Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform

International policies guiding the selection, analysis, and clinical management of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A systematic review

Secondary findings (SFs) from genomic sequencing can have significant impacts on patient health, yet existing practices guiding their clinical investigation are inconsistent. We systematically reviewed existing SFs policies to identify variations and gaps in guidance. We cataloged and appraised international policies from academic databases (n = 5, inception-02/2022) and international human genetic societies (n = 64; inception-05/2022), across the continuum of SFs selection, analysis, and clinical management. We assessed quality using AGREE-II and interpreted results using qualitative description. Of the 63 SFs policies identified, most pertained to clinical management of SFs (98%; n = 62; primarily consent and disclosure), some guided SFs analysis (60%; n = 38), while fewer mentioned SFs selection (48%; n = 30). Overall, policies recommend (1) identifying clinically actionable, pathogenic variants with high positive predictive values for disease (selection), (2) bioinformatically filtering variants using evidence-informed gene lists (analysis), and (3) discussing with affected individuals the SFs identified, their penetrance, expressivity, medical implications, and management (clinical management). Best practices for SFs variant analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up (i.e., surveillance, treatment, etc.) were minimally described. Upon quality assessment, policies were highly rated for scope and clarity (median score, 69) but were limited by their rigor and applicability (median scores, 27 and 25). Our review represents a comprehensive international synthesis of policy guiding SFs across the continuum of selection, analysis, and clinical management. Our synthesis will help providers navigate critical decision points in SFs investigation, although significant work is needed to address gaps in SFs analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up processes and to support evidence-based practice.

Determining the state of guidance on pediatric biobanking for researchers, HRECS, and families: Regulatory mapping of international guidance

Biobanking-the storage of human biological samples, including tissue, blood, urine, and genetic data-raises many ethical, legal, and social issues, including confidentiality and privacy. Pediatric biobanking is more complicated, with difficulties arising because children lack capacity to consent and acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Yet given the limited availability of pediatric samples, the translational nature of biobanking presents a unique opportunity to share samples and produce clinically necessary information about pediatric development and diseases. Guidance on navigating these legal and ethical difficulties is needed for those involved in pediatric biobanking-including researchers, participants, and families, and those involved in biobank governance. This paper seeks to map the current regulatory framework governing pediatric biobanking to determine what guidance is currently offered. Regulatory mapping of current international and national guidelines on pediatric biobanking addressing the ethical, legal, and social nuances of pediatric biobanking was undertaken. This paper finds that international guidelines around biobanking are mostly for adults, and even when pediatric-specific, documents are non-binding, inconsistent, or only limited guidance is offered on a range of important issues specific to pediatric biobanks.   Conclusion: This paper shows a need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking so that research can more quickly, efficiently, and ethically be translated to useful information and treatment in pediatric care. What is Known: • Pediatric biobanking presents new opportunities to conduct valuable translational research to benefit pediatric populations. However, the storage of pediatric biological samples raises many ethical, legal and social issues-in part because child participants may be considered to lack capacity to consent but can acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Pediatric biobanks must grapple with issues of consent, confidentiality and privacy, and long-term participation regarding child participants. What is New: • Regulatory guidance on these ethical, legal, and social issues is needed for researchers, participants, and families and those involved in biobank governance. This paper identifies nationally specific and international guidance on biobanking and summarizes the guidance provided in relation to these pediatric specific issues. It finds that most guidance is non-binding and inconsistent between guidance documents and may offer only limited guidance to stakeholders. A need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking is needed at an international level to enable research.

Newborn screening for genetic disorders: Current status and prospects for the future

Newborn screening (NBS) is a public health service aimed at identifying infants with severe genetic disorders, thus providing effective treatment early enough to prevent or ameliorate the onset of symptoms. Current NBS uses biochemical analysis of dried blood spots, predominately with time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay and tandem mass spectrometry, which produces some false positives and false negatives. The application of enzymatic activity-based testing technology provides a reliable screening method for some disorders. Genetic testing is now commonly used for secondary or confirmatory testing after a positive result in some NBS programs. Recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a robust tool that enables large panels of genes to be scanned together rapidly. Rapid advances in NGS emphasize the potential for genomic sequencing to improve NBS programs. However, some challenges still remain and require solution before this is applied for population screening.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

The full spectrum of ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing: a systematic qualitative review

Background

The use of genome-wide sequencing in pediatric medicine and research is growing exponentially. While this has many potential benefits, the normative and empirical literature has highlighted various ethical issues. There have not been, however, any systematic reviews of these issues. The aim of this systematic review is to determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in in pediatric genome-wide sequencing.

Methods

A systematic review in PubMed and Google Books (publications in English or German between 2004 and 2021) was conducted. Further references were identified via reference screening. Data were analyzed and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or when two principles come into conflict.

Results

Our literature search retrieved 3175 publications of which 143 were included in the analysis. Together these mentioned 106 ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing, categorized into five themes along the pediatric genome-wide sequencing lifecycle. Most ethical issues identified in relation to genome-wide sequencing typically reflect ethical issues that arise in general genetic testing, but they are often amplified by the increased quantity of data obtained, and associated uncertainties. The most frequently discussed ethical aspects concern the issue of unsolicited findings.

Conclusion

Concentration of the debate on unsolicited findings risks overlooking other ethical challenges. An overarching difficulty presents the terminological confusion: both with regard to both the test procedure/ the scope of analysis, as well as with the topic of unsolicited findings. It is important that the genetics and ethics communities together with other medical professions involved work jointly on specific case related guidelines to grant the maximum benefit for the care of the children, while preventing patient harm and disproportionate overload of clinicians and the healthcare system by the wealth of available options and economic incentives to increase testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-021-02830-w.

Parental Access to Children's Raw Genomic Data in Canada: Legal Rights and Professional Responsibility

Children with rare and common diseases now undergo whole genome sequencing (WGS) in clinical and research contexts. Parents sometimes request access to their child's raw genomic data, to pursue their own analyses or for onward sharing with health professionals and researchers. These requests raise legal, ethical, and practical issues for professionals and parents alike. The advent of widespread WGS in pediatrics occurs in a context where privacy and data protection law remains focused on giving individuals control-oriented rights with respect to their personal information. Acting in their child's stead and in their best interests, parents are generally the ones who will be exercising these informational rights on behalf of the child. In this paper, we map the contours of parental authority to access their child's raw genomic data. We consider three use cases: hospital-based researchers, healthcare professionals acting in a clinical-diagnostic capacity, and "pure" academic researchers at a public institution. Our research seeks to answer two principal questions: Do parents have a right of access to their child's raw WGS data? If so, what are the limits of this right? Primarily focused on the laws of Ontario, Canada's most populous province, with a secondary focus on Canada's three other most populous provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta) and the European Union, our principal findings include (1) parents have a general right of access to information about their children, but that the access right is more capacious in the clinical context than in the research context; (2) the right of access extends to personal data in raw form; (3) a consideration of the best interests of the child may materially limit the legal rights of parents to access data about their child; (4) the ability to exercise rights of access are transferred from parents to children when they gain decision-making capacity in both the clinical and research contexts, but with more nuance in the former. With these findings in mind, we argue that professional guidelines, which are concerned with obligations to interpret and return results, may assist in furthering a child's best interests in the context of legal access rights. We conclude by crafting recommendations for healthcare professionals in the clinical and research contexts when faced with a parental request for a child's raw genomic data.

Participant mothers' attitudes toward genetic analysis in a birth cohort study

To conduct a long-term birth cohort study that includes genetic analysis, it is crucial to understand the attitudes of participants to genetic analysis and then take appropriate approaches for addressing their ambiguous and negative attitudes. This study aimed to explore participants’ attitudes toward genetic analysis and associated background factors among mothers who were enrolled in a large Japanese birth cohort. A questionnaire was sent to participants’ households, and the responses of 1762 mothers (34.0%) were used for the study. The majority of mothers recognized genetic analysis for themselves and their children and sharing of genetic data as beneficial. A low knowledge level of genomic terminology was associated with ambiguous attitudes toward genetic analysis and data sharing. Education level was positively associated with the recognition of the benefits of genetic analysis. Concern about handling genetic information was associated with the unacceptability of data sharing. Trust was associated with the approval of genetic analysis. Most mothers preferred that genetic analysis results be returned. These findings suggest the need for multiple efforts to maximize participants’ acceptance of genetic analysis, such as utilizing an educational approach to encourage familiarity with genetics/genomics, optimizing explanations for different educational levels, and explicitly disclosing the handling policy for genetic information.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents

BACKGROUND

Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate.

METHODS

Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group.

DISCUSSION

These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Return of genetic and genomic research findings: experience of a pediatric biorepository

Background

Assess process, uptake, validity and resource needs for return of actionable research findings to biobank participants.

Methods

Participants were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter biorepository of childhood onset heart disease. Clinically actionable research findings were reviewed by a Return of Research Results Committee (RRR) and returned to the physician or disclosed directly to the participant through a research genetic counselor. Action taken following receipt of this information was reviewed.

Results

Genetic data was generated in 1963 of 7408 participants. Fifty-nine new findings were presented to the RRR committee; 20 (34%) were deemed reportable. Twelve were returned to the physician, of which 7 were disclosed to participants (median time to disclosure, 192 days). Seven findings were returned to the research genetic counselor; all have been disclosed (median time to disclosure, 19 days). Twelve families (86%) opted for referral to clinical genetics after disclosure of findings; 7 results have been validated, 5 results are pending. Average cost of return and disclosure per reportable finding incurred by the research program was $750 when utilizing a research genetic counselor; clinical costs associated with return were not included.

Conclusions

Return of actionable research findings was faster if disclosed directly to the participant by a research genetic counselor. There was a high acceptability amongst participants for receiving the findings, for referral to clinical genetics, and for clinical validation of research findings, with all referred cases being clinically confirmed.

Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research

As epigenetic studies become more common and lead to new insights into health and disease, the return of individual epigenetic results to research participants, in particular in large-scale epigenomic studies, will be of growing importance. Members of the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) Bioethics Workgroup considered the potential ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) involved in returning epigenetic research results and incidental findings in order to produce a set of 'Points-to-consider' (P-t-C) for the epigenetics research community. These P-t-C draw on existing guidance on the return of genetic research results, while also integrating the IHEC Bioethics Workgroup's ELSI research on and discussion of the issues associated with epigenetic data as well as the experience of a return of results pilot study by the Personal Genome Project UK (PGP-UK). Major challenges include how to determine the clinical validity and actionability of epigenetic results, and considerations related to environmental exposures and epigenetic marks, including circumstances warranting the sharing of results with family members and third parties. Interdisciplinary collaboration and good public communication regarding epigenetic risk will be important to advance the return of results framework for epigenetic science.

Genomic Essentialism: Its Provenance and Trajectory as an Anticipatory Ethical Concern

Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.

A Tale of Two Capacities: Including Children and Decisionally Vulnerable Adults in Biomedical Research

The participation of individuals who lack decision-making capacity is essential for advancing genomics research and neuroscience, but raises ethical and legal challenges relating to vulnerability, consent, and exclusion. Capacity differences between populations and individuals, the dynamics of capacity over time, and evolving legal consent and capacity regimes all raise uncertainty for researchers, institutional review boards, and policy makers. We review international ethical and legal best practices for including children and decisionally vulnerable adults in health research. Research ethics norms and literature tend to split such groups into narrow silos, which results in inconsistency and conceptual confusion, or to lump them together, which fails to take into account morally relevant differences. Through a narrative review of international norms, we identify challenges common to both groups, while drawing out distinctions reflecting their opposite capacity trajectories. Our comparison between these two populations clarifies underlying ethical concepts and offers opportunities for critique. Children need protection to foster their long-term autonomy, while decisionally vulnerable adults need to be provided with support in order to exercise their autonomy. This leads to differences in how researchers determine who lacks capacity, who has authority to consent, and what criteria guide such decision-making. We also consider how capacity issues color contemporary research governance debates over broad consent, data protection compliance, data sharing, and the return of individual research results and incidental findings.

Cancer patients' intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to generate information about a patient’s tumour and personal genome. This powerful diagnostic tool provides solicited and unsolicited hereditary genetic (risk) information that could have consequences for cancer patients and their quality of life. A well-defined approach for returning appropriate genetic risk information is needed in personalized cancer care. A qualitative design with semi-structured interviews was used. We conducted interviews with 24 Dutch patients with different types of cancer, both NGS-experienced and NGS-inexperienced, to learn their intentions, needs and preferences towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using NGS. Almost all participants had a positive attitude towards receiving unsolicited findings. After receiving comprehensive background information on NGS, including a binning model of four categories of unsolicited findings, most participants preferred to receive only subsets of genetic information. Their main concern was their own and others’ (including family members) ability to cope with (the increased risk of having) a genetic disorder. Providing background information gave cancer patients the opportunity to select subsets of findings and increased their ability to make an informed choice. Special attention is needed for social and emotional factors to support the patients themselves and when communicating test results with their family members.

Ethics in genetic counselling

Difficult ethical issues arise for patients and professionals in medical genetics, and often relate to the patient's family or their social context. Tackling these issues requires sensitivity to nuances of communication and a commitment to clarity and consistency. It also benefits from an awareness of different approaches to ethical theory. Many of the ethical problems encountered in genetics relate to tensions between the wishes or interests of different people, sometimes even people who do not (yet) exist or exist as embryos, either in an established pregnancy or in vitro. Concern for the long-term welfare of a child or young person, or possible future children, or for other members of the family, may lead to tensions felt by the patient (client) in genetic counselling. Differences in perspective may also arise between the patient and professional when the latter recommends disclosure of information to relatives and the patient finds that too difficult, or when the professional considers the genetic testing of a child, sought by parents, to be inappropriate. The expectations of a patient's community may also lead to the differences in perspective between patient and counsellor. Recent developments of genetic technology permit genome-wide investigations. These have generated additional and more complex data that amplify and exacerbate some pre-existing ethical problems, including those presented by incidental (additional sought and secondary) findings and the recognition of variants currently of uncertain significance, so that reports of genomic investigations may often be provisional rather than definitive. Experience is being gained with these problems but substantial challenges are likely to persist in the long term.

Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age

As new, high-powered sequencing technologies are increasingly incorporated into genomics research, we believe that there has been a break point in how risks and benefits associated with genetic information are being characterized and understood. Genomic sequencing provides the potential benefit of a wealth of information, but also has the potential to alter how we conceptualize risks of sequencing. Until now, our conceptions of risks and benefits have been generally static, arising out of the early ethical, legal and social implications studies conducted in the context of targeted genetics. This paper investigates how the increasing availability of genetic information is changing views about risks and benefits, particularly examining our evolving understanding of psychosocial harms and our expanding conception of benefit. We argue that the lack of robust empirical evidence of psychosocial harms and the expanding view that benefits of genomic research include indirect familial benefit necessitate continued ethical, legal and social implications research.

Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease

Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

The Use of Next-Generation Sequencing for Research and Diagnostics for Intellectual Disability

Genetic or genomic mutation is a major cause of intellectual disability (ID). However, despite the generally anticipated strong genotype/phenotype correlation for ID, there are huge obstacles to gene identification, except perhaps where very distinct syndromic features are observed, because of the high degree of genetic heterogeneity and wide variability of phenotype for different mutations or even with the same mutation within a single gene. A recent review estimates in excess of 2500 genes for ID. Fortunately for researchers and diagnosticians alike, the recent advent of massively parallel sequencing technologies, or next-generation sequencing (NGS) has made an apparently impossible task tractable. Here, we review the ongoing research endeavors to identify new disease genes, as well as strategies and approaches at the clinical level.

Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests

Nowhere are the ethical issues in genomic research more complex than in pediatrics. Balancing the sometime conflicting autonomy of the parent and the child, and the best interest of the family and the child, brings up many challenging issues. Addressing this balance, especially in the context of the child's developing maturity and comprehension, requires deep analysis and discussion. Issues discussed include the impact of genetic information on the family, parental versus the child's autonomy, the best interests of the child versus the family, potential limitations on the parents' right to know or not know information about their child, and changing role of the developing child in return of research results. Finally, a dynamic model will be proposed that takes into consideration the child's evolving role in consenting and return of results that can be adapted in different national contexts.

The Advantages and Challenges of Testing Children for Heritable Predisposition to Cancer

The increased application of germline genetic testing is expanding our understanding of the risk factors associated with childhood cancer development, and, in some cases, such testing is also informing clinical management. Nonetheless, the incorporation of genetic testing into the pediatric oncology setting is complex and associated with many ethical and practical challenges. The decision as to whether to pursue clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition for children should always be guided by the best interest of the child. Despite this fundamental ethical principle, patients, parents, and health care providers may differ in their opinions. Clinical genetic testing to detect the presence of predisposition syndromes associated with childhood-onset cancers, particularly those for which surveillance and preventive measures have proven to enhance outcome, is currently well accepted. On the other hand, clinical genetic testing of children for syndromes associated with adult-onset cancers has raised many concerns about the potential for psychological harm and disrespect of patient autonomy. As a consequence, such testing is not encouraged. The challenges surrounding germline genetic testing are further complicated when testing is done in the research setting and/or when it involves whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing approaches, which can uncover genetic variants that may or may not be associated with the disease under study. Accordingly, there is great debate around these processes and the most appropriate approaches regarding the return of test results. Future research is needed to enhance knowledge about how best to incorporate genomic information into clinical practice.

Paediatric biobanking: Dutch experts reflecting on appropriate legal standards for practice

Large sets of data and human specimens, such as blood, tumour tissue and DNA, are deposited in biobanks for research purposes, preferably for long periods of time and with broadly defined research aims. Our research focuses on the retention of data and biological materials obtained from children. However important such paediatric biobanks may be, the privacy interests of the children involved and the related risks may not be ignored. The privacy issues arising from paediatric biobanks are the central focus of this article. We first review the international regulations that apply to biobanks and then summarise viewpoints expressed by experts in a round-table discussion. We confine ourselves here to two normative questions: (1) How much control should children's parents or legal representatives, and later the children themselves, have over the stored materials and data? (2) What should be done if research findings emerge that have serious implications for a child's health?

CONCLUSION

On the basis of international legal standards and the views of experts, involved in paediatric biobanking, we argue that biological material of children may only be stored in a biobank for scientific purposes if parents provide their explicit consent, the child is re-contacted at 16 or 18 years of age to reconsider storage and use of its material, and the biobank maintains a limited policy in disclosure of individual research findings to the child's parents. What is Known: • Increasingly, biological material of children is stored in biobanks for research purposes. • Clear standards on the conditions under which children's cells or tissues may be stored and used are lacking. What is New: • According to experts, storage and use of children's materials should only be allowed if performed in accordance with appropriate consent procedures and feedback policies.

Next-Generation Sequencing and the Return of Results

The impact of next-generation sequencing (NGS) on the issue of return of results is defying clear policy guidance and creating international confusion. Limiting ourselves to the return of results revealed by NGS (including incidental findings) in adults, children, family members of deceased individuals, and population studies, we describe and contrast emerging policy positions in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Until there are clear, scientific, and professional standards and practical policy, both researchers and clinicians cannot be faulted for being either hesitant or pressured to return NGS results.

Raising Genomic Citizens: Adolescents and the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings

Whole genome and exome sequencing (WGS/WES) techniques raise hope for a new scale of diagnosis, prevention, and prediction of genetic conditions, and improved care for children. For these hopes to materialize, extensive genomic research with children will be needed. However, the use of WGS/WES in pediatric research settings raises considerable challenges for families, researchers, and policy development. In particular, the possibility that these techniques will generate genetic findings unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing has stirred intense debate about whether, which, how, and when these secondary or incidental findings (SFs) should be returned to parents and minors. The debate is even more pronounced when the subjects are adolescents, for whom decisions about return of SFs may have particular implications. In this paper, we consider the rise of "genomic citizenship" and the main challenges that arise for these stakeholders: adolescents' involvement in decisions relating to return of genomic SFs, the types of SFs that should be offered, privacy protections, and communication between researchers and adolescents about SFs. We argue that adolescents' involvement in genomic SF-related decisions acknowledges their status as valuable stakeholders without detracting from broader familial interests, and promotes more informed genomic citizens.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.

CONCLUSIONS

Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research

Whole genome and whole exome sequencing technologies are being increasingly used in research. However, they have the potential to identify incidental findings (IF), findings not related to the indication of the test, raising questions regarding researchers' responsibilities toward the return of this information to participants. In this study we discuss the ethical considerations related to the return of IF to research participants, emphasizing that the type of the study matters and describing the current practice standards. There are currently no legal obligations for researchers to return IF to participants, but some viewpoints consider that researchers might have an ethical one to return IF of clinical validity and clinical utility and that are actionable. The reality is that most IF are complex to interpret, especially since they were not the indication of the test. The clinical utility often depends on the participants' preferences, which can be challenging to conciliate and relies on participants' understanding. In summary, in the context of a lack of clear guidance, researchers need to have a clear plan for the disclosure or nondisclosure of IF from genomic research, balancing their research goals and resources with the participants' rights and their duty not to harm.

How should whole-genome sequencing be implemented in children? A consideration of the current limitations

In children, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is envisioned as a tool to improve diagnosis of undiagnosed diseases and to improve population-based screening. Pilot applications have shown benefits: genomic information has been used as a diagnostic aid; pharmacogenomics can reduce medicine-related adverse events; advanced knowledge of the potential for later-onset disease can target tests and appropriate therapies. However, emerging technical, conceptual and ethical challenges may limit WGS from fulfilling the current vision for future applications. WGS platforms still struggle with reliability and accuracy. The role of the genome in long-term organismal function and disease is still being established. Ethical implications of WGS in both undiagnosed disease and population screening, particularly potential impacts of testing on children and their families are still unresolved.

Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view

Many current paediatric studies concern relationships between genes and environment and discuss aetiology, treatment and prevention of Mendelian and multifactorial diseases. Many of these studies depend on collection and long-term storage of data and biological material from affected children in biobanks. Stored material is a source of personal information of the donor and his family and could be used in an undesirable context, potentially leading to discrimination and interfering with a child's right to an open future. Here, we address the normative framework regarding biobanking with residual tissue of children, protecting the privacy interests of young biobank donors (0-12 years). We analyse relevant legal documents concerning storage and use of children's material for research purposes. We explore the views of 17 Dutch experts involved in paediatric biobank research and focus on informed consent for donation of leftover tissue as well as disclosure of individual research findings resulting from biobank research. The results of this analysis show that experts have no clear consensus about the appropriate rules for storage of and research with children's material in biobanks. Development of a framework that provides a fair balance between fundamental paediatric research and privacy protection is necessary.

Potential Psychosocial Risks of Sequencing Newborns

Various stakeholders have issued recommendations regarding the use of genomics in pediatrics. These guidelines are driven in part by concerns about psychosocial risks of disclosing predictive genomic information during childhood. As genomic sequencing becomes more commonly used in pediatric settings, it is important to systematically study the psychosocial impact of genomic sequencing of newborns, including the impact on family dynamics. Through review of the psychological and genetic counseling literature, we identify the following 3 domains of family dynamics that have potential to be impacted by the return of genomic results during the newborn period: perceived child vulnerability, parent-child bonding, and self and partner blame. In this article, we outline the complexity of studying these psychosocial outcomes and our plan to examine them in the BabySeq Project, a randomized controlled trial in both healthy and sick infants, in which the return of genomic information will be compared with standard of care.

Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process

This paper proposes a set of recommendations for the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatrics. The Network of Applied Genetic Medicine of Quebec spearheaded the initiative to develop the Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings, which was the result of a consultation process with clinical and research experts in the field. To formulate the Statement of Principles, the authors (i) reviewed empirical and grey literature on the return of research results and incidental findings in Europe and Canada, (ii) conducted a qualitative study of stakeholder groups, (iii) developed, and (iv) validated the recommendations through consultations with the stakeholder groups. The Statement of Principles provides a useful disclosure tool for deciding when, and under what circumstances to return research results and incidental findings. It addresses the issue of return of results in genetic research generally, and has also specific principles for various research contexts, including paediatric research. It delineates ethical issues unique to paediatric research, and provides a framework to guide research ethics committees as well as the research community in addressing these issues.

Next generation sequencing for newborn screening: are we there yet?

Screening programs for asymptomatic newborns (newborn screening - NBS) have increasingly been implemented in many westernized countries since the end of the 20th century (Wilson et al., 2010). The major goal of these programs is to unselectively screen all newborns for a well defined group of severe, rare, clearly identifiable and actionable conditions. These conditions should be diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion to ensure short and long term health of the newborn as an infant and an adult. As such, NBS programs are one of the pivotal public health achievements of the past decade (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011) that have led to the saving of lives and improving quality of life as well as posing less financial burden on the health care system. Technically the currently practiced screening process is performed 48 hours after birth, using a minute amount of blood collected on a dried blood spot card, which is subsequently subjected to biochemical analysis predominantly using mass spectrometry assays.

Stability of Attitudes to the Ethical Issues Raised by the Return of Incidental Genomic Research Findings in Children: A Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVE

We explore the stability of parental attitudes to the ethical issues raised by the return of genomic research results.

METHODS

A 19-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in a large genome research consortium 18 months following a baseline survey. We describe the stability of parental attitudes to (a) sharing of genomic research results, (b) endorsement of children in genomic research, (c) responsibilities of researchers, and (d) responsibilities to extended family. We also explore their experience in receiving results.

RESULTS

Of 170 original participants, 154 (91%) responded. Most participants expressed positive rights to receive incidental genomic research findings (85%), including when ameliorative therapy was unknown (85%). Only 3% found it acceptable to delegate the decision to return results to an independent committee. Researchers, either with a parent (42%) or physician (17%), were felt to be responsible to convey research results to children when they reach adulthood. Most participants (74%) indicated that results should be shared with potentially affected extended family. These results are very similar to those of the baseline survey. All participants who received genomic results would do so again and reported actions similar to their expressed attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

The opinions of parents regarding genomic research remain stable over time. Guidelines on the return of results should incorporate these findings.

The ethics weathervane

BACKGROUND

Global collaboration in genomic research is increasingly both a scientific reality and an ethical imperative. This past decade has witnessed the emergence of six new, interconnected areas of ethical consensus and emphasis for policy in genomics: governance, security, empowerment, transparency, the right not to know, and globalization.

DISCUSSION

The globalization of genomic research warrants an approach to governance policies grounded in human rights. A human rights approach activates the ethical principles underpinning genomic research. It lends force to the right of all citizens to benefit from scientific progress, and to the right of all scientists to be recognized for their contributions.

Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing

Genetic testing based on whole-genome sequencing (WGS) often returns results that are not directly clinically actionable as well as raising the possibility of incidental (secondary) findings. In this article, we first survey the laws and policies guiding both researchers and clinicians in the return of results for WGS-based genetic testing. We then provide an overview of the landscape of international legislation and policies for return of these results, including considerations for return of incidental findings. Finally, we consider a range of approaches for the return of results.

Lay Attitudes Toward Trust, Uncertainty, and the Return of Pediatric Research Results in Biobanking

BACKGROUND

Trust plays a role in participants' reactions to clinical residual biobanks. The purpose of this study is to assess whether trust in medical researchers and negative reactions of uncertainty influences the attitudes of parents of pediatric research participants toward the return of genomic research results from biobanking.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted in collaboration with two community-based organizations. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and the trust in research and intolerance of uncertainty scales. The focus groups were then conducted according to a thematic focus group guide; discussions were transcribed and analyzed by two trained coders.

RESULTS

Emerging themes included the importance of returning research results to both children and parents, sharing results with few limitations based on a child's age, and the desire for results even when researchers had concerns about analytic validity. Negative reactions to uncertainty appear to have influenced only one theme: the paradoxical claim by participants with stronger reactions to uncertainty that they had a "right to information."

CONCLUSION

Participants prefer to receive most or all of the results produced by genomic research, and they want their children, within variable age restrictions, to have access to that information as well.

Next-generation diagnostics: gene panel, exome, or whole genome?

Although the benefits of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for the diagnosis of heterogeneous diseases such as intellectual disability (ID) are undisputed, there is little consensus on the relative merits of targeted enrichment, whole-exome sequencing (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS). To answer this question, WES and WGS data from the same nine samples were compared, and WES was shown not to miss any variants identified by WGS in a gene panel including ∼500 genes linked to ID (500GP). Additionally, deeply sequenced WES data were shown to adequately cover ∼99% of the 500GP; thus, little additional benefit was to be expected from a targeted enrichment approach. To reduce costs, minimal sequencing criteria were determined by investigating the relation between sequenced reads and outcome parameters such as coverage and variant yield. Our analysis indicated that 60 million reads yielded a mean coverage of ∼60×: ∼97% of the 500GP sequences were sufficiently covered to exclude variants, whereas variant yield was ∼99.5% and false-positive and false-negative rates were controlled. Our findings indicate that WES is currently the optimal approach to ID diagnostics. This result depends on the capture kit and sequencing strategy used. The developed framework however is amenable to other sequencing approaches.

Challenges in Studying Modifiable Risk Factors for Birth Defects

Conducting research to identify modifiable risk factors for birth defects is difficult for a variety of reasons. While some challenges are familiar to researchers across many disciplines, the confluence of issues affecting birth defects research may not be well understood by those outside of the field. This article describes several methodological challenges to the study of birth defects and ways these challenges might be addressed: (1) ascertainment, definition and classification of birth defects; (2) exposure assessment on modifiable risk factors; (3) analytical challenges related to small numbers and multiple statistical tests; (4) the role of genetics, including the collection of specimens and analysis of genetic data; and (5) challenges in translating research and demonstrating public health impact. Understanding these issues is important for researchers planning studies, reviewers evaluating the scientific merit of results from these studies, and consumers of the research, including fellow researchers, policy makers, health care providers, and families.

Ethical perspectives on translational pharmacogenetic research involving children

Children represent a special population characterized by dynamic changes which may affect drug safety and efficacy. The interplay of pharmacogenetics with physiological alterations that occur throughout development is an area of increasing research focus. Given the translational nature of pharmacogenetic research, it is possible that pharmacogenetic research results may possess clinically actionable information. The potential long-term implications of pharmacogenetic test results throughout the lifespan of the child, and the potential impact of the results for other members of the family need to be considered. Comprehensive counselling and communication strategies may need to be integrated as part of pharmacogenetic research studies in children.

International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access

Returning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States.

Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases

PURPOSE

To explore parental perceptions and experiences regarding the return of genomic incidental research findings in children with rare diseases.

METHODS

Parents of children affected by various rare diseases were invited to participate in focus groups or individual telephone interviews in Montreal and Ottawa. Fifteen participants were interviewed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four emergent themes underscored parental enthusiasm for receiving incidental findings concerning their child's health: (1) right to information; (2) perceived benefits and risks; (3) communication practicalities: who, when, and how; and (4) service needs to promote the communication of incidental findings. Parents believed they should be made aware of all results pertaining to their child's health status, and that they are responsible for transmitting this information to their child, irrespective of disease severity. Despite potential negative consequences, respondents generally perceived a favourable risk-benefit ratio in receiving all incidental findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how parents assess the risks and benefits of returning incidental findings is essential to genomic research applications in paediatric medicine. The authors believe the study findings will contribute to establishing future best practices, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of parental decisions on themselves and their child.

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.

"We don't know her history, her background": adoptive parents' perspectives on whole genome sequencing results

Exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (ES/WGS) can provide parents with a wide range of genetic information about their children, and adoptive parents may have unique issues to consider regarding possible access to this information. The few papers published on adoption and genetics have focused on targeted genetic testing of children in the pre-adoption context. There are no data on adoptive parents' perspectives about pediatric ES/WGS, including their preferences about different kinds of results, and the potential benefits and risks of receiving results. To explore these issues, we conducted four exploratory focus groups with adoptive parents (N = 26). The majority lacked information about their children's biological family health history and ancestry, and many viewed WGS results as a way to fill in these gaps in knowledge. Some expressed concerns about protecting their children's future privacy and autonomy, but at the same time stated that WGS results could possibly help them be proactive about their children's health. A few parents expressed concerns about the risks of WGS in a pre-adoption context, specifically about decreasing a child's chance of adoption. These results suggest that issues surrounding genetic information in the post-adoption and ES/WGS contexts need to be considered, as well as concerns about risks in the pre-adoption context. A critical challenge for ES/WGS in the context of adoption will be balancing the right to know different kinds of genetic information with the right not to know. Specific guidance for geneticists and genetic counselors may be needed to maximize benefits of WGS while minimizing harms and prohibiting misuse of the information in the adoption process.

To disclose, or not to disclose? Context matters

Progress in understanding childhood disease using next-generation sequencing (NGS) portends vast improvements in the nature and quality of patient care. However, ethical questions surrounding the disclosure of incidental findings (IFs) persist, as NGS and other novel genomic technologies become the preferred tool for clinical genetic testing. Thus, the need for comprehensive management plans and multidisciplinary discussion on the return of IFs in pediatric research has never been more immediate. The aim of this study is to explore the views of investigators concerning the return of IFs in the pediatric oncology research context. Our findings reveal at least four contextual themes underlying the ethics of when, and how, IFs could be disclosed to participants and their families: clinical significance of the result, respect for individual, scope of professional responsibilities, and implications for the healthcare/research system. Moreover, the study proposes two action items toward anticipatory governance of IF in genetic research with children. The need to recognize the multiplicity of contextual factors in determining IF disclosure practices, particularly as NGS increasingly becomes a centerpiece in genetic research broadly, is heightened when children are involved. Sober thought should be given to the possibility of discovering IF, and to proactive discussions about disclosure considering the realities of young participants, their families, and the investigators who recruit them.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

P(3)G - 10 years of toolbuilding: From the population biobank to the clinic

Over the past ten years, the Public Population Project in Genomics and Society ("P(3)G") has grown as a consortium. It has expanded its range of services and resources to adapt to the ever-evolving needs of the research community. From its outset - when P(3)G first tackled the building of biobanks as resources as well as data cataloguing and harmonization for data integration - to its new mission and vision, it has continually developed the tools for the conceptualization and design of population biobanks from their inception to their use to their closure. In so doing, P(3)G has become key in fostering research infrastructures to facilitate transition to the clinic. The consortium has become a crucial stakeholder in the international scientific, ethical, legal, and social research communities.