Secondary variants--in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

The impact of unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing, a qualitative interview study

Unsolicited findings (UFs) in clinical exome sequencing are variants that are unrelated to the initial clinical question the DNA test was performed for, but that may nonetheless be of medical relevance to patients and/or their families. There is limited knowledge about the impact of UFs on patients' lives. In order to characterise patient perceptions of the impact of an UF, we conducted 20 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with patients and/or their relatives to whom an UF predisposing to oncological disease (n = 10) or predisposing to a cardiac condition (n = 10) had been disclosed. We have identified a psychological, physical and financial aspect of the perceived impact of UF disclosure in exome sequencing. Actionability, understanding, patients' pre-test health and social context were influencing factors, according to our participants. Although most expressed considerable psychological impact initially, all but one participant would choose to undergo genetic testing again, knowing what they know now. These novel findings provide insight in patients' perspectives on the impact of UF disclosure. Our study highlights the value of incorporating patients' perceptions in UF disclosure policy.

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

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

Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate

Incidental or secondary findings (ISFs) in whole exome or whole genome sequencing have been widely debated in recent literature. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' recommendations on diagnostic ISFs have strongly catalyzed the discussion, resulting in worldwide reactions and a variety of international guidelines. This article will outline how propositions on levels of terminology, policy, and underlying values are still internationally criticized and adjusted. Unsolved questions regarding ISFs include a suitable terminology, adequate counseling or informed consent procedures, opt-out possibilities, reporting ISFs to (parents of) minors and values regarding professional duty, patient autonomy, and actionability. These questions will be characterized as intrinsically related and reciprocally maintained and hence, symptomatic, single-level reflections will be marked as ineffective. Instead, a level-integrative approach of the debate that explicitly acknowledges this interaction and considers a balance between internationally significant and case-specific solutions, will be advocated. Second, the inclusion of a patient perspective will be strongly encouraged to complement the professional preponderance in the current debate. The examination of lived patient experiences, a qualitative focus on the subjective meaning of ISFs, and a contextualization of meaning processes will be suggested as specific concretizations. This integrative and inclusive approach aims for a more comprehensive understanding of ISFs, a consideration of all relevant stakeholders' perspective and, ultimately, an effective health-care policy.

“Invasive” and “Non-invasive” Technologies in Neuroscience Communication

This paper analyzes a common distinction in neuroscience communication: the labels “invasive” and “non-invasive” attributed to brain-observation technologies. Because an implicit or explicit value judgment accompanies the term “non-invasive,” it has been used to promote technological progress, especially new brain-imaging techniques that have appeared in recent decades. This study’s material comes from interactions between some expert scientists and the political sphere. Expert reports on neuroscience from different advisory bodies in the French public sector have been collected and analyzed for use of the distinction between invasive and non-invasive. The paper shows that the meaning of these widely used labels varies according to the context, e.g., status of discourse, technologies compared, or stakeholders engaged in the discussion. The definition of what is understood as invasive or non-invasive becomes a strategic issue and can thus vary according to the methodologies favoured by experts participating in national advisory boards or councils.

Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories

BACKGROUND

Increasingly used for clinical purposes, genome and exome sequencing can generate clinically relevant information that is not directly related to the reason for testing (incidental or secondary findings). Debates about the ethical implications of secondary findings were sparked by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2013 policy statement, which recommended that laboratories report pathogenic alterations in 56 genes. Although wide variation in laboratories' secondary findings policies has been reported, little is known about its causes.

METHODS

We interviewed 18 laboratory directors and genetic counselors at 10 U.S. laboratories to investigate the motivations and interests shaping secondary findings reporting policies for clinical exome sequencing. Analysis of interview transcripts and laboratory documents was informed by sociological theories of standardization.

RESULTS

Laboratories varied widely in terms of the types of secondary findings reported, consent-form language, and choices offered to patients. In explaining their adaptation of the ACMG report, our participants weighed genetic information's clinical, moral, professional, and commercial value in an attempt to maximize benefits for patients and families, minimize the costs of sequencing and analysis, adhere to professional norms, attract customers, and contend with the uncertain clinical implications of much of the genetic information generated.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all laboratories in our study voluntarily adopted ACMG's recommendations, but their actual practices varied considerably and were informed by laboratory-specific judgments about clinical utility and patient benefit. Our findings offer a compelling example of standardization as a complex process that rarely leads simply to uniformity of practice. As laboratories take on a more prominent role in decisions about the return of genetic information, strategies are needed to inform patients, families, and clinicians about the differences between laboratories' practices and ensure that the consent process prompts a discussion of the value of additional genetic information for patients and their families.

Points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic genomic sequencing

Although NGS technologies are well-embedded in the clinical setting for identification of genetic causes of disease, guidelines issued by professional bodies are inconsistent regarding some aspects of reporting results. Most recommendations do not give detailed guidance about whether variants of uncertain significance (VUS) should be reported by laboratory personnel to clinicians, and give conflicting messages regarding whether unsolicited findings (UF) should be reported. There are also differences both in their recommendations regarding whether actively searching for secondary findings (SF) is appropriate, and in the extent to which they address the duty (or lack thereof) to reanalyse variants when new information arises. An interdisciplinary working group considered the current guidelines, their own experiences, and data from a recent qualitative study to develop a set of points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic NGS. These points to consider fall under six categories: (i) Testing approaches and technologies used, (ii) Approaches for VUS; (iii) Approaches for reporting UF, (iv) Approaches regarding SF; (v) Reanalysis of data & re-contact; and vi) Minors. While it is unclear whether uniformity in reporting across all laboratories is desirable, we hope these points to consider will be useful to diagnostic laboratories as they develop their processes for making decisions about reporting VUS and UF from NGS in the diagnostic context.

Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.

GROWING POINTS

SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.

Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach

Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care.

WES/WGS Reporting of Mutations from Cardiovascular "Actionable" Genes in Clinical Practice: A Key Role for UMD Knowledgebases in the Era of Big Databases

High-throughput next-generation sequencing such as whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing are being rapidly integrated into clinical practice. The use of these techniques leads to the identification of secondary variants for which decisions about the reporting or not to the patient need to be made. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently published recommendations for the reporting of these variants in clinical practice for 56 "actionable" genes. Among these, seven are involved in Marfan Syndrome And Related Disorders (MSARD) resulting from mutations of the FBN1, TGFBR1 and 2, ACTA2, SMAD3, MYH11 and MYLK genes. Here, we show that mutations collected in UMD databases for MSARD genes (UMD-MSARD) are rarely reported, including the most frequent ones, in global scale initiatives for variant annotation such as the NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP), the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), and ClinVar. The predicted pathogenic mutations reported in global scale initiatives but absent in locus-specific databases (LSDBs) mainly correspond to rare events. UMD-MSARD databases are therefore the only resources providing access to the full spectrum of known pathogenic mutations. They are the most comprehensive resources for clinicians and geneticists to interpret MSARD-related variations not only primary variants but also secondary variants.

Actionable Genes, Core Databases, and Locus-Specific Databases

Adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in a diagnostic context raises numerous questions with regard to identification and reports of secondary variants (SVs) in actionable genes. To better understand the whys and wherefores of these questioning, it is necessary to understand how they are selected during the filtering process and how their proportion can be estimated. It is likely that SVs are underestimated and that our capacity to label all true SVs can be improved. In this context, Locus-specific databases (LSDBs) can be key by providing a wealth of information and enabling classifying variants. We illustrate this issue by analyzing 318 SVs in 23 actionable genes involved in cancer susceptibility syndromes identified through sequencing of 572 participants selected for a range of atherosclerosis phenotypes. Among these 318 SVs, only 43.4% are reported in Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) Professional versus 71.4% in LSDB. In addition, 23.9% of HGMD Professional variants are reported as pathogenic versus 4.8% for LSDB. These data underline the benefits of LSDBs to annotate SVs and minimize overinterpretation of mutations thanks to their efficient curation process and collection of unpublished data.

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

PURPOSE

As whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate regarding secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit.

METHODS

We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning "actionable" findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients' views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, whereas views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience with genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision making about SF and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.Genet Med 19 3, 283-293.

Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences

Purpose

There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication, but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients.

Methods

Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe desired attributes of such a term, and then asked to formulate a best term to represent this concept.

Results

The term additional findings had the most first choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also described reasons why other terms were not optimal.

Conclusion

Additional findings was preferred as both more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing

The increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics makes imperative the development of guidelines and policies about how to handle secondary findings. For reasons both practical and ethical, the creation of these guidelines must take into consideration the informed opinions of the lay public. As part of a larger Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, we organized a deliberative democracy (DD) session that engaged 66 participants in dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing. Participants were educated about the scientific and ethical aspects of the disclosure of secondary findings by experts in medical genetics and bioethics, and then engaged in facilitated discussion of policy options for the disclosure of three types of secondary findings: 1) medically actionable results; 2) adult onset disorders found in children; and 3) carrier status. Participants' opinions were collected via surveys administered one month before, immediately following, and one month after the DD session. Post DD session, participants were significantly more willing to support policies that do not allow access to secondary findings related to adult onset conditions in children (Χ ² (2, N = 62) = 13.300, p = 0.001) or carrier status (Χ ² (2, N = 60) = 11.375, p = 0.003). After one month, the level of support for the policy denying access to secondary findings regarding adult-onset conditions remained significantly higher than the pre-DD level, although less than immediately post-DD (Χ ² (1, N = 60) = 2.465, p = 0.041). Our findings suggest that education and deliberation enhance public appreciation of the scientific and ethical complexities of genome sequencing.

Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice

This paper summarizes the current controversies surrounding the identification and disclosure of "incidental" or "secondary" findings from genomic sequencing and the implications for genetic counseling practice. The rapid expansion of clinical sequencing has influenced the ascertainment and return of incidental findings, while empiric data to inform best practices are still being generated. Using the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) research project as an example, we discuss the implications of different models of consent and their impact on patient decisions.

Genome-Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Fetal Single-Gene Disorders

New sequencing methods capable of rapidly analyzing the genome at increasing resolution have transformed diagnosis of single-gene or oligogenic genetic disorders in pediatric and adult medicine. Targeted tests, consisting of disease-focused multigene panels and diagnostic exome sequencing to interrogate the sequence of the coding regions of nearly all genes, are now clinically offered when there is suspicion for an undiagnosed genetic disorder or cancer in children and adults. Implementation of diagnostic exome and genome sequencing tests on invasively and noninvasively obtained fetal DNA samples for prenatal genetic diagnosis is also being explored. We predict that they will become more widely integrated into prenatal care in the near future. Providers must prepare for the practical, ethical, and societal dilemmas that accompany the capacity to generate and analyze large amounts of genetic information about the fetus during pregnancy.

Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions

While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative and empirical ethical literature. Four ethical signposts are thereby developed to help guide disclosure discussions. These are: respectful sharing of the clinician's expertise; transparent communication; epistemic modesty; and respect for the embedded nature of the patient. We conclude by considering the most common current disclosure positions in the light of the four ethical signposts.

Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing

Return of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical sequencing has become a hotly debated topic over the past year. Efforts are being made by several bodies to provide guidance at both national and international levels; however, no studies comparing attitudes of experts across different countries have been published so far. Our goal was to investigate attitudes towards return of IFs from clinical sequencing across UK, USA and Greek experts. Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with genetics and genomic experts with different backgrounds. Our study revealed more differences when experts were compared according to their professional background than their country. General principles guiding the decision-making and the feedback process were common across all experts but the details of integrating these tests might vary as different professionals reported different needs and attitudes.

[Concepts for the return of secondary genetic findings in medical diagnostics and research]

High-throughput sequencing of whole genomes is technically already at a high level and is being discussed as a cost-effective alternative to other targeted, analytical procedures for clinical diagnosis of heritable disorders. On the other hand, with whole genome and whole exome sequencing, there is a high likelihood of uncovering secondary findings not associated with the primary aim of the investigation. This article tries to outline the current scientific and technical status of whole genome and whole exome sequencing and of the national and international recommendations concerning the handling of secondary genetic findings which are already available, above all in the research-related context and less so in the clinical context.

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.

The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age

While the development of next-generation sequencing technology has had a paradigm-changing impact on biomedical research, there is likely to be a gap between discovery of therapeutic benefits in research and actual adoption of the new technology into clinical practice. This gap can create pressure on the research enterprise to provide individualized care more typical of the clinic setting because it is uniquely accessible in research. This blurring of the line between research and clinical care is understandable, and perhaps even inevitable. But even if the gap is only transitory, such a blurring can have lasting implications, both by expanding obligations imposed on researchers, but also by challenging long-held ethical views. We explore this idea, focusing on how the dissolving distinction between research and clinical care has influenced the vigorous debate around how researchers should manage genetic findings (sometimes separated into primary and incidental or secondary findings) resulting from research.

A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings

Whether researchers have an obligation to disclose secondary genetic research findings, and, if so, in what circumstances, remains a matter of heated debate. This paper suggests that much of this confusion is definitional or conceptual in nature. That is, there is significant variability in the way that threshold terms and concepts such as "incidental," "analytic validity," "clinical validity," "clinical relevance," "clinical utility," "clinical significance," and "actionability," are used in the literature, which is impeding efforts to clarify the scope of an obligation to return findings. This paper analyzes the definitional muddle underlying the debate about returning genetic research findings, first, to explain the range of definitions being used in this debate. We go on to propose that, underlying all the seeming confusion and disagreement, three central and widely agreed upon concepts are at work in this debate - validity, value, and volition. Refocusing attention on these core concepts, and their appropriate conceptualizations, can produce a more productive debate regarding the return of genetic research findings.

Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research

The disclosure of incidental findings, also called unsolicited findings, unexpected results, and secondary variants, is increasingly recognised as an issue in clinical and research genetics contexts. The rise of next generation sequencing methods has only intensified the issue, increasing the likelihood of incidental findings appearing. This review focuses on empirical research on the ethical issues involved. Electronic databases were searched for articles covering quantitative and qualitative research on the ethical issues involved in the disclosure of incidental findings in clinical and research genetics contexts. 16 articles were ultimately accepted for review. Data was extracted and synthesised on the factors that should be taken into account during the decision-making process surrounding the disclosure of an incidental finding in a genetics context. These factors include the possibility of disclosure, various practical and technical factors, and various ethical factors. We suggest the development of a decision-making tree, involving an exploration of the practical and ethical concerns raised by the studies. This is in our view the best way of handling the wide variety of both possible incidental findings and parties interested in the disclosure of incidental findings.