Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

Disclosure of genetic risk to family members: A qualitative study on healthcare professionals' perceived roles and responsibilities

This paper presents the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding their roles and responsibilities in supporting patients with the disclosure of genetic risk to their families. The study involved eight focus groups and two individual interviews with 34 healthcare professionals working in medical genetics services across Portugal. The data were analyzed thematically, resulting in three primary themes: i) informing patients about the risk to relatives; ii) ensuring patient confidentiality; and iii) encouraging family communication. Participants believed it is their responsibility to inform patients about the genetic risk to their relatives, with patients bearing a moral responsibility to convey this information. They explained that the principles of medical confidentiality of the patient take precedence over any direct responsibility to patients' relatives. Treating personal and familial genetic information separately was perceived as challenging to implement and potentially problematic. While most participants reported encouraging patients to inform their relatives, the extent to which they facilitate this communication varies and is also constrained by lack of resources and concerns about complying with legal requirements. Some participants called for clearer national guidelines. These results contribute for ongoing discussions regarding the scope of practice and the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals in appropriately cascading pertinent information to at-risk relatives.

Direct notification by health professionals of relatives at-risk of genetic conditions (with patient consent): views of the Australian public

Genetic risk information for medically actionable conditions has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%, and the burden of contacting relatives is a significant barrier to dissemination of risk information. Health professionals (HPs) could notify at-risk relatives directly, with patients' consent. This practice is supported by international literature, including strong public support. However, there is little exploration of the Australian public's views about this issue. We surveyed Australian adults using a consumer research company. Respondents were provided a hypothetical scenario and asked about views and preferences regarding direct contact by HPs. 1030 members of the public responded, with median age 45 y and 51% female. The majority would want to be told about genetic risk for conditions that can be prevented/treated early (85%) and contacted directly by a HP (68%). Most preferred a letter that included specific information about the genetic condition in the family (67%) and had no privacy concerns about HPs sending a letter using contact details provided by a relative (85%). A minority (< 5%) had significant privacy concerns, mostly about use of personal contact information. Concerns included ensuring information was not shared with third parties. Almost 50% would prefer that a family member contacted them before the letter was sent, while about half did not prefer this or were unsure. The Australian public supports (and prefers) direct notification of relatives at risk of medically actionable genetic conditions. Guidelines would assist with clarifying clinicians' discretion in this area.

Genetic counseling in sickle cell disease: Insights from the Indian tribal population

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited disorder of hemoglobin. With an overall prevalence of 4.3%, India is the second-largest hub of SCD after Africa. Genetic counseling (GC) is the most cost-effective intervention to reduce the burden of a genetic disease including SCD. Even though GC's role in reducing SCD birth prevalence is well established, it is still not incorporated into Indian national policy and is unavailable to most Indians approaching their marriageable age and childbirth. GC perception and efficacy have also not been explored yet among young adults, especially in Indian tribal communities. Counseling in these communities requires careful consideration of their socioeconomic, cultural, and ethical values. Community engagement with local tribes and healthcare infrastructure in a multitier approach is essential for an effective GC. This review aims to provide healthcare providers and genetic counselors with the essentials of GC in the prevention and management of SCD among tribal communities based on the author's counseling experience in South India.

Family communication and results disclosure after germline sequencing: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

Research on family communication of germline genome sequencing (GS) results (versus of genetic results after targeted genetic testing) is still emerging, yet potentially complex results increase the importance of communicating risk to relatives. Promoting equity by ensuring patients have sufficient health literacy to interpret results is important in this context. This study aimed to identify cancer patients' perceived importance of result disclosure, predictors of perceptions, and perspectives on family communication.

METHODS

This explanatory-sequential, cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved participants (n = 246) completing a questionnaire and (n = 20) a semi-structured interview. Ordinal logistic regressions determined associations between potential predictors and perceived importance of result disclosure. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a constant-comparative approach.

RESULTS

More participants intended disclosing to nuclear (77.4%) than to extended family (42.7%). More than half (59.3%) felt results were family information; 62.7% believed it was important to disclose results to family members. Nuclear and extended family communication scores and education level were significantly positively associated with perceived importance of disclosure (p < 0.05). Six qualitative themes were identified: i) Responsibility to inform, ii) Choice, iii) Autonomy, iv) Family Communication, v) Significance of results, and vi) Health professional role.

CONCLUSION

Low health literacy and family conflict can complicate communication of GS results. Patients seek clear, interpretable information in a format they can easily communicate.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare professionals can facilitate discussion of GS results by offering written information, encouraging disclosure, exploring existing family dynamics and communication patterns, and offering strategies to improve family communication. Centralised genetic communication offices and chatbots can also be helpful.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

The Communication Chain of Genetic Risk: Analyses of Narrative Data Exploring Proband–Provider and Proband–Family Communication in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Low uptake of genetic services among members of families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) suggests limitations of proband-mediated communication of genetic risk. This study explored how genetic information proceeds from healthcare providers to probands and from probands to relatives, from the probands’ perspectives. Using a grounded-theory approach, we analyzed narrative data collected with individual interviews and focus groups from a sample of 48 women identified as carriers of HBOC-associated pathogenic variants from three linguistic regions of Switzerland. The findings describe the “communication chain”, confirming the difficulties of proband-mediated communication. Provider–proband communication is impacted by a three-level complexity in the way information about family communication is approached by providers, received by probands, and followed-up by the healthcare system. Probands’ decisions regarding disclosure of genetic risk are governed by dynamic and often contradictory logics of action, interconnected with individual and family characteristics, eventually compelling probands to engage in an arbitrating process. The findings highlight the relevance of probands’ involvement in the communication of genetic risk to relatives, suggesting the need to support them in navigating the complexity of family communication rather than replacing them in this process. Concrete actions at the clinical and health system levels are needed to improve proband-mediated communication.

Comparing the attitudes of physicians and non-physicians toward communicating a patient's BRCA1 mutation to a first-degree relative against a patient's wishes

Although genetic testing can be vastly informative, it creates a dilemma if a patient does not want to disclose an abnormal genetic test to at-risk relatives. A sample of 200 participants from Nevada (100 physicians, 100 non-physicians) completed an 11-item questionnaire asking demographic information, familiarity with genetics and genetic testing, and opinions about a physician's role in a hypothetical case in which a patient does not wish to communicate her BRCA1 mutation to her sister. Although most respondents did not think the physician should notify the sister against the patient's wishes, more non-physicians (40%) than physicians (23%) contended that the physician should do so (p = 0.0119). Most respondents from both groups agreed that the physician should not have the legal duty to notify the sister, would not be morally justified in sharing genetic test results with the sister, but should have the right to notify a patient's relatives if the disease is "serious, preventable, and treatable." More non-physicians than physicians agreed that physicians should have an educational requirement on how to communicate genetic test results to patients and their family (88% vs 65%, p = 0.0002). Most physicians (70%) reported a familiarity/strong familiarity with genetic testing compared to non-physicians (33%; p < 0.0001). Future qualitative research should assess physicians' understanding of issues surrounding familial communication of genetic test results. Educational interventions to facilitate effective communication to patients and families are needed and welcomed by most physicians. Discrepancies between the attitudes of physicians and patients or the public need to be better understood and addressed.

Genetic testing and family entanglements

The development of the 'new genetics' in the early 1990's opened up a new space which required some patients and families to understand and navigate genetic testing. The social science literature that has grown alongside the 'new genetics', now spanning more than thirty years, has continued to explore and question assumptions about attitudes and responses towards genetic technologies. In this article we highlight how individual experience of genetic disease and personal responses towards genetic technologies can only be understood by considering their context. We focus on the rich literature on family within sociology, science and technology studies, anthropology, and family studies, to explore the myriad ways in which family is implicated in the patient experience of genetic testing. We explore these connections by drawing on a set of interviews held with individuals who have undergone a predictive test for a genetic condition, including Huntington's Disease and breast cancer. Five themes were developed: family disclosure, family gatekeeping, going for testing, individual and collective communication practices, and receiving a negative test result. To conclude, we highlight how these connections might be considered through the lens of entanglement, explaining the complex mechanisms through which family and genetics are intimately entwined.

From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a growing phenomenon, fuelled by the notion that knowledge equals control. One ethical question that arises concerns the proband's duty to share information indicating genetic risks in their relatives. However, such duties are unenforceable and may result in the realisation of anticipated harm to relatives. We argue for a shift in responsibility from proband to provider, placing a duty on test providers in the event of identified actionable risks to relatives. Starting from Parker and Lucassen's (2004) 'joint account model', we adapt Kilbride's (2018) application of the rule of rescue and balance it against the relative's right not to know, placing responsibility on the providers of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Where the risk of disease to a relative is actionable, we argue providers ought to share results even in the face of the proband's objections. Confidentiality issues are navigated by a pre-emptive consent model, whereby consumers agree to the sharing of certain information with their relatives ahead of testing and as a condition of testing. When a relative is informed, the proband's privacy is protected by maximal deidentification, and the rights of the relative are met by a stepwise approach to informing that allows them to decide how much information they receive.

Re-imagining ‘the patient’: Linked lives and lessons from genomic medicine

How ‘the patient’ is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making in clinical practice. Patients are predominantly conceived in an individualised manner as autonomous and independent decision-makers. Fields such as genomic medicine highlight the inadequacies of this conceptualisation as patients are likely to have family members who may be directly affected by the outcome of tests in others. Indeed, professional guidance has increasingly taken a view that genetic information should, at times, be regarded as of relevance to families, rather than individuals. What remains absent from discussions is an understanding of how those living through/with genomic testing articulate, construct, and represent patienthood, and what such understandings might mean for practice, particularly ethical decision-making.

Employing the notion of ‘linked lives’ from lifecourse theory, this article presents findings from a UK-based qualitative longitudinal study following the experiences of those affected by the process and outcomes of genomic testing. The article argues that there is a discord between lived experiences and individualised notions of ‘the patient’ common in conventional bioethics, with participants predominantly locating their own decision-making within the matrix of linked lives in which they are embedded. In the quest to gain ‘answers’, many took an intra or intergenerational view, connecting their own experiences to those of past generations through familial narratives around probable explanations, and/or hopes and expectations for the health of imagined future generations. The article argues that a re-imagining of ‘the patient’, that reflects the complex and shifting nature of patienthood, will be imperative as genomic medicine is mainstreamed.

•

How ‘the patient’ is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making.

•

Genomic medicine shows the shortcomings of individualised notions of ‘the patient’.

•

Instead, a ‘linked lives’ lens highlights the ensembles of relationships affected.

•

Participants reported more collective inter/intra-generational views of patienthood.

•

Re-imagining patienthood beyond the individual is vital as genomics is mainstreamed.

Cascade testing for inherited arrhythmia conditions: Experiences and attitudes of family communication approaches for a Canadian cohort

Inherited arrhythmia conditions (IAC) can lead to sudden cardiac death at any age, and relatives of an affected person have up to a 50% chance of inheriting the condition and are at risk for developing features. Cascade testing is a stepwise approach for identifying relatives at risk for IACs through clinical screening and genetic testing. Early detection can reduce morbidity and mortality for affected individuals and determine potential risk mitigation strategies for relatives. However, cardiovascular genetic studies have reported an incomplete uptake of cascade testing in at-risk relatives. We explored patient perspectives on cascade testing for IACs and alternative approaches to family communication. Twelve semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with probands of the British Columbia Inherited Arrhythmia Program confirmed to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with an IAC. Thematic analysis of transcripts through an iterative coding process revealed five main themes: (a) a stepwise approach is followed in disclosing risk to relatives, (b) relatives' autonomy in cascade testing is supported, (c) lived experience with the condition influences disclosure and uptake of cascade testing, (d) collaborative approach to informing relatives reduces negative impact of disclosure, and (e) direct contact from a healthcare provider is viewed as acceptable. The findings highlight this patient cohort's experiences and opinions with approaches to disclosure and demonstrate their understanding and acceptance of their relatives' approaches to cascade testing. In addition, while the notion of direct contact was generally accepted, a collaborative approach to contacting relatives between the proband and provider may be most effective.

"If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

A Focus Group Study of Perceptions of Genetic Risk Disclosure in Members of the Public in Sweden: "I'll Phone the Five Closest Ones, but What Happens to the Other Ten?"

This study explores perceptions and preferences on receiving genetic risk information about hereditary cancer risk in members of the Swedish public. We conducted qualitative content analysis of five focus group discussions with participants (n = 18) aged between 24 and 71 years, recruited from various social contexts. Two prominent phenomena surfaced around the interplay between the three stakeholders involved in risk disclosure: the individual, healthcare, and the relative at risk. First, there is a genuine will to share risk information that can benefit others, even if this is difficult and causes discomfort. Second, when the duty to inform becomes overwhelming, compromises are made, such as limiting one’s own responsibility of disclosure or projecting the main responsibility onto another party. In conclusion, our results reveal a discrepancy between public expectations and the actual services offered by clinical genetics. These expectations paired with desire for a more personalized process and shared decision-making highlight a missing link in today’s risk communication and suggest a need for developed clinical routines with stronger healthcare–patient collaboration. Future research needs to investigate the views of genetic professionals on how to address these expectations to co-create a transparent risk disclosure process which can realize the full potential of personalized prevention.

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

METHODS

In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance).

RESULTS

In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Patient and Family Preferences on Health System-Led Direct Contact for Cascade Screening

Health benefits to relatives of people at known genetic risk for hereditary cancer syndromes is key to realizing the promise of precision medicine. We conducted a qualitative study to design a patient- and family-centered program for direct contact of relatives to recommend cascade genetic testing. We conducted two rounds of data collection using focus groups followed by individual interviews with patients with HBOC or Lynch syndrome and a separate sample of people with a family history of hereditary cancers. Results indicate that U.S.-based health system-led direct contact of relatives is acceptable to patients and families, should take a programmatic approach, include consent of relatives before proband testing, complement to existing patient-mediated disclosure, and allow for relative control of information. Our findings suggest a set of requirements for U.S.-based direct contact programs that could ultimately benefit more relatives than current approaches.

Genetic counselors, patients', and carers' views on an Australian clinical genetics service information system

The Genetic Information System (GIS) is an Australian database of family genetic information. This health information technology system has been used by all 31 publicly operated clinical genetics services across New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for over a decade. As these services are separated geographically, the linkage engendered by the GIS facilitates the services to operate as a virtual state-wide service. This study aimed to explore the views of genetic counselors, patients, and carers on the use and storage of family genetic information in the GIS. Data were collected using audio-recorded semi-structured telephone interviews with genetic counselors experienced with using the GIS and focus groups with past patients/carers of the services. Using thematic analysis, four themes were identified from genetic counselor participant interviews (n = 12): (a) Shared information is valuable; (b) inconsistent data entry provides a challenge; (c) perceived need for the GIS to be current and integrated with other health systems; and (d) future challenges and strategies for the GIS. Three themes were identified following three focus groups with consumer participants (n = 14): (a) access to family genetic information provides a 'clearer picture'; (b) support, but caution, concerning use of information for relatives' health care; and (c) stewardship of family information. Genetic counselors and consumers identified similar advantages and privacy concerns regarding the sharing of family genetic information and all participants wanted patients/carers to be better informed about the GIS early in the genetic counseling process. Consumers were reassured by genetics health professionals' stewardship of their information, but surprised the GIS was not available nationally or for private geneticists or certain non-genetic specialists. These findings may inform further development of the GIS and other clinical genetic databases and lead to increased patient/carer knowledge through education and resource development.

Interventions Facilitating Family Communication of Genetic Testing Results and Cascade Screening in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer or Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic testing of blood relatives of known Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) or Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases, to inform individualized cancer screening and prevention plans. The study identified interventions designed to facilitate family communication of genetic testing results and/or cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that assessed intervention efficacy for these two outcomes. Additional outcomes were also recorded and synthesized when possible. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 in the meta-analysis. Lack of participant blinding was the most common risk of bias. Interventions targeted HBOC (n = 5); both HBOC and LS (n = 4); LS (n = 3); or ovarian cancer (n = 2). All protocols (n = 14) included a psychoeducational and/or counseling component. Additional components were decision aids (n = 4), building communication skills (n = 4), or motivational interviewing (n = 1). The overall effect size for family communication was small (g = 0.085) and not significant (p = 0.344), while for cascade testing, it was small (g = 0.169) but significant (p = 0.014). Interventions show promise for improving cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. Future studies should employ family-based approaches and include racially diverse samples.

Patient Confidentiality and Ethical Behaviour as a Professional Commitment in Dentistry: A Case Study in a Genetic Disorder

A professional commitment to patient confidentiality may sometimes contradict other principles of bioethics. Decision-making for doctors and their team can be challenging amidst such conflicting principles, and despite the practitioner’s best intentions, withholding information can result in potential consequences such as harm to others.

The ethical implications of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Availability of genetic testing in neurodegenerative disorders has developed rapidly. This growing ability is providing specific genetic information to individuals and, in turn, their families, raising ethical concerns. However, family members' perspective is a seldom-studied phenomenon.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to describe the ethical aspect of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases from the perspective of at-risk family members.

METHOD

A systematic review of data was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The data search was conducted using the CINAHL, PubMed and Scopus databases to identify original peer-reviewed studies published between January 2009 and April 2019. A total of 24 articles were selected. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

FINDINGS

On the basis of the analysis, four central ethical implications were identified: (i) decision-making in genetic testing as a dilemma: balance between autonomy and responsibility, (ii) the individual's right to make a voluntary and informed decision for genetic testing, (iii) conflicting emotions after knowing one's genetic status and (iv) privacy and confidentiality of genetic information: the fear of genetic discrimination and stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review increase understanding about the central ethical implications of genetic testing in neurodegenerative diseases from the perspective of family members, and identify and underline outstanding needs for further research.

Conceptual principles and patterns of legal regulation of the processes of storage, access and data protection of genome sequencing in foreign countries as the basis for the modernization of Russian legislation

The relevance of the study of the general principles and patterns of legal regulation of access storage processes and data protection of genome sequencing in foreign countries is determined by the need to develop a general concept of legal regulation of this type of activity in Russia. The purpose of this study is to develop the system-forming principles and patterns of access storage and data protection of genome sequencing in Russia. To achieve this goal, tasks were set and solved to identify and study the general principles and patterns of legal regulation of access storage processes and data protection of genome sequencing in foreign countries. The international documents regulating the features of regulation of access storage processes and data protection of genome-wide sequencing, the doctrinal sources of Great Britain, the USA, France, Israel, and Japan are studied. Methods used: general philosophical, general scientific, private scientific, special (structural-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal). The general principles for the formation of the concept of legal regulation of genome sequencing in Russia are proposed. It was revealed that the creation of a universal regulatory regulator aimed at protecting the subject of personal data in view of the prevalence of public interests over private ones and the constant expansion of the scope of application of genetic data obtained as a result of genome-wide sequencing is the main problem in developing a legal regulation mechanism in the studied area. For the first time, the authors determine the basic principles for developing the concept of genome-wide sequencing in Russia, including: recognition of human rights and human dignity as the highest value, the necessity of researchers' responsibility for the well-being of participants in view of the obtained research results, the mandatory informed consent of which should be voluntary, permanent, their right to get acquainted with the results obtained if it concerns their health, access to such information, ensuring the right to non-knowledge of research results and others.

Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden

Background

Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public's opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.

Methods

A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson's chi-square (χ²) test.

Results

Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).

Conclusions

In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era

Respect for patient autonomy has served as the dominant ethical principle of genetic counselling, but as we move into a genomic era, it is time to actively re-examine the role that this principle plays in genetic counselling practice. In this paper, we argue that the field of genetic counselling should move away from its emphasis on patient autonomy and toward the incorporation of a more balanced set of principles that allows counsellors to offer clear guidance about how best to obtain or use genetic information. We begin with a brief history of how respect for patient autonomy gained such emphasis in the field and how it has taken on various manifestations over time, including the problematic concept of nondirectiveness. After acknowledging the field's preliminary move away from nondirectiveness, we turn to a series of arguments about why the continued dominance of patient autonomy has become untenable given the arrival of the genomic era. To conclude, we describe how a more complete set of bioethical principles can be adapted and used by genetic counsellors to strengthen their practice without undermining patient autonomy.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Overcoming Barriers to Cascade Testing in Lynch Syndrome: A Qualitative Study

Cascade testing (i.e., genetic testing of family members of individuals with disease) among families affected by hereditary cancer disorders, such as Lynch syndrome, is suboptimal and thus represents a missed opportunity in cancer prevention. We aimed to fill a gap in the literature by exploring multilevel barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cascade testing for Lynch syndrome. We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Integrated Behavioral Model among key stakeholders (n = 60): Patients with Lynch syndrome and relatives (n = 20), providers (n = 20), and administrators (n = 20). Transcripts were double-coded (20% sample) using template analysis in ATLAS.ti. Barriers identified included (i) low awareness about Lynch syndrome, (ii) psychosocial barriers, (iii) lack of provider follow-up, (iv) accessibility to genetic counseling, and (v) fear of discrimination. Facilitators included (i) motivation to engage in cascade testing and (ii) free genetic testing offered to relatives. Stakeholders also recommended strategies to overcome implementation barriers in the short-term (increasing education, preparing patients for communicating with relatives), medium-term (optimizing clinical workflow and staffing resources), and long-term (nationwide standardization). These findings indicate that modifiable, multilevel barriers to the implementation of cascade testing in Lynch syndrome are experienced across stakeholders. Understanding and targeting implementation barriers is imperative to achieving public health impact of precision health interventions such as cascade testing.

Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations

The lack of data on perspectives of racial and ethnic minority populations regarding family disclosure of individual research results (IRR) hinders the development of return of IRR policies and practices that are meaningful and culturally appropriate in diverse populations. This research aims to uncover preferences regarding family disclosure of IRR and identify factors that may shape the preferences in three minority populations. Nine focus groups with 68 adult African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were willing to share IRR with relatives who elected to know and preferred a participant-driven (vs. researcher-driven) decision-making process. Privacy of personal information was deemed important, as were anticipated familial benefits from genetic information, except when improper use of the information was suspected. Factors influencing family disclosure decisions included the family's biological and emotional closeness, and participants' perceived mental preparedness of the relative. Family disclosure of IRR among racial and ethnic minority individuals is a complex decision-making process wherein issues of individual privacy are entangled with family dynamic and familial benefit considerations. These data suggest that policies surrounding family disclosure of IRR should carefully consider participant preferences and adopt a participant-driven approach.

Communicating genetic information to family members: analysis of consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

Physicians' Attitudes and Ethical Obligations to Pharmacogenetic Testing

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increased utilization of pharmacogenetic (PGt) testing to guide drug therapy, little is known about the ethical challenges posed by the use of these genetic tools.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study aimed to address ethical issues related to ancillary genetic information, consent forms, and potential confidentiality breaches from physicians' perspectives. A questionnaire was administered to all practicing physicians working in KAUH.

RESULTS

Almost 49% and 65% of physicians were willing to recommend PGt testing for adult and pediatric patients, respectively. The findings showed that physicians attitudes towards the clinical utility of PGt testing became more preceptive. The majority (73.7%) indicated that PGt testing should not be treated as other routine laboratory tests. The finding also focused on potential conflicts regarding ancillary genetic information, in which 78.8% indicated that they would like to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of the patients and only 14.4% of physicians did not feel obligated to let patients know about any future risk that might be uncovered using PGt testing. The findings showed that collecting both verbal and written consents was imperative prior to testing. Seriousness and predictability of the diseases were reported to be legitimate circumstances that allow disclosure of genetic information.

DISCUSSION

Unless the field of PGt testing addresses the ethical challenges that might be encountered during PGt treatment, these issues might influence its acceptance in routine clinical settings. Establishing a minimal set of ethical standards may help emphasize the role of physicians and thus facilitate the implementation of PGt tests.

When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals' views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative study.

SETTING

Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years.

RESULTS

Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.

Familial disclosure by genetic healthcare professionals: a useful but sparingly used legal provision in France

Familial disclosure of genetic information is an important, long-standing ethical issue that still gives rise to much debate. In France, recent legislation has created an innovative and unprecedented procedure that allows healthcare professionals (HCPs), under certain conditions, to disclose relevant information to relatives of a person carrying a deleterious genetic mutation. This article will analyse how HCPs in two medical genetics clinics have reacted to these new legal provisions and show how their reticence to inform the patients' relatives on their behalf leads them to use this option sparingly.

Challenges and strategies proposed by genetic health professionals to assist with family communication

Hereditary genetic conditions have implications for the whole family and therefore genetic health professionals (GHPs) interact with multiple family members, sometimes individually and sometimes in aggregate. Family communication is important to ensure dissemination of genetic information to potentially affected relatives and to facilitate supportive family interactions around genetic testing and risk management decisions. Yet, little is known about how GHPs perceive and manage these interactions. A total of 73 GHPs working across Australian cancer genetic clinics participated in semi-structured focus groups or interviews to elucidate what aspects of family communication they found most challenging, the strategies they used, and whether current academic training provides sufficient guidance to address familial concerns. Patients' lack of understanding about the importance of communicating genetic information to at-risk relatives was the most common challenge reported. GHPs reported that the patients' concern for their families' emotional responses as well as wider family system challenges (e.g. estrangement) affected family communication. Common strategies during consultations included structuring appointments logistically to account for family dynamics and post-consultation use of family letters and follow-up appointments. GHPs generally felt equipped with the skills and training provided to address patient concerns, but also desired upskilling in techniques relating to systemic family issues and behavioural change. Reflective practice strategies were requested by geneticists and nurses to foster therapeutic skill usage. Additional family therapy training while on the job may be beneficial in order to meet current challenges faced in clinical practice and can be provided as further professional development.

Family communication following a diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy: To tell or not to tell?

Family communication about genetic information enables informed medical and reproductive decision-making. The literature suggests that a significant proportion of genetically at-risk family members remain uninformed about genetic risk information as a result of non-disclosure. This study explored the experiences of New Zealand families communicating about a diagnosis of type 1 myotonic dystrophy (DM1). Eligible individuals were identified and recruited from the New Zealand (NZ) MD Prev study, a nationwide study which aimed to determine the prevalence, impact, and costs of genetic muscle disorders across the lifespan. Twelve qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants. The findings demonstrate diversity among and within families, with several distinct family narratives described. Most participants reported a motivation to tell relatives about their diagnosis to promote autonomy. Women were pivotal throughout communication processes and this was often tied to the concept of maternal responsibility and a desire to promote relatives' reproductive autonomy. The diagnosis of DM1 and the subsequent family communication decisions altered relationships for many, with both positive and negative impacts described. The findings demonstrate that individuals require time to explore the impact of a diagnosis of DM1 on self, family and intimate partner relationships to anticipate unique communication challenges. Genetic counselors can use these findings to inform their approach to counseling families with DM1. Longitudinal genetic counseling may be beneficial as a way to provide individuals with life stage specific support as they communicate with their relatives about a diagnosis of DM1.

Informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: experiences and attitudes of healthcare professionals and counselees

Inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) can lead to sudden cardiac death at young age, even without previous symptoms, yet often remain undetected. To prevent sudden cardiac death, cardiac monitoring and/or predictive DNA testing is advised for at-risk relatives. Probands in whom a causal variant is detected are asked to inform their relatives about the possibility of testing, often supported by a family letter. This qualitative study investigates experiences with and attitudes toward this family-mediated approach in ICCs and explores whether and how improvements can be made. Two online focus groups were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from various disciplines, as were 25 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with counselees (10 probands; 15 relatives). Data were analysed by two researchers independently using a thematic approach. Participants, both HCPs and counselees, preferred that probands inform relatives about genetic risks in ICCs, but both groups struggled with the dependency on and burden on probands to inform their relatives. To overcome this, HCPs do see a more active role for themselves in informing relatives, but prefer uniformity in procedures in order to maintain their workload. Counselees, on the other hand, prefer a tailored information provision strategy adjusted to family dynamics and the personality characteristics of relatives. In conclusion, although it is generally preferred that probands inform relatives themselves, a more active role of HCPs could be considered to overcome the dependency and burden on probands. Further research is needed to study how HCPs can engage more actively in informing at-risk relatives in current clinical genetic practise.

The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing-an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

Evaluation of the template letter regarding the disclosure of genetic information within the family in France

The 2011 French Bioethics Law regarding disclosure of genetic information within families enables health professionals to notify any at-risk relatives directly, with the patient's consent, using a template letter. To assess the impact of this template letter in terms of understanding, personal feelings and intent to contact a health professional, we conducted a study interviewing patients, members of the public and genetic professionals. Although the main response to the letter was anxiety, this was associated with good understanding of the content and most individuals mentioned intention to contact a health professional.

"It would be so much easier": health system-led genetic risk notification-feasibility and acceptability of cascade screening in an integrated system

Assess the feasibility and acceptability of health system-led genetic risk notification in a US integrated health system. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with individuals age 40-64 years who had undergone genetic sequencing, but had not yet received their results, assessing attitudes to direct outreach to relatives. During each interview, we collected contact information for adult relatives identified as members of the same system and attempted to identify each relative in administrative data. We conducted 20 interviews. Most participants expressed support for Kaiser Permanente Washington involvement in familial risk notification. Direct outreach to relatives received the most unqualified support; outreach to the relatives' physician or interaction with the relatives' electronic medical record received more tempered support. Support was motivated by the desire to have risk communicated accurately and quickly. The most common caveat was a desire to alert relatives before the health system contacted them. Of 57 named relatives who were members of the same health system, we retrieved a single match for 40 (70.2%) based on name or birthdate. Health system involvement in familial risk notification received support in a sample of patients in a US integrated health system, and identification of relatives is feasible.

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that ‘tick-box’ forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients’—and relatives’—interests.

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

BACKGROUND

Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect?

Where there is conflict between a patient's interests in non-disclosure of their genetic information to relatives and the relative's interest in knowing the information because it indicates their genetic risk, clinicians have customarily been able to protect themselves against legal action by maintaining confidence even if, professionally, they did not consider this to be the right thing to do. In ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ([2017] EWCA Civ 336) the healthcare team recorded their concern about the wisdom of the patient's decision to withhold genetic risk information from his relative, but chose to respect what they considered to be an unwise choice. Even though professional guidance considers that clinicians have the discretion to breach confidence where they believe this to be justified, (Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society of Human Genetics, 2006; GMC, 2017) clinicians find it difficult to exercise this discretion in line with their convictions against the backdrop of the legal prioritisation of the duty to maintain confidence. Thus, the professional discretion is not being freely exercised because of doubts about the legal protection available in the event of disclosure. The reliance on consent as the legal basis for setting aside the duty of confidence often vetoes sharing information with relatives. This paper argues that an objective approach based on privacy, rather than a subjective consent-based approach, would give greater freedom to clinicians to exercise the discretion which their professional guidance affords.

Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues for the Implementation of Omics-Based Risk Prediction of Women's Cancer: Points to Consider

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Advances in omics open new opportunities for cancer risk prediction and risk-based screening interventions. However, implementation of risk prediction in clinical practice may impact the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects of current cancer screening programs. In order to support decision-making, we analyzed the ethical, legal, and regulatory issues and developed a set of Points to Consider to support management of these issues.

METHODS

We analyzed the legal and policy frameworks applicable to breast and cervical cancer screening programs in 7 European countries. We identified the most relevant issues to be considered, and we developed considerations for their management, based on the literature, the legal and policy frameworks, and our experience with similar issues.

RESULTS

The considerations focus on five topics: (A) health services planning, (B) information and invitation, (C) consent and data/sample collection, (D) risk calculation and communication of results, and (E) storage of data and residual samples.

CONCLUSION

Current frameworks might not be adequate to implement a risk prediction approach using omics factors due to the different characteristics of such approaches.

Communication of Information about Genetic Risks: Putting Families at the Center

Genetic information is a family affair. With the expansion of genomic technologies, many new causal genes and variants have been established and the potential for molecular diagnoses increased, with implications not only for patients but also their relatives. The need for genetic counseling and intrafamilial circulation of information on genetic risks grew accordingly. Also, the amount and, particularly, the complexity of the information to convey multiplied. Sharing information about genetic risks with family members, however, has never been an easy matter and often becomes a source of personal and familial conflicts and distress. Ethical requisites generally prevent healthcare professionals from directly contacting their consultands' relatives (affected or still at risk), who often feel unsupported throughout that process. We discuss here the communication of genetic risks to family members. We first consider genomic testing as a basis for family-centered health care, as opposed to a predominant focus on the individual. We reviewed the literature on sharing genetic risk information with family members, and the associated ethical issues for professionals. Some clinical cases are presented and discussed, and key issues for meeting the needs of individuals and families are addressed. We argue that genetic information is inextricably linked to the family and that communicating about genetic risks is a process grounded within the broader milieu of family relationships and functioning. We conclude for the need for a more family-centered approach and interventions that can promote sensitive attitudes to the provision of genetic information to and within the family, as well as its inclusion in educational and training programmes for genetic healthcare professionals.

Methods for the evaluation of biomarkers in patients with kidney and liver diseases: multicentre research programme including ELUCIDATE RCT

Background

Protein biomarkers with associations with the activity and outcomes of diseases are being identified by modern proteomic technologies. They may be simple, accessible, cheap and safe tests that can inform diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, monitoring of disease activity and therapy and may substitute for complex, invasive and expensive tests. However, their potential is not yet being realised.

Design and methods

The study consisted of three workstreams to create a framework for research: workstream 1, methodology – to define current practice and explore methodology innovations for biomarkers for monitoring disease; workstream 2, clinical translation – to create a framework of research practice, high-quality samples and related clinical data to evaluate the validity and clinical utility of protein biomarkers; and workstream 3, the ELF to Uncover Cirrhosis as an Indication for Diagnosis and Action for Treatable Event (ELUCIDATE) randomised controlled trial (RCT) – an exemplar RCT of an established test, the ADVIA Centaur® Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd, Camberley, UK) [consisting of a panel of three markers – (1) serum hyaluronic acid, (2) amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and (3) tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1], for liver cirrhosis to determine its impact on diagnostic timing and the management of cirrhosis and the process of care and improving outcomes.

Results

The methodology workstream evaluated the quality of recommendations for using prostate-specific antigen to monitor patients, systematically reviewed RCTs of monitoring strategies and reviewed the monitoring biomarker literature and how monitoring can have an impact on outcomes. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate monitoring and improve the merits of health care. The monitoring biomarker literature is modest and robust conclusions are infrequent. We recommend improvements in research practice. Patients strongly endorsed the need for robust and conclusive research in this area. The clinical translation workstream focused on analytical and clinical validity. Cohorts were established for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal transplantation (RT), with samples and patient data from multiple centres, as a rapid-access resource to evaluate the validity of biomarkers. Candidate biomarkers for RCC and RT were identified from the literature and their quality was evaluated and selected biomarkers were prioritised. The duration of follow-up was a limitation but biomarkers were identified that may be taken forward for clinical utility. In the third workstream, the ELUCIDATE trial registered 1303 patients and randomised 878 patients out of a target of 1000. The trial started late and recruited slowly initially but ultimately recruited with good statistical power to answer the key questions. ELF monitoring altered the patient process of care and may show benefits from the early introduction of interventions with further follow-up. The ELUCIDATE trial was an ‘exemplar’ trial that has demonstrated the challenges of evaluating biomarker strategies in ‘end-to-end’ RCTs and will inform future study designs.

Conclusions

The limitations in the programme were principally that, during the collection and curation of the cohorts of patients with RCC and RT, the pace of discovery of new biomarkers in commercial and non-commercial research was slower than anticipated and so conclusive evaluations using the cohorts are few; however, access to the cohorts will be sustained for future new biomarkers. The ELUCIDATE trial was slow to start and recruit to, with a late surge of recruitment, and so final conclusions about the impact of the ELF test on long-term outcomes await further follow-up. The findings from the three workstreams were used to synthesise a strategy and framework for future biomarker evaluations incorporating innovations in study design, health economics and health informatics.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74815110, UKCRN ID 9954 and UKCRN ID 11930.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Genetic diseases and information to relatives: practical and ethical issues for professionals after introduction of a legal framework in France

Health professionals have a role to play in assisting patients to communicate genetic information to their relatives. In France, a specific unique legal framework has been implemented concerning this issue. We questioned professionals about their practice and how it has evolved in this new frame. The French law has opted to lay responsibility for disclosure on the person concerned by a positive test result, without totally excluding some responsibility on the part of the professionals involved, in the information to be disclosed and in the transmission of the information if a patient refuses to do it themselves (indirect disclosure). We designed and validated an online survey to be sent out to healthcare professionals to explore their practice and how they went about implementing the legal provisions. We also sought to determine how healthcare professionals dealt with a patient's refusal to disclose information to their relatives, and whether the legal framework was helpful. We carried out a statistical analysis of the responses to questionnaires to interpret the results by professional category, field of medicine and genetic disorder. The results show that professionals agreed on the relevance of disclosure to relatives. However, they show a range of practices and varying representations of the genetic issue in the framework of disclosure to relatives according to their medical field, their role in the health system and their own interpretations. They indicated a lack of resources, raised some ethical issues and put forward some arguments against contacting relatives themselves.

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

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

Supporting disclosure of genetic information to family members: professional practice and timelines in cancer genetics

Disclosure of genetic information within families is one of the longstanding questions under scrutiny in the field of genetics. Most of the probands entrusted with family disclosure succeed in this task, but there are still many problematic cases where it proves difficult. How can professionals help probands disclose this information? What levers can they activate to foster the diffusion of genetic information within families? In the context of a new legal framework concerning this question in France, this paper offers a comprehensive view of the process of genetic counselling in a cancer genetics department. Based on an ethnographic study, it focuses on the interactions between professionals and probands during each step of the testing procedures in order to identify key times when the issue can be addressed. The results show that the question of family disclosure needs to be addressed before, during and after the test. Greater awareness of this continuum among professionals could help them foster family disclosure by supporting the probands at each stage of the testing procedure.