An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

The return of individual genomic results to research participants: design and pilot study of Tohoku Medical Megabank Project

Certain large genome cohort studies attempt to return the individual genomic results to the participants; however, the implementation process and psychosocial impacts remain largely unknown. The Tohoku Medical Megabank Project has conducted large genome cohort studies of general residents. To implement the disclosure of individual genomic results, we extracted the potential challenges and obstacles. Major challenges include the determination of genes/disorders based on the current medical system in Japan, the storage of results, prevention of misunderstanding, and collaboration of medical professionals. To overcome these challenges, we plan to conduct multilayer pilot studies, which deal with different disorders/genes. We finally chose familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as a target disease for the first pilot study. Of the 665 eligible candidates, 33.5% were interested in the pilot study and provided consent after an educational "genetics workshop" on the basic genetics and medical facts of FH. The genetics professionals disclosed the results to the participants. All positive participants were referred to medical care, and a serial questionnaire revealed no significant psychosocial distress after the disclosure. Return of genomic results to research participants was implemented using a well-prepared protocol. To further elucidate the impact of different disorders, we will perform multilayer pilot studies with different disorders, including actionable pharmacogenomics and hereditary tumor syndromes.

Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Biobank research faces many ethical challenges. Ethics research aims to develop standards for governance to meet these challenges by elaborating overarching normative principles of medical ethics in the context of biobanking. Most ethical standards are widely agreed on among biobank stakeholders and entail specific governance solutions, for example, adoption of consent procedures. In order to fully meet its goal, every governance solution needs to be implemented, evaluated and, if necessary, adapted and improved in practice. This study reviews the scientific literature on biobank ethics and governance in order to identify studies that specifically focus on practice evaluation of biobank governance.

METHODS

A PubMed search was carried out. Retrieved literature was categorised and thematically clustered. All studies that focus on practice evaluation were reviewed and their objectives, results, and recommendations for practice summarised.

RESULTS

The findings show that the majority of studies on biobank ethics and governance are theoretical; only 25 out of 922 studies empirically evaluate biobank governance in practice. The majority of these (14; 59%) focused on informed consent. Six studies (24%) addressed practice evaluation of sample and data access; the rest focused on public involvement, ethics reporting and incidental findings. Other relevant governance areas such as ethics review, priority setting and sample ownership were not addressed.

CONCLUSION

In order to fulfil the ethical goals, more empirical research is needed that provides information on how governance mechanisms perform in practice and what improvements are needed.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

Pathogenic variants in the healthy elderly: unique ethical and practical challenges

: Genetic research into ageing, longevity and late-onset disease is becoming increasingly common. Yet, there is a paucity of knowledge related to clinical actionability and the return of pathogenic variants to otherwise healthy elderly individuals. Whether or not genetic research in the elderly should be managed differently from standard practices adapted for younger populations has not yet been defined. In this article, we provide an overview of ethical and practical challenges in preparing for a genetic study of over 14 000 healthy Australians aged 70 years or older enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) Healthy Ageing Biobank. At the time of consent, all participants in this study were free of life-threatening illness, cardiovascular disease or cognitive impairment. ASPREE is thus a cohort of healthy elderly individuals with seemingly minimal burden of genetic disease recruited without ascertainment bias. The cohort presents a unique opportunity to address the penetrance of known pathogenic variants in a population without disease symptoms; however, it also raises a number of ethical concerns regarding the interpretation and disclosure of variants with known clinical actionability. Some of the challenges include (a) how to manage the interpretation, disclosure and actioning of pathogenic variants found in otherwise healthy elderly adults without disease symptoms, (b) whether or not to disclose findings for the benefit of family members rather than elderly consented donors themselves, (c) how to manage the return of genetic findings to the elderly individuals who are now in severe cognitive decline or terminal illness, (d) how to ensure quality of information and clinical service upon disclosure of results to this demographic and (e) how to prepare for the insurance implications of disclosing genetic information under Australian law. We discuss these and other dilemmas and propose a defensible plan of management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN83772183.

"Forward-Thinking" in U.S. Biobanking

AIMS

Do biobanks enact policies and plans that allow them to anticipate and respond to potential challenges? If a biobank has one such policy or plan, is it likely to have more? Using survey data from 456 U.S. biobanks, we assess four possible indicators of such "forward-thinking."

METHODS

We present response frequencies and cross-tabulations regarding policies for return of results and ownership of specimens, and for having a formal business plan and a plan for what happens to specimens if the biobank closes. We analyze the relationships among these indicators, using chi-square for tests of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Policies-Sixty-two percent of biobanks have a policy about returning individual research results; 70% have a policy designating ownership of specimens and/or technology. Having these two policies is significantly related (p < 0.001). Plans-34% of biobanks have a formal business plan; 26% have a written plan for what will happen to the specimens if the biobank closes. Having these two plans is significantly related (p < 0.001). Relationships among indicators-only 7% of biobanks are forward-thinking across all four indicators; 12% are forward-thinking across none.

DISCUSSION

The two policies we examined tend to occur together, as do the two plans. These policies and plans seem to tap different aspects of accountability and responsiveness. Specifically, the policies reflect issues most commonly raised in the ethical and legal literature on biobanking, while the plans are indicators of sustainability, a separate area of concern in biobanking.

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.

Confidentiality in Biobanking Research: A Comparison of Donor and Nondonor Families' Understanding of Risks

AIMS

Confidentiality of personal identifiers potentially linking the genetic results from biobanking participants back to the donor and donor relatives is a concern. The risks associated with a breach of confidentiality should be ascertained when biobanks collect samples requiring the consent of a family decision maker (FDM) from deceased organ and tissue donors. This article explores FDM knowledge and opinions regarding risks associated with participation in biobanking research in the context of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project.

METHODS

Data collection included a survey completed by organ procurement organization requesters (n = 37) and semistructured telephone interviews with the FDMs (n = 85).

RESULTS

Donor families were more likely to know that there was a risk that a patient's identity could be revealed through a breach of confidentiality (p < 0.05). They also were more likely to understand that researchers using biobanked tissue would not have access to the patient's exact identity (p < 0.05). FDMs who refused donation were more concerned about risks than donors and reported lower levels of support for medical research in general. Finally, families were frequently interested in the return of results and willing to trade absolute confidentiality for participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear discussion of the risk of breach of confidentiality is needed during the consent process. The risk and benefit equation could be equalized if studies such as GTEx offered genomic results to interested participants.

A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Information empowerment has been the greatest gain of genomics, yet it also poses serious threat to its survival, especially when the information is incidental. There may be an emerging consensus that actionable incidental findings be returned. But this has not been supported by any systematic review. Future directions are equally missing. These are significant gaps.

To fill these gaps, an online search on PubMed and Genetics in Medicine website was conducted between 20th of August to 23rd of October, 2013; combining certain filters and phrases, such as ‘return incidental findings’. Nineteen (19) articles were selected from an avalanche of results, and reviewed. The review confirms a majority support for return of clinically actionable findings. The result also shows that the support represents views of Northern Americans. Critical contributions of Africans, Asians and Europeans are missing in this discourse. I recommended studies in this direction.

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.

Research findings with clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Medical and health research may yield findings that are of direct clinical significance for project participants. The Council of Europe has stated that information on such findings shall be offered to participants, and that applications to research ethics committees shall include plans for managing such findings. The purpose of the study was to investigate how the management of such findings had been described in research projects that had been granted prior approval by a regional committee for medical and health research ethics (REK).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Research projects that were associated with Oslo University Hospital and had a start-up date in 2011 were identified in the database of the regional ethics committee. Copies of the application form submitted to the committee, project protocols, participant information/consent forms and letters of approval were reviewed with regard to information on the management of findings with possible clinical implications.

RESULTS

Of the 87 projects found in the database, 70 were included in the study. Of these, 57 studies involved direct interaction with humans, whereof 45 with intended use of biological material. In 21 studies, the management of findings with possible clinical implications was described in one or more documents. In all of these projects, the applicant him-/herself had referred to this topic in the initial application.

INTERPRETATION

The absence of written information on the management of research findings with possible clinical implications is not in conformity with the recommendations issued by the Council of Europe. By introducing a separate item for this in the form to be submitted to the regional ethics committee for application of prior approval, this issue could be made subject to better assessment.

Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research

PURPOSE

There are many ethical considerations regarding the return of genetic results to biobanking participants, especially when biobanks collect samples from deceased organ and tissue donors that require the authorization of a family decision maker (FDM). This article explores FDM knowledge and opinions regarding return of genetic results in the context of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project, which does not return results to participants.

METHODS

Data collection included a survey completed by Organ Procurement Organization requesters (n = 22) and semistructured telephone interviews with FDM (n = 55).

RESULTS

Nearly every FDM wanted some form of genetic results returned. Information regarding treatable diseases (94.3%) and diseases that could affect their children (84.9%) were more desirable than that regarding untreatable diseases (71.7%). Sixty percent of FDMs understood that GTEx would not return genetic results. FDMs were four times more likely to have correct knowledge of the GTEx policy when their GTEx requester reported discussing the topic with them.

CONCLUSION

FDMs from the GTEx project were interested in receiving genetic test results. Marked changes in the infrastructure of the GTEx would be required to alter the policy. Regardless, care must be taken to ensure that the return policy is clearly communicated with FDMs to dispel misconceptions.Genet Med 18 1, 82-88.

Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research

Whole exome/ genome sequencing (WES/WGS) is now commonly used in research and is increasingly used in clinical care to identify the genetic basis of rare and unknown diseases. The management of incidental findings (IFs) generated through these analyses is debated within the research community. To examine how views regarding genomic research IFs are associated with researcher characteristics and experiences, we surveyed genetic professionals and assessed the effect of professional background and experience on their opinions. Researchers who did not have clinical training, provide clinical care to research participants, or have prior experience returning research results were in general more inclined to offer return of IFs than their colleagues with these characteristics. Understanding this will be important to fully appreciate the impact that policies on return of genetic IFs could have on participants, researchers, and genomic research.

Biobanks in the United States: how to identify an undefined and rapidly evolving population

As part of a larger organizational study, we sought to survey biobanks in the United States. However, we encountered two problems with this population. First, no common definition of biobanks exists. Second, no census is available of these facilities from which to sample in order to implement a survey. In light of these problems, we employed a multifaceted approach using electronic searches of PubMed, RePORTER, and Google. In addition, we systematically searched for biobanks housed within universities that have NIH-designated Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). We expanded this part of the search by looking for biobanks among all members of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Finally, we added banks to our database found previously by other researchers and banks found via correspondence with our colleagues. Our search strategy produced a database of 624 biobanks for which we were able to confirm contact information in order to conduct our online survey. Another 140 biobanks were identified but did not respond to our requests to confirm their existence or contact information. In order to maximize both the uniqueness of banks found and the greatest return on effort for each search, we suggest targeting resources that are already organized. In our work, these included the CTSA, AAMC, and part of the Google searches. We contend that our search provides a model for analysis of new fields of research and/or rapidly evolving industries. Furthermore, our approach demonstrates that with the appropriate tools it is possible to develop a systematic and comprehensive database to investigate undefined populations.

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project

OBJECTIVE

To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.

RESULTS

Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.

CONCLUSIONS

OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.

Neglected ethical issues in biobank management: Results from a U.S. study

The empirical literature on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of biobanking has almost entirely relied on the perspectives of those outside of biobanks, such as the general public, researchers, and specimen contributors. Little attention has been paid to the perspectives and practices of those who operate biobanks. We conducted a study of U.S. biobanks consisting of six in-depth case studies and a large online survey (N =456), which was developed from the case study results. The case studies included qualitative interviews with a total of 24 personnel. Both interview and survey questions focused on how biobanks operate, and what policies and practices govern their relationships with specimen contributors and the researchers who use the specimens. Analysis revealed unexpected ethical dilemmas embedded in those policies and practices that highlight a need for practical planning. In this paper, we review three issues seldom explored in the ELSI literature: 1. the discrepancy between biobankers' hope that the bank will exist "permanently" and the fact that funding is limited; 2. the lack of planning for what will happen to the specimens if the bank closes; and 3. the concern that once collected, specimens may be underutilized. These dilemmas are missing from current public representations of biobanks, which instead focus on the intrinsic value in storing specimens as essential to the advancement of translational research. We argue that attention to these issues is important for biobanking, and that greater transparency of these policies and practices will contribute to promoting public trust in biobanks.

The return of unexpected research results in a biobank study and referral to health care for heritable long QT syndrome

BACKGROUND

In this study, we examined how biobank study participants, who were found to have long QT syndrome (LQTS), a potentially life-threatening but treatable cardiac arrhythmia condition, experienced the process of disclosure of unexpected results and referral to health care.

METHODS

All 27 subjects with a LQTS mutation finding were asked to complete a questionnaire. Four participants did not uptake the re-testing and 5 others did not respond to the questionnaire. We received 17 questionnaires from 6 males and 11 females, aged 46-82; 5 of them were also willing to participate in qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Of the respondents, 16/17 had experienced the process of receiving the results as positive and useful, especially if they had had symptoms. One respondent experienced the process negatively due to concerns related to informing her children. All respondents felt that genetic results should be reported back to the participants, while 2 indicated that this should occur only in the case of treatable conditions. Respondents had informed all of their children about the genetic condition, except 2 minors.

CONCLUSIONS

The respondents from a population biobank study who were informed about an unexpected genetic finding evaluated this process as mainly positive. They considered that delivering genetic information about a life-threatening but actionable condition has more beneficial than adverse consequences. The feedback policy for biobanks should include how and who is informed, advise treatment or care pathways for actionable findings, and it should also include suitable options for those who do not want to know about such findings.

Empirical research on the ethics of genomic research

There is no universally accepted definition of what an incidental finding is [Wolf et al., 2008 ] and broadly speaking this could include variants of known and unknown clinical significance, variants linked to highly penetrant, serious, life-threatening conditions, non-paternity or ancestry data. For the purposes of our study, we have adopted a pragmatic distinction between ‘pertinent’ and ‘incidental’ findings as set out in this text. Whilst in the US definitions of incidental findings are becoming accepted in practice [Green et al., 2013 ] it is still not known how and whether these also apply elsewhere around the world.

Incidental variants are critical for genomics

The topic of incidental variants detected through exome and genome sequencing is controversial, both in clinical practice and in research. The arguments for and against the deliberate analysis and return of incidental variants focus on issues of clinical validity, clinical utility, autonomy, clinical and research infrastructure and costs, and, in the research arena, therapeutic misconception. These topics are briefly reviewed and an argument is made that these variants are the future of genomic medicine. As a field, we should take full advantage of all opportunities to study these variants by searching them out, returning them to patients and research participants, and studying their utility for predictive medicine.

Biobanking: The Melding of Research with Clinical Care

The number of biobanks around the world has increased dramatically, owing in part, to the need for researchers to have access to large numbers of samples for genomic research. Policies for enrolling participants, returning research results and obtaining samples and data can have a far reaching impact on the type of research that can be performed with each biobank. Research using biobank samples includes studies of the impact of environmental and other risk exposures on health, understanding genetic risks for common disease, identification of biomarkers in disease progression and prognosis, and implementation of personalized medicine projects. This research has been instrumental in the progress of genetic and genomic research and translational medicine. This article will highlight some of the controversies and recent research associated with biobanking over the past year.

Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of genomics researchers in a pediatric setting in the context of regulatory guidance recommending the disclosure of clinically significant research findings.

Methods:

A validated 32-item questionnaire was sent to 107 researchers with two large-scale projects (the Canadian Pediatric Cancer Genome Consortium and the Finding of Rare Genes Canada Consortium). We examined researchers' attitudes toward obligations to offer genomic research results (including if the participant was deceased, a relative, or a child), influence of the certainty/severity of the condition on this obligation, and personal experiences.

Results:

Of the 107 researchers, 74 (69%) responded. Researchers did not feel a strong responsibility to look for meaningful incidental results in the research genomic data set (n = 27, 37%). However, once identified, they felt participants had a strong right to receive them, irrespective of being incidental (n = 50, 68%) or primary targets (n = 64, 87%). There was a high degree of support for informing siblings of genomic results (n = 46, 62%), especially for treatable conditions (n = 56, 76%). Less than half of the participants indicated that their research ethics board required an offer of results (n = 34, 46%) or provided a detailed process (n = 16, 22%).

Conclusion:

Researchers strongly support the offer of targeted and incidental genomic research results to participants. Greater regulatory guidance is needed for a consistent approach.

Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey

Background

Effective translational biomedical research hinges on the operation of 'biobanks,' repositories that assemble, store, and manage collections of human specimens and related data. Some are established intentionally to address particular research needs; many, however, have arisen opportunistically, in a variety of settings and with a variety of expectations regarding their functions and longevity. Despite their rising prominence, little is known about how biobanks are organized and function beyond simple classification systems (government, academia, industry).

Methods

In 2012, we conducted the first national survey of biobanks in the U.S., collecting information on their origins, specimen collections, organizational structures, and market contexts and sustainability. From a list of 636 biobanks assembled through a multi-faceted search strategy, representatives from 456 U.S. biobanks were successfully recruited for a 30-minute online survey (72% response rate). Both closed and open-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

While nearly two-thirds of biobanks were established within the last decade, 17% have been in existence for over 20 years. Fifty-three percent listed research on a particular disease as the most important reason for establishment; 29% listed research generally. Other reasons included response to a grant or gift, and intent to centralize, integrate, or harmonize existing research structures. Biobank collections are extraordinarily diverse in number and types of specimens and in sources (often multiple) from which they are obtained, including from individuals, clinics or hospitals, public health programs, and research studies. Forty-four percent of biobanks store pediatric specimens, and 36% include postmortem specimens. Most biobanks are affiliated in one or multiple ways with other entities: 88% are part of at least one or more larger organizations (67% of these are academic, 23% hospitals, 13% research institutes). The majority of biobanks seem to fill a particular 'niche' within a larger organization or research area; a minority are concerned about competition for services, although many are worried about underutilization of specimens and long-term funding.

Conclusions

Effective utilization of biobank collections and effective policies to govern their use will require understanding of the immense diversity found in organizational features, including the very different history and primary goals that many biobanks have.

Return of results in translational iPS cell research: considerations for donor informed consent

Efforts have emerged internationally to recruit donors with specific disease indications and to derive induced pluripotent cell lines. These disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cell lines have the potential to accelerate translational goals such as drug discovery and testing. One consideration for donor recruitment and informed consent is the possibility that research will result in findings that are clinically relevant to the cell donor. Management protocols for such findings should be developed a priori and disclosed during the informed consent process. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has developed recommendations for informing donors in sponsored research. These recommendations include obtaining consent to recontact tissue donors for a range of scientific, medical and ethical considerations. This article reviews the basis for these recommendations and suggests conditions that may be appropriate when reporting findings to donors.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.