The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?

Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi Panel Deliberation

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources-a "cancer gene variant commons"-incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers.

Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians

Psychiatric genomics is a rapidly growing field that holds much promise for improving risk prediction, prevention, diagnosis, treatment selection, and understanding of the pathogenesis of patients' symptoms. The field of psychiatry (i.e., professional organizations, mental health clinicians, educational institutions), however, needs to address numerous challenges to promote the responsible translation of genomic technologies and knowledge into psychiatric practice. The goal of this article is to review how clinicians currently encounter and use genomics in the clinic, to summarize the existing literature on how clinicians feel about the use of genomics in psychiatry, and to analyze foreseeable ethical and legal challenges for the responsible integration of genomics into psychiatric care at the structural and clinic levels. Structural challenges are defined as aspects of the larger system of psychiatric practice that constitute potential barriers to the responsible integration of genomics for the purposes of psychiatric care and prevention. These structural challenges exist at a level where professional groups can intervene to set standards and regulate the practice of psychiatry and genomics. Clinic-level challenges are day-to-day issues clinicians face when managing genomic tests in the clinic. We discuss the need for action to mitigate these challenges and maximize the clinical and social utility of psychiatric genomics, including the following: expanding genomics training among mental health clinicians; establishing practice guidelines that consider potential clinical, psychological, and social implications of psychiatric genomics; promoting an integrated care model for managing genomics in psychiatry; emphasizing patient engagement and informed consent when managing genomic testing in psychiatric care.

Systematic misclassification of missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 "coldspots"

Purpose

Guidelines for variant interpretation incorporate variant hotspots in critical functional domains as evidence for pathogenicity (e.g., PM1 and PP2), but do not use “coldspots,” that is, regions without essential functions that tolerate variation, as evidence a variant is benign. To improve variant classification we evaluated BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants reported in ClinVar to identify regions where pathogenic missenses are extremely infrequent, defined as coldspots.

Methods

We used Bayesian approaches to model variant classification in these regions.

Results

BRCA1 exon 11 (~60% of the coding sequence), and BRCA2 exons 10 and 11 (~65% of the coding sequence), are coldspots. Of 89 pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) missense variants in BRCA1, none are in exon 11 (odds <0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0–0.01). Of 34 P or LP missense variants in BRCA2, none are in exons 10–11 (odds <0.01, 95% CI 0.0–0.01). More than half of reported missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are in coldspots (3115/5301 = 58.8%). Reclassifying these 3115 VUS as likely benign would substantially improve variant classification.

Conclusion

In BRCA1 and BRCA2 coldspots, missense variants are very unlikely to be pathogenic. Classification schemes that incorporate coldspots can reduce the number of VUS and mitigate risks from reporting benign variation as VUS.

International Divergence in Gene Patenting

This review explores the recent divergence in international patent law relating to genes and associated subject matter. This divergence stems primarily from decisions of the highest courts in the United States and Australia on the eligibility of patent claims relating to the BRCA gene sequences. Patent offices, courts, and policy makers have struggled for many years to clearly articulate the bounds of patent claims on isolated and synthetic DNA and related products and processes, including methods for their use in genetic diagnostics. This review provides context to the current divergence by mapping key events in the gene patent journey from the early 1980s onward in five key jurisdictions: the United States, the member states of the European Patent Convention, Australia, Canada, and China. Early approaches to gene patenting had some commonalities across jurisdictions, which makes exploration of the recent divergence all the more interesting.There is insufficient empirical evidence to date to confidently predict the consequences of this recent divergence. However, it could potentially have a significant effect on local industry and on consumer access.

Patients v. Myriad or the GDPR Access Right v. the EU Database Right

In 2016, four US cancer patients legally challenged Myriad by claiming full access to all genomic information produced in the course of Myriad's testing of their risks for a variety of cancers. Asserting that Myriad's refusal to provide them with this information violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the patients sought a determination of a right to access all their genetic information from testing laboratories. Such access would not only serve their own care, but also enable them to share their genetic data with the scientific community which they alleged Myriad failed to do. A similar case may be brought in Europe under the novel EU GDPR. Specifically, it would put the GDPR right of access to personal data against Myriad's database right under the EU Database Right Directive. The outcome of this case could impact the fate of personalized medicine, which depends on the one hand on patients' having control over their genetic data, and on the other hand on incentives for genetic testing companies to generate these data. We first address the issue of whether the GDPR applies to medical records. We then analyse how GDPR rights could play out in the context of clinical genetic testing and conclude that the GDPR access right stops short of granting unconditional access to all data generated in the process of testing, to the extent that its exercise would result in the violation of medical-professional norms, expose the testing company to potential liability, or compromise normal exploitation of the database of which the personal data form part.

Privacy in the age of medical big data

Big data has become the ubiquitous watch word of medical innovation. The rapid development of machine-learning techniques and artificial intelligence in particular has promised to revolutionize medical practice from the allocation of resources to the diagnosis of complex diseases. But with big data comes big risks and challenges, among them significant questions about patient privacy. Here, we outline the legal and ethical challenges big data brings to patient privacy. We discuss, among other topics, how best to conceive of health privacy; the importance of equity, consent, and patient governance in data collection; discrimination in data uses; and how to handle data breaches. We close by sketching possible ways forward for the regulatory system.

Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study

Family studies to reclassify clinically ascertained variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can impact risk assessment, medical management, and psychological outcomes for patients and their families. There are limited avenues for patients and their families to actively participate in VUS reclassification, and access to family studies at most commercial laboratories is restricted by multiple factors. To explore patient attitudes about participation in family studies for VUS reclassification, we conducted semistructured pre- and post-participation telephone interviews with 38 participants in a family-based VUS reclassification study that utilized a patient-driven approach for family ascertainment and recruitment. Participants had VUS from multigene panel testing performed at multiple clinical laboratories for cancer or other disease risk. Inductive thematic analysis of transcribed interviews highlighted four major themes: (a) Participants' study goals were driven by the desire to resolve uncertainty related to the VUS, (b) Participants had mixed reactions to the VUS reclassification outcomes of the study, (c) Personal, public, and familial knowledge increased through study participation and (d) Participants used study participation to actively cope with the uncertainty of a VUS. As personalized genomic medicine becomes more prevalent, clinicians, clinical laboratories, and researchers could consider creating more opportunities for active partnership with patients and families, who are motivated to contribute data to familial VUS studies.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Outcomes of retesting BRCA negative patients using multigene panels

The utility of multigene panels in retesting patients who previously tested negative for a pathogenic mutation by BRCA1/2 testing is not well established. Patients who previously tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation by standard sequencing, and who were seen in cancer genetics center between November 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 for additional testing utilizing multigene panels, were identified using our genetic testing registry. Data on demographics, personal and family history of cancer, results of panel testing and the impact on patient management was collected retrospectively. A total of 122 patients underwent retesting during the study period. Thirteen (11%) pathogenic mutations were identified in the following genes: CHEK2(4), PALB2(3), ATM(2), CDH1, APC, BARD1 and MRE11A. Eleven out of these thirteen mutations were deemed actionable based on published guidelines. Of these eleven, seven patients had an actual change in clinical management as a result of retesting. Furthermore, retesting also led to a change in clinical management in the two patients with mutations in genes (BARD1 and MRE11A) which do not have clear guidelines for management. There were no significant differences in demographics and personal and family history of cancer between patients who tested positive and those who tested negative on retesting. This study demonstrates the clinical utility of multigene panels in a group of high risk individuals who previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 mutation. This retesting approach revealed a pathogenic mutation in 11% of cases. Retesting led to significant change in clinical management in a majority of patients with actionable mutations (7 out of 11), as well as in those with mutations in genes which do not have specific management guidelines.

Sources of discordance among germ-line variant classifications in ClinVar

PurposeClinVar is increasingly used as a resource for both genetic variant interpretation and clinical practice. However, controversies exist regarding the consistency of classifications in ClinVar, and questions remain about how best to use these data. Our study systematically examined ClinVar to identify common sources of discordance and thus inform ongoing practices.MethodsWe analyzed variants that had multiple classifications in ClinVar, excluding benign polymorphisms. Classifications were categorized by potential actionability and pathogenicity. Consensus interpretations were calculated for each variant, and the properties of the discordant outlier classifications were summarized.ResultsOur study included 74,065 classifications of 27,224 unique variants in 1,713 genes. We found that (i) concordance rates differed among clinical areas and variant types; (ii) clinical testing methods had much higher concordance than basic literature curation and research efforts; (iii) older classifications had greater discordance than newer ones; and (iv) low-penetrance variants had particularly high discordance.ConclusionRecent variant classifications from clinical testing laboratories have high overall concordance in many (but not all) clinical areas. ClinVar can be a reliable resource supporting variant interpretation, quality assessment, and clinical practice when factors uncovered in this study are taken into account. Ongoing improvements to ClinVar may make it easier to use, particularly for nonexpert users.

Consistency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Classifications Among Clinical Diagnostic Laboratories

BACKGROUND

Genetic tests of the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 inform significant clinical decisions for both physicians and patients. Most uncovered variants are benign, and determining which few are pathogenic (disease-causing) is sometimes challenging and can potentially be inconsistent among laboratories. The ClinVar database makes de-identified clinical variant classifications from multiple laboratories publicly available for comparison and review, per recommendations of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), the National Society for Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and other organizations.

METHODS

Classifications of more than 2000 BRCA1/2 variants in ClinVar representing approximately 22,000 patients were dichotomized as clinically actionable or not actionable and compared across up to seven laboratories. The properties of these variants and classification differences were investigated in detail.

RESULTS

Per-variant concordance was 98.5% (CI 97.9%-99.0%). All discordant variants were rare; thus, per patient concordance was estimated to be higher: 99.7%. ClinVar facilitated resolution of many of the discordant variants, and concordance increased to 99.0% per variant and 99.8% per patient when reclassified (but not yet resubmitted) variants and submission errors were addressed. Most of the remaining discordances appeared to involve either legitimate differences in expert judgment regarding particular scientific evidence, or were classifications that predated availability of important scientific evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant classification disagreements among the professional clinical laboratories represented in ClinVar are infrequent yet important. The unrestricted sharing of clinical genetic data allows detailed interlaboratory quality control and peer review, as exemplified by this study.

Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act

On 13 December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act ("the Act") into law. Many of its provisions support the creation of an "Information Commons," an ecosystem of separate but interconnected initiatives that facilitate open and responsible sharing of genomic and other data for research and clinical purposes. For example, the Act supports the National Institutes of Health in mandating data sharing, provides funding and guidance for the large national cohort program now known as All of Us, expresses congressional support for a global pediatric study network, and strengthens patient access to health information. The Act also addresses potential barriers to data sharing. For example, it makes the issuance of certificates of confidentiality automatic for federally funded research involving "identifiable, sensitive" information and strengthens the associated protections. At the same time, the Act exacerbates or neglects several challenges, for example, increasing complexity by adding a new definition of "identifiable" and failing to address the financial sustainability of data sharing and the scope of commercialization. In sum, the Act is a positive step, yet there is still much work to be done before the goals of broad data sharing and utilization can be achieved.

Myriad take two: Can genomic databases remain secret?

Trade-secrecy laws clash with a right to one's health data

Gene patents still alive and kicking: their impact on provision of genetic testing for long QT syndrome in the Canadian public health-care system

PurposeAlthough the Supreme Court of the United States limited their availability in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, gene patents remain important around the world. We examine the situation in Canada, where gene patents continue to exist, in light of recent litigation relating to familial long QT syndrome (LQTS).MethodsWe conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 25 stakeholders across five Canadian provinces and supplemented this with a case analysis of the litigation.ResultsThe majority of LQTS testing was carried out outside Canada. Rising costs prompted several provinces to attempt to repatriate testing. However, LQTS gene patents stymied efforts, particularly in provinces where testing was more centralized, increasing costs and lowering innovation. It was in this context that a hospital launched a test case against the LQTS patents, resulting in a novel agreement to free Canadian hospitals from the effects of patents.ConclusionOur analysis reveals a rapidly evolving genetic test provision landscape under pressure from gene patents, strained budgets and poor collaboration. The litigation resulted in a blueprint for free public use of gene patents throughout Canada's health-care system, but it will only have value if governments are proactive in its use.

DATA SHARING AND REPRODUCIBLE CLINICAL GENETIC TESTING: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES

Open sharing of clinical genetic data promises to both monitor and eventually improve the reproducibility of variant interpretation among clinical testing laboratories. A significant public data resource has been developed by the NIH ClinVar initiative, which includes submissions from hundreds of laboratories and clinics worldwide. We analyzed a subset of ClinVar data focused on specific clinical areas and we find high reproducibility (>90% concordance) among labs, although challenges for the community are clearly identified in this dataset. We further review results for the commonly tested BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which show even higher concordance, although the significant fragmentation of data into different silos presents an ongoing challenge now being addressed by the BRCA Exchange. We encourage all laboratories and clinics to contribute to these important resources.

Barbarians at the Gate: Consumer-Driven Health Data Commons and the Transformation of Citizen Science

"The expression 'barbarians at the gate' was … used by the Romans to describe foreign attacks against their empire." ¹ "[It] is often used in contemporary English within a sarcastic, or ironic context, when speaking about a perceived threat from a rival group of people, often deemed to be less capable or somehow 'primitive.'" ².

Proprietary Considerations in the Use of Cardiovascular Genetic Data

Cardiovascular researchers and clinicians who analyze next-generation sequencing data often search databases of previously reported mutations to determine if an observed mutation is pathogenic. In 2012 we created a database of all reported mutations causing human dyslipidemia syndromes. In 2015, we were advised that some information in our database was now proprietary, after the acquisition of a human disease genetic database by a private biotechnology company. To make our dyslipidemia database and tables of mutations compliant with this new reality, we wrote custom computer scripts to remove certain data fields from the previously reported tables. Data columns in the revised tables now include: accession number, gene name and symbol, mutation type, exon number, inheritance pattern, minor allele frequencies, predictive functional scores, reported functional effects, and additional patient information. The revised mutation tables provide a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative description of genetic variants causing monogenic dyslipidemias, but do not have complete information on all mutations. This experience indicates that free and unlimited access to human disease mutation data should not be taken for granted. Investigators or clinicians who require additional data that is not within the revised tables can still access the data through academic institutions that hold subscriptions to proprietary human mutation databases.

Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel

This research aims to inform policymakers by engaging expert stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and deliberate the most important and tractable policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next generation sequencing (NGS). A 4-round Delphi policy study was done with a multi-stakeholder panel of 48 experts. The first 2 rounds of online questionnaires (reported here) assessed the importance and tractability of 28 potential barriers to clinical adoption of NGS across 3 major policy domains: intellectual property, coverage and reimbursement, and FDA regulation. We found that: 1) proprietary variant databases are seen as a key challenge, and a potentially intractable one; 2) payer policies were seen as a frequent barrier, especially a perceived inconsistency in standards for coverage; 3) relative to other challenges considered, FDA regulation was not strongly perceived as a barrier to clinical use of NGS. Overall the results indicate a perceived need for policies to promote data-sharing, and a desire for consistent payer coverage policies that maintain reasonably high standards of evidence for clinical utility, limit testing to that needed for clinical care decisions, and yet also flexibly allow for clinician discretion to use genomic testing in uncertain circumstances of high medical need.

"The Google of Healthcare": enabling the privatization of genetic bio/databanking

PURPOSE

23andMe is back on the market as the first direct-to-consumer genetic testing company that "includes reports that meet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards…." But, whereas its front-end product is selling individual genetic tests online, its back-end business model is amassing one of the largest privately owned genetic databases in the world. What is the effect, however, of the private control of bio/databases on genetic epidemiology and public health research?

METHODS

The recent federal government notices of proposed rulemaking for: (1) revisions to regulations governing human subjects research and (2) whether certain direct-to-consumer genetic tests should require premarket FDA review, were reviewed and related to the 23andMe product, business model, and consumer agreements.

RESULTS

FDA regulatory action so far has focused on the return of consumer test reports but it should also consider the broader misuse of data and information not otherwise protected by human subjects research regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

As the federal government revises its decades-old human subjects research structure, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) should consider a cohesive approach to regulating private genetic bio/databanks. This strategy should allow the FDA and other agencies to play a role in expanding current regulatory coverage.

A preliminary investigation of genetic counselors' information needs when receiving a variant of uncertain significance result: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore genetic counselors' information preferences on reports of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results from cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

This mixed methods report (quantitative and qualitative approaches) utilized a survey of genetic counselors containing closed- and open-ended questions to explore genetic counselors' information needs and perceptions of the industry's current information sharing practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated for responses to the closed-ended questions, and thematic analysis guided the interpretation of the open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Of the 267 participants (28.6% response rate), the majority indicated a perceived lack of information on VUS laboratory reports, were concerned about the perceived practice of withholding information, and stated the information they wanted to see. Although most did not indicate how additional information would be used, some reported they would provide information directly to patients, and others reported that the information would be used to contextualize the VUS result when counseling patients.

CONCLUSION

This analysis identified information that genetic counselors believe is needed in VUS reports, indicating what they believe are best practices in lieu of guidelines for laboratories currently providing genetic testing services. Future studies should explore how genetic counselors use additional information contained in VUS reports.Genet Med 17 9, 739-746.

A Systematic Comparison of Traditional and Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genes in More Than 1000 Patients

Gene panels for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment are gaining acceptance, even though the clinical utility of these panels is not yet fully defined. Technical questions remain, however, about the performance and clinical interpretation of gene panels in comparison with traditional tests. We tested 1105 individuals using a 29-gene next-generation sequencing panel and observed 100% analytical concordance with traditional and reference data on >750 comparable variants. These 750 variants included technically challenging classes of sequence and copy number variation that together represent a significant fraction (13.4%) of the pathogenic variants observed. For BRCA1 and BRCA2, we also compared variant interpretations in traditional reports to those produced using only non-proprietary resources and following criteria based on recent (2015) guidelines. We observed 99.8% net report concordance, albeit with a slightly higher variant of uncertain significance rate. In 4.5% of BRCA-negative cases, we uncovered pathogenic variants in other genes, which appear clinically relevant. Previously unseen variants requiring interpretation accumulated rapidly, even after 1000 individuals had been tested. We conclude that next-generation sequencing panel testing can provide results highly comparable to traditional testing and can uncover potentially actionable findings that may be otherwise missed. Challenges remain for the broad adoption of panel tests, some of which will be addressed by the accumulation of large public databases of annotated clinical variants.

Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges

Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) is an advance in the detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies that analyzes cell-free fetal DNA in the blood of a pregnant woman. Since its introduction to clinical practice in Hong Kong in 2011, NIPT has quickly spread across the globe. While many professional societies currently recommend that NIPT be used as a screening method, not a diagnostic test, its high sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate) make it an attractive alternative to the serum screens and invasive tests currently in use. Professional societies also recommend that NIPT be accompanied by genetic counseling so that families can make informed reproductive choices. If NIPT becomes more widely adopted, States will have to implement regulation and oversight to ensure it fits into existing legal frameworks, with particular attention to returning fetal sex information in areas where sex-based abortions are prevalent. Although there are additional challenges for NIPT uptake in the developing world, including the lack of health care professionals and infrastructure, the use of NIPT in low-resource settings could potentially reduce the need for skilled clinicians who perform invasive testing. Future advances in NIPT technology promise to expand the range of conditions that can be detected, including single gene disorders. With these advances come questions of how to handle incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. Moving forward, it is essential that all stakeholders have a voice in crafting policies to ensure the ethical and equitable use of NIPT across the world.

A proposed clinical decision support architecture capable of supporting whole genome sequence information

Whole genome sequence (WGS) information may soon be widely available to help clinicians personalize the care and treatment of patients. However, considerable barriers exist, which may hinder the effective utilization of WGS information in a routine clinical care setting. Clinical decision support (CDS) offers a potential solution to overcome such barriers and to facilitate the effective use of WGS information in the clinic. However, genomic information is complex and will require significant considerations when developing CDS capabilities. As such, this manuscript lays out a conceptual framework for a CDS architecture designed to deliver WGS-guided CDS within the clinical workflow. To handle the complexity and breadth of WGS information, the proposed CDS framework leverages service-oriented capabilities and orchestrates the interaction of several independently-managed components. These independently-managed components include the genome variant knowledge base, the genome database, the CDS knowledge base, a CDS controller and the electronic health record (EHR). A key design feature is that genome data can be stored separately from the EHR. This paper describes in detail: (1) each component of the architecture; (2) the interaction of the components; and (3) how the architecture attempts to overcome the challenges associated with WGS information. We believe that service-oriented CDS capabilities will be essential to using WGS information for personalized medicine.

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics

Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.

Genomic knowledge sharing: A review of the ethical and legal issues

The importance of genomic information for care of individual patients and for the development of knowledge about treatment efficacy is becoming increasingly apparent. This information is probabilistic and involves the use of large data sets to increase the likelihood of detecting low frequency events. Duties and rights of patients with respect to this information have been much discussed, including informed consent to the use of individual information, privacy and confidentiality, rights to know or not to know, and individual ownership of information about themselves. But this is only one side of the information equation. On the other side of the equation are duties of information holders: malpractice and duties to warn, responsibilities of data stewardship, intellectual property and ownership, reciprocity, and justice. This article argues that if we take duties of patients to share information seriously, we must also consider duties on the part of information holders about how they protect and use information.

Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?

Thousands of patents have been awarded that claim human gene sequences and their uses, and some have been challenged in court. In a recent high-profile case, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., the US Supreme Court ruled that genes are natural occurring substances and therefore not patentable through 'composition of matter' claims. The consequences of this ruling will extend well beyond ending Myriad's monopoly over BRCA testing and may affect similar monopolies of other commercial laboratories for tests involving other genes. It could also simplify intellectual property issues surrounding genome-wide clinical sequencing, which can generate results for genes covered by intellectual property. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common aneuploidies using cell-free fetal (cff) DNA in maternal blood is currently offered through commercial laboratories and is also the subject of ongoing patent litigation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Myriad case has already been invoked by a lower district court in NIPT litigation and resulted in invalidation of primary claims in a patent on currently marketed cffDNA-based testing for chromosomal aneuploidies.

Developing genomic knowledge bases and databases to support clinical management: current perspectives

Personalized medicine, the ability to tailor diagnostic and treatment decisions for individual patients, is seen as the evolution of modern medicine. We characterize here the informatics resources available today or envisioned in the near future that can support clinical interpretation of genomic test results. We assume a clinical sequencing scenario (germline whole-exome sequencing) in which a clinical specialist, such as an endocrinologist, needs to tailor patient management decisions within his or her specialty (targeted findings) but relies on a genetic counselor to interpret off-target incidental findings. We characterize the genomic input data and list various types of knowledge bases that provide genomic knowledge for generating clinical decision support. We highlight the need for patient-level databases with detailed lifelong phenotype content in addition to genotype data and provide a list of recommendations for personalized medicine knowledge bases and databases. We conclude that no single knowledge base can currently support all aspects of personalized recommendations and that consolidation of several current resources into larger, more dynamic and collaborative knowledge bases may offer a future path forward.

Living laboratory: whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise

With the proliferation of affordable large-scale human genomic data come profound and vexing questions about management of such data and their clinical uncertainty. These issues challenge the view that genomic research on human beings can (or should) be fully segregated from clinical genomics, either conceptually or practically. Here, we argue that the sharp distinction between clinical care and research is especially problematic in the context of large-scale genomic sequencing of people with suspected genetic conditions. Core goals of both enterprises (e.g. understanding genotype-phenotype relationships; generating an evidence base for genomic medicine) are more likely to be realized at a population scale if both those ordering and those undergoing sequencing for diagnostic reasons are routinely and longitudinally studied. Rather than relying on expensive and lengthy randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, we propose leveraging nascent clinical-research hybrid frameworks into a broader, more permanent instantiation of exploratory medical sequencing. Such an investment could enlighten stakeholders about the real-life challenges posed by whole-genome sequencing, such as establishing the clinical actionability of genetic variants, returning 'off-target' results to families, developing effective service delivery models and monitoring long-term outcomes.

Economic regulation of next-generation sequencing

Next-generation sequencing broadens the debate about appropriate regulatory oversight of genetic testing and may force scholars to move beyond familiar privacy and health and safety regulatory issues to address new problems with industry structure and economic regulation. The genetic testing industry is passing through a period of profound structural change in response to shifts in technology and in the legal environment. Making genetic testing safe and effective for consumers increasingly requires access to comprehensive genomic data infrastructures that can support accurate, state-of-the-art interpretation of genetic test results. At present, there are significant barriers to access and there is no sector-specific regulator with power to ensure appropriate data access. Without it, genetic testing will not be safe for consumers even when it is performed at CLIA-certified laboratories using tests that have been FDA-cleared or approved. This article explores the emerging structure of the genetic testing industry and describes its present economic regulatory vacuum. In view of this gap in regulation, the article explores whether generally applicable law, particularly antitrust law, may offer solutions to the industry's data access problems. It concludes that courts may have a useful role to play, particularly in Europe and other jurisdictions where the essential facilities doctrine enjoys continued vitality. After Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, the role of U.S. federal courts is less certain. Congress has demonstrated willingness to address access issues as they emerged in other infrastructure industries in recent decades. This article expresses no preference between legislative and judicial solutions. Its aim is simply to highlight an emerging economic regulatory issue which, if left unresolved, presents real health and safety concerns for consumers who receive genetic tests.

Mining the human genome after Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics portrays the human genome as a product of nature. This frames medical genetics as an extractive industry that mines a natural resource to produce valuable goods and services. Natural resource law offers insights into problems medical geneticists can expect after this decision and suggests possible solutions. Increased competition among clinical laboratories offers various benefits but threatens to increase fragmentation of genetic data resources, potentially causing waste in the form of lost opportunities to discover the clinical significance of particular gene variants. The solution lies in addressing legal barriers to appropriate data sharing. Sustainable discovery in the field of medical genetics can best be achieved through voluntary data sharing rather than command-and-control tactics, but voluntary mechanisms must be conceived broadly to include market-based approaches as well as donative and publicly funded data commons. The recently revised Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule offers an improved--but still imperfect--framework for market-oriented data sharing. This article explores strategies for addressing the Privacy Rule's remaining defects. America is close to having a legal framework that can reward innovators, protect privacy, and promote needed data sharing to advance medical genetics.

Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate

The future clinical applications of whole genome sequencing come with speculation and enthusiasm but require careful consideration of the true system costs and health benefits of the clinical uses of this exciting technology.

The cost of whole genome sequencing is dropping rapidly. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential for this technological advance to transform clinical care. Given the interest and significant investment in genomics, this seems an ideal time to consider what the evidence tells us about potential benefits and harms, particularly in the context of health care policy. The scale and pace of adoption of this powerful new technology should be driven by clinical need, clinical evidence, and a commitment to put patients at the centre of health care policy.

Clinical application of amplicon-based next-generation sequencing in cancer

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has revolutionized genomic research by decreasing the cost of sequencing while increasing the throughput. The focus now is on potential clinical applications of NGS technology for diagnostics and therapeutics. Clinical applications of NGS in cancer can detect clinically actionable genetic/genomic alterations that are critical for cancer care. These alterations can be of diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic significance. In certain cancers, patient risk and prognosis can be predicted based on the mutation profile identified by NGS. Many targeted therapies have been developed for cancer patients who bear specific mutations; however, choosing the right NGS technique for the appropriate clinical application can be challenging, especially in clinical oncology, where the material for NGS tests is often limited and the turnaround time (TAT) for cancer tests is constrained to a few days. Currently, amplicon-based NGS approaches have emerged as the best fit for clinical oncology. In this review, we focus on amplicon-based library preparation, sequencing, sequence data alignment and annotation, and post-analytic interpretation and reporting.

Commercial Opportunities and Ethical Pitfalls in Personalized Medicine: A Myriad of Reasons to Revisit the Myriad Genetics Saga

In 1996, the US-based biotechnology company Myriad Genetics began offering genetic diagnostic tests for mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Since that time, Myriad has been a forerunner in the field of personalized medicine through the use of effective commercialization strategies which have been emulated by other commercial biotechnology companies. Myriad’s strategies include patent acquisition and active enforcement, direct-to-consumer advertising, diversification, and trade secrets. These business models have raised substantial ethical controversy and criticism, often related to the company’s focus on market dominance and the potential conflict between private sector profitability and the promotion of public health. However, these strategies have enabled Myriad to survive the economic challenges that have affected the biotechnology sector and to become financially successful in the field of personalized medicine. Our critical assessment of the legal, economic and ethical aspects of Myriad’s practices over this period allows the identification of the company’s more effective business models. It also discusses of the consequences of implementing economically viable models without first carrying out broader reflection on the socio-cultural, ethical and political contexts in which they would apply.

Constructing narratives of heroism and villainy: case study of Myriad's BRACAnalysis(®) compared to Genentech's Herceptin(®)

Background

The development of Herceptin^® is welcomed as a major advance in breast cancer treatment, while Myriad's development of BRACAnalysis^® is a widely used diagnostic. However useful and successful this product is, its presence in the public eye is tainted by predominantly negative press about gene patenting and business practices.

Discussion

While retrospection invites a sharp contrast between Genentech's triumphal narrative of scientific achievement and Myriad's public image as a controversial monopolist, a comparative history of these companies' products reveals two striking consistencies: patents and public discontent. Despite these similarities, time has reduced the narrative to that of hero versus villain: Genentech is lauded - at least for the final outcome of the Herceptin^® story - as a corporate good citizen, Myriad as a ruthless mercenary. Since patents undergird both products yet the narratives are so different, the stories raise the question: why have patents taken the fall as the scapegoat in current biotechnology policy debate?

Summary

A widely publicized lawsuit and accompanying bad press have cast Myriad as a villain in the evolving narrative of biotechnology. While the lawsuit suggests that this villainy is attributable to Myriad's intellectual property, we suggest through a comparative case study that, at least in the Myriad case, it is not simply about the patents but also other business strategies the company chose to pursue. Patents were a necessary but not sufficient cause of controversy.