studies involving psychiatric patients.

Physician and patient determinants of prognostic counseling in idiopathic REM sleep-behavior disorder

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

Prognostic counseling about the risk for developing overt neurodegenerative disorders for patients with idiopathic REM sleep-behavior disorder (iRBD) and isolated REM sleep without atonia (iRSWA) is difficult, given lack of disease-modifying interventions and uncertainty in accurate prognostication for individuals. We aimed to analyze patient and physician characteristics associated with documented prognostic discussions for patients with iRBD and iRSWA.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records for 138 (112 iRBD and 26 iRSWA) patients seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2012 and 2015. We analyzed physician and patient demographics, initial complaint, and other information discussed during office visits. We then comparatively analyzed the impact of physician and patient characteristics on documented prognostic discussions using Chi Square or Fischer's exact test.

RESULTS

Mean iRBD patient age was 65.0 ± 13.0, and mean iRSWA age was 58 ± 15 years. Seventy-eight (69.6%) iRBD and 22 (84.6%) iRSWA patients were men. Sixty-two (55%) iRBD and three (12%) iRSWA patients received prognostic counseling about phenoconversion risk. iRBD was a secondary complaint in 67 (59.8%). Patients over age 60 years and those having iRBD as a chief complaint more frequently received prognostic discussions than those with opposite characteristics (all p < 0.05). Patient sex and antidepressant use were not associated with counseling. Sleep neurologists disclosed prognostic information most frequently, with male more likely than female clinicians to disclose prognoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Several patient and physician characteristics appear to influence documented prognostic counseling for iRBD/RSWA patients. Future studies of iRBD/RSWA patients' preferences are needed to clarify ethically appropriate physician-patient communication concerning prognosis.

Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views

BACKGROUND

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) consists in the capture, sequencing and analysis of all exons in the human genome. Originally developed in the research context, this technology is now increasingly used clinically to inform patient care. The implementation of WES into healthcare poses significant organizational, regulatory, and ethical hurdles, which are widely discussed in the literature.

METHODS

In order to inform future policy decisions on the integration of WES into standard clinical practice, we performed a systematic literature review to identify the most important challenges directly reported by technology users.

RESULTS

Out of 2094 articles, we selected and analyzed 147 which reported a total of 23 different challenges linked to the production, analysis, reporting and sharing of patients' WES data. Interpretation of variants of unknown significance, incidental findings, and the cost and reimbursement of WES-based tests were the most reported challenges across all articles.

CONCLUSIONS

WES is already used in the clinical setting, and may soon be considered the standard of care for specific medical conditions. Yet, technology users are calling for certain standards and guidelines to be published before this technology replaces more focused approaches such as gene panels sequencing. In addition, a number of infrastructural adjustments will have to be made for clinics to store, process and analyze the amounts of data produced by WES.

Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing

This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.

Translating genomic discoveries to the clinic in pediatric oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present study describes the recent advances in the identification of targetable genomic alterations in pediatric cancers, along with the progress and associated challenges in translating these findings into therapeutic benefit.

RECENT FINDINGS

Each field within pediatric cancer has rapidly and comprehensively begun to define genomic targets in tumors that potentially can improve the clinical outcome of patients, including hematologic malignancies (leukemia and lymphoma), solid malignancies (neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, and osteosarcoma), and brain tumors (gliomas, ependymomas, and medulloblastomas). Although each tumor has specific and sometimes overlapping genomic targets, the translation to the clinic of new targeted trials and precision medicine protocols is still in its infancy. The first clinical tumor profiling studies in pediatric oncology have demonstrated feasibility and patient enthusiasm for the personalized medicine paradigm, but have yet to demonstrate clinical utility. Complexities influencing implementation include rapidly evolving sequencing technologies, tumor heterogeneity, and lack of access to targeted therapies. The return of incidental findings from the germline also remains a challenge, with evolving policy statements and accepted standards.

SUMMARY

The translation of genomic discoveries to the clinic in pediatric oncology continues to move forward at a brisk pace. Early adoption of genomics for tumor classification, risk stratification, and initial trials of targeted therapeutic agents has led to powerful results. As our experience grows in the integration of genomic and clinical medicine, the outcome for children with cancer should continue to improve.