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

Research participants' perspectives regarding the feedback of secondary findings-A cohort from the DDD-Africa study, South Africa

Genomic researchers face an ethical dilemma regarding feedback of individual results generated from genomic studies. In the African setting, genomic research is still not widely implemented and, coupled with this, the limited African-specific guidelines on how to feedback on individual research findings. A qualitative study was performed to assess participants' expectations and preferences regarding the feedback of secondary findings from genomic research. Participants were parents of children with a developmental disorder, enrolled in the Deciphering Developmental Disorders in Africa (DDD-Africa) research project, and were purposefully selected. Three deliberative focus group discussions were conducted with 14 participants. Each deliberative focus group consisted of two separate audio-recorded interviews and presented different case scenarios for different types of secondary findings that could be theoretically detected during genomic research. We aimed to explore participants' preferences for the extent, nature, timing, and methods for receiving individual study results, specifically pertaining to secondary findings. Thematic content analysis was done, with a deductive approach to coding. Four themes emerged which included participants' perception of readiness to receive secondary findings, queries raised around who has access to research findings and feedback of findings consent, responsibilities of the researcher, and reasons for not wanting/wanting secondary findings. Overall, participants expressed that they want to receive feedback on secondary findings irrespective of disease severity and treatment availability. Lifestyle changes, early prevention or treatment, impact on future generations, and preparedness were strong motivations for wanting feedback on results. Participants felt that when the research involved minors, it was the parents' right to receive results on behalf of their children. This study provides new insights into participants' preferences around feedback on genomic research results and could serve as an important basis for creating guidelines and recommendations for feedback on genomic results in the African context.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

"I'm quite proud of how we've handled it": health professionals' experiences of returning additional findings from the 100,000 genomes project

Participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) could consent to receive additional finding (AF) results, individual variants relating to genes associated with susceptibility to cancer and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In the study reported here, qualitative interviews were used to explore the experiences of National Health Service (NHS) professionals from across England who were tasked with returning over 80,000 "no AF" results and 700 positive AF results to 100kGP participants. Interviews were conducted with 45 professionals from a range of backgrounds, including Genetic Counsellors, Clinical Geneticists, FH Clinical Nurse Specialists and Clinical Scientists. Interviews were analysed using a codebook thematic analysis approach. Returning AF results has been a significant endeavour, with challenges for pathways, administrative processes and clinical and laboratory time when the capacity of NHS services is already stretched. Professionals discussed going "above and beyond" to prioritise patient care through pathway design, additional clinics, overtime, longer appointments and provision of follow-up appointments. Professionals also described facing practical and emotional challenges when returning AFs. Benefits for patients from receiving AFs in the 100kGP were highlighted and professionals were generally positive about offering clinically actionable AFs within routine NHS clinical care. Professionals were, however, cautious around the implementation of AFs into routine care and felt more research and discussion was needed to determine which AFs to offer, approaches to consent and communication of results, costs and the potential strain on NHS capacity and resources. Further consultation is required with careful review of pathways and resources before offering AFs in clinical practice.

Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants

Introduction

Returning research-based genetic results (gRoR) to participants in nephrology research can improve care; however, the practice raises implementational questions and no established guidelines for this process currently exist. Nephrologists' views on this issue can inform the process but are understudied.

Methods

We developed a conceptual workflow for gRoR from literature and experience, covering aspects such as which results to return, how, and by whom. We surveyed US nephrologists to gauge their views on the workflow and anticipated barriers and collected participants' demographics, including professional backgrounds.

Results

A total of 201 adult and pediatric nephrologists completed the survey. Most of them agreed that all diagnostic kidney-related results (93%), secondary findings (80%), and kidney-related risk variants (83%) should be returned. No significant differences were found between adult and pediatric nephrologists' responses, except that 48% of adult nephrologists versus 26% of pediatric nephrologists supported returning polygenic risk scores (PRS) (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine percent wanted to know about research results before clinical confirmation. Most of them (63%) believed a genetic counselor should return clinically confirmed results. Key barriers included the cost of clinical validation (77%) and the unavailability of genetic counseling services (63%). Facilitators included educational resources on genetic kidney diseases (91%), a referral list of experts (89%), and clear clinical care guidelines (89%). We discuss findings' implications and provide "points to consider."

Conclusion

There is significant interest in gRoR among nephrologists; however, logistical and economic concerns need addressing. Identified facilitators can help large nephrology studies planning to return genetic results to participants.

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

Expectations, needs and mid-term outcomes in people accessing to secondary findings from ES: 1st French mixed study (FIND Study)

Generation and subsequently accessibility of secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a subject of debate around the world and particularly in Europe. The French FIND study has been set up to assess patient/parent expectations regarding SF from exome sequencing (ES) and to collect their real-life experience until 1 year after the delivery of results. 340 patients who had ES for undiagnosed developmental disorders were included in this multicenter mixed study (quantitative N = 340; qualitative N = 26). Three groups of actionable SF were rendered: predisposition to late-onset actionable diseases; genetic counseling; pharmacogenomics. Participants expressed strong interest in obtaining SF and a high satisfaction level when a SF is reported. The medical actionability of the SF reinforced parents' sense of taking action for their child and was seen as an opportunity. While we observed no serious psychological concerns, we showed that these results could have psychological consequences, in particular for late-onset actionable diseases SF, within families already dealing with rare diseases. This study shows that participants remain in favor of accessing SF despite the potential psychological, care, and lifestyle impacts, which are difficult to anticipate. The establishment of a management protocol, including the support of a multidisciplinary team, would be necessary if national policy allows the reporting of these data.

Spatial whole exome sequencing reveals the genetic features of highly-aggressive components in lung adenocarcinoma

In invasive lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), patients with micropapillary (MIP) or solid (SOL) components had a significantly poorer prognosis than those with only lepidic (LEP), acinar (ACI) or papillary (PAP) components. It is interesting to explore the genetic features of different histologic subtypes, especially the highly aggressive components. Based on a cohort of 5,933 patients, this study observed that in different tumor size groups, LUAD with MIP/SOL components showed a different prevalence, and patients with ALK alteration or TP53 mutations had a higher probability of developing MIP/SOL components. To control individual differences, this research used spatial whole-exome sequencing (WES) via laser-capture microdissection of five patients harboring these five coexistent components and identified genetic features among different histologic components of the same tumor. In tracing the evolution of components, we found that titin (TTN) mutation might serve as a crucial intratumor potential driver for MIP/SOL components, which was validated by a cohort of 146 LUAD patients undergoing bulk WES. Functional analysis revealed that TTN mutations enriched the complement and coagulation cascades, which correlated with the pathway of cell adhesion, migration, and proliferation. Collectively, the histologic subtypes of invasive LUAD were genetically different, and certain trunk genotypes might synergize with branching TTN mutation to develop highly aggressive components.

Additional findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: A qualitative study of recipient perspectives

PURPOSE

Participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project, a clinical/research initiative delivered through the UK National Health Service, were offered screening for "additional findings" (AFs): pathogenic/likely pathogenic secondary findings in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia or a cancer predisposition syndrome. Understanding the psychological and behavioral responses to secondary findings can inform the clinical utility of a search and disclose policy.

METHODS

Thirty-two adult AF recipients took part in semi-structured interviews analyzed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes were constructed: cognitive responses to an AF, emotional and psychological responses, personal control, perceived risk of AF-associated disease, and family implications. Many participants had misunderstood or incompletely remembered consent for AFs, and most were surprised or shocked to receive an AF. Although many ultimately appreciated knowing about the risk conferred, some struggled to make sense of their disease risk, which complicated decision making about risk management, particularly for women with a BRCA AF. Recipients sought control through seeking clinical evaluation and information, and informing relatives. Difficulties with conceptualizing risk and lack of AF-associated disease family history meant that some hesitated to inform relatives.

CONCLUSION

Genome sequencing programs offering secondary findings require attention to consent processes. Post-disclosure care should aim to promote recipients' perceived personal control.

Understanding the potential role of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in managing patients with gonorrhoea: A systematic review of WGS use on human pathogens in individual patient care

OBJECTIVES

The utility of whole genome sequencing (WGS) to inform sexually transmitted infection (STI) patient management is unclear. Timely WGS data might support clinical management of STIs by characterising epidemiological links and antimicrobial resistance profiles. We conducted a systematic review of clinical application of WGS to any human pathogen that may be transposable to gonorrhoea.

METHODS

We searched six databases for articles published between 01/01/2010-06/02/2023 that reported on real/near real-time human pathogen WGS to inform clinical intervention. All article types from all settings were included. Findings were analysed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We identified 12,179 articles, of which eight reported applications to inform tuberculosis (n = 7) and gonorrhoea (n = 1) clinical patient management. WGS data were successfully used as an adjunct to clinical and epidemiological data to enhance contact-tracing (n = 2), inform antimicrobial therapy (n = 5) and identify cross-contamination (n = 1). WGS identified gonorrhoea transmission chains that were not established via partner notification. Future applications could include insights into pathogen exposure detected within sexual networks for targeted patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

While there was some evidence of WGS use to provide individualised tuberculosis and gonorrhoea treatment, the eight identified studies contained few participants. Future research should focus on testing WGS intervention effectiveness and examining ethical considerations of STI WGS use.

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child

BACKGROUND

Counseling for whole-exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio-analysis, both before and after receiving results.

RESULTS

Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch-22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child's development is needed. Third, default opt-ins and opt-outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

Secondary (additional) findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: Disease manifestation, health care outcomes, and costs of disclosure

PURPOSE

The UK 100,000 Genomes Project offered participants screening for additional findings (AFs) in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or hereditary cancer syndromes including breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, MYH-associated polyposis, multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN), and von Hippel-Lindau. Here, we report disclosure processes, manifestation of AF-related disease, outcomes, and costs.

METHODS

An observational study in an area representing one-fifth of England.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 89 adult AF recipients. At disclosure, among 57 recipients of a cancer-predisposition-associated AF and 32 recipients of an FH-associated AF, 35% and 88%, respectively, had personal and/or family history evidence of AF-related disease. During post-disclosure investigations, 4 cancer-AF recipients had evidence of disease, including 1 medullary thyroid cancer. Six women with an HBOC AF, 3 women with a Lynch syndrome AF, and 2 individuals with a MEN AF elected for risk-reducing surgery. New hyperlipidemia diagnoses were made in 6 FH-AF recipients and treatment (re-)initiated for 7 with prior hyperlipidemia. Generating and disclosing AFs in this region cost £1.4m; £8680 per clinically significant AF.

CONCLUSION

Generation and disclosure of AFs identifies individuals with and without personal or familial evidence of disease and prompts appropriate clinical interventions. Results can inform policy toward secondary findings.

"I just wanted more": Hereditary cancer syndromes patients' perspectives on the utility of circulating tumour DNA testing for cancer screening

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) predispose individuals to a higher risk of developing multiple cancers. However, current screening strategies have limited ability to screen for all cancer risks. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detects DNA fragments shed by tumour cells in the bloodstream and can potentially detect cancers early. This study aimed to explore patients' perspectives on ctDNA's utility to help inform its clinical adoption and implementation. We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study using semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were purposively sampled adult HCS patients recruited from a Canadian HCS research consortium. Thirty HCS patients were interviewed (n = 19 women, age range 20s-70s, n = 25 were white). Participants were highly concerned about developing cancers, particularly those without reliable screening options for early detection. They "just wanted more" than their current screening strategies. Participants were enthusiastic about ctDNA's potential to be comprehensive (detect multiple cancers), predictive (detect cancers early) and tailored (lead to personalized clinical management). Participants also acknowledged ctDNA's potential limitations, including false positives/negatives risks and experiencing additional anxiety. However, they saw ctDNA's potential benefits outweighing its limitations. In conclusion, participants' belief in ctDNA's potential to improve their care overshadowed its limitations, indicating patients' support for using ctDNA in HCS care.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

The attitude and behaviors of the different spheres of the community of the United Arab Emirates toward the clinical utility and bioethics of secondary genetic findings: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Genome sequencing has utility, however, it may reveal secondary findings. While Western bioethicists have been occupied with managing secondary findings, specialists' attention in the Arabic countries has not yet been captured. We aim to explore the attitude of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population toward secondary findings.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study between July and December 2022. The validated questionnaire was administered in English. The questionnaire consists of six sections addressing topics such as demographics, reactions to hypothetical genetic test results, disclosure of mutations to family members, willingness to seek genetic testing, and attitudes toward consanguinity. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to investigate associations between categorical variables.

RESULTS

We had 343 participants of which the majority were female (67%). About four-fifths (82%) were willing to know the secondary findings, whether the condition has treatment or not. The most likely action to take among the participants was to know the secondary findings, so they can make life choices (61%).

CONCLUSION

These results can construct the framework of the bioethics of disclosing secondary findings in the Arab regions.

The penetrance of rare variants in cardiomyopathy-associated genes: A cross-sectional approach to estimating penetrance for secondary findings

Understanding the penetrance of pathogenic variants identified as secondary findings (SFs) is of paramount importance with the growing availability of genetic testing. We estimated penetrance through large-scale analyses of individuals referred for diagnostic sequencing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM; 10,400 affected individuals, 1,332 variants) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM; 2,564 affected individuals, 663 variants), using a cross-sectional approach comparing allele frequencies against reference populations (293,226 participants from UK Biobank and gnomAD). We generated updated prevalence estimates for HCM (1:543) and DCM (1:220). In aggregate, the penetrance by late adulthood of rare, pathogenic variants (23% for HCM, 35% for DCM) and likely pathogenic variants (7% for HCM, 10% for DCM) was substantial for dominant cardiomyopathy (CM). Penetrance was significantly higher for variant subgroups annotated as loss of function or ultra-rare and for males compared to females for variants in HCM-associated genes. We estimated variant-specific penetrance for 316 recurrent variants most likely to be identified as SFs (found in 51% of HCM- and 17% of DCM-affected individuals). 49 variants were observed at least ten times (14% of affected individuals) in HCM-associated genes. Median penetrance was 14.6% (±14.4% SD). We explore estimates of penetrance by age, sex, and ancestry and simulate the impact of including future cohorts. This dataset reports penetrance of individual variants at scale and will inform the management of individuals undergoing genetic screening for SFs. While most variants had low penetrance and the costs and harms of screening are unclear, some individuals with highly penetrant variants may benefit from SFs.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank

Purpose

Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.

Methods

We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.

Results

Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).

Conclusion

PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Protocol for a Prospective, Observational Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Returning Secondary Findings of Genome Sequencing for Unexplained Suspected Genetic Conditions

PURPOSE

Although costly, genome-wide sequencing (GWS) detects an extensive range of variants, enhancing our ability to diagnose and assess risk for an increasing number of diseases. In addition to detecting variants related to the indication for testing, GWS can detect secondary variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other genes for which early intervention may improve health. As the list of secondary findings grows, there is increased demand for surveillance and management by multiple specialists, adding pressure to constrained health care budgets. Secondary finding testing is actively debated because some consider it opportunistic screening for future health risks that may not manifest. Given the economic implications of secondary finding testing and follow-up and its unproven clinical utility, the objective is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of secondary finding ascertainment per case detected and per unit of improved clinical utility in families of children with unexplained suspected genetic conditions undergoing clinical GWS.

METHODS

Those undergoing trio genome or exome sequencing are eligible for the study. Positive secondary finding index cases will be matched to negative controls (1:2) based on age group, primary result(s) type, and clinical indication. During the 2-year study, 71 cases and 142 matched controls are expected. Health service use will be collected in patients and 1 adult family member every 6 months. The per-child and per-dyad total cost will be determined by multiplying use of each resource by a corresponding unit price and summing all cost items. Costs will be estimated from the public and societal payer perspectives. The mean cost per child and per dyad for secondary finding-positive and secondary finding-negative groups will be compared statistically. If important demographic differences are observed between groups, ordinary least-squares regression, log transformation, or other nonparametric technique will be used to compare adjusted mean costs. The ratio of the difference in mean cost to the secondary finding yield will be used to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness. In secondary analyses, effectiveness will be estimated using the number of clinical management changes due to secondary findings or the Clinician-Reported Genetic Testing Utility Index (C-GUIDE) score, a validated measure of clinical utility. Sensitivity analysis will be undertaken to assess the robustness of the findings to variation in key parameters.

IMPLICATIONS

This study generates key evidence to inform clinical practice and funding allocation related to secondary finding testing. The inclusion of family members and a new measure of clinical utility represent important advancements in economic evaluation in genomics.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population

OBJECTIVES

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure.

METHODS

We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Noncancer-related Secondary Findings in a Cohort of 231 Children With Cancer and Their Parents

Application of next-generation sequencing may lead to the detection of secondary findings (SF) not related to the initially analyzed disease but to other severe medically actionable diseases. However, the analysis of SFs is not yet routinely performed. We mined whole-exome sequencing data of 231 pediatric cancer patients and their parents who had been treated in our center for the presence of SFs. By this approach, we identified in 6 children (2.6%) pathogenic germline variants in 5 of the noncancer-related genes on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) SF v3.0 list, of which the majority were related to cardiovascular diseases ( RYR2 , MYBPC3 , KCNQ1 ). Interestingly, only the patient harboring the KCNQ1 variant showed at the time point of the analysis signs of the related Long QT syndrome. Moreover, we report 3 variants of unknown significance which, although not classified as pathogenic, have been reported in the literature to occur in individuals with the respective disease. While the frequency of patients with SFs is low, the impact of such findings on the patients' life is enormous, with regard to the potential prevention of life-threatening diseases. Hence, we are convinced that such actionable SF should be routinely analyzed.

How Clinicians Conceptualize "Actionability" in Genomic Screening

Over the last decade, the concept of actionability has become a primary framework for assessing whether genetic data is useful and appropriate to return to patients. Despite the popularity of this concept, there is little consensus about what should count as "actionable" information. This is particularly true in population genomic screening, where there is considerable disagreement about what counts as good evidence and which clinical actions are appropriate for which patients. The pathway from scientific evidence to clinical action is not straightforward-it is as much social and political as it is scientific. This research explores the social dynamics shaping the integration of "actionable" genomic data into primary care settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with 35 genetics experts and primary care providers, we find that clinicians vary in how they define and operationalize "actionable" information. There are two main sources of disagreement. First, clinicians differ on the levels and types of evidence required for a result to be actionable, such as when we can be confident that genomic data provides accurate information. Second, there are disagreements about the clinical actions that must be available so that patients can benefit from that information. By highlighting the underlying values and assumptions embedded in discussions of actionability for genomic screening, we provide an empirical basis for building more nuanced policies regarding the actionability of genomic data in terms of population screening in primary care settings.

Donor and non-donor perspectives on receiving information from routine genomic testing of donor blood

BACKGROUND

Genomic testing is already used by blood collection agencies (BCAs) to identify rare blood types and ensure the best possible matching of blood. With ongoing technological developments, broader applications, such as the identification of genetic markers relevant to blood donor health, will become feasible. However, the perspectives of blood donors (and potential blood donors) on routine genomic testing of donor blood are under-researched.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Eight online Focus Groups were conducted: four with donors and four with non-donors. Participants were presented with three hypothetical scenarios about the current and possible future applications of genomic testing: Performing rare blood type testing; identifying donors with genetic markers associated with iron metabolism; and identifying donors with genetic markers associated with bowel cancer.

RESULTS

Testing to identify rare blood types was perceived to be an appropriate application for the BCA to undertake, while identifying markers associated with iron metabolism and cancer genetic markers were only partially supported. Participants raised concerns about the boundaries of acceptable testing and the implications of testing for privacy, data security, and health insurance. Perspectives of donors and non-donors on all scenarios were similar.

DISCUSSION

The principles of who benefits from genomic testing and the perceived role of BCAs were key in shaping participants' perspectives. Participants generally agreed that testing should be directly related to blood donation or be of benefit to the recipient or donor. Findings indicate that consent and communication are key to the acceptability of current and expanded genomic testing.

Reporting clinically relevant genetic variants unrelated to genomic test requests: a survey of Australian clinical laboratory policies and practices

Approaches to reporting clinically important genetic findings unrelated to the initial test request vary internationally. We sought to investigate practices regarding the management and return of these findings in Australia. Australian clinically accredited genetic testing laboratories were surveyed in 2017 and 2020 regarding their opinions on issues relating to the return of clinically important genetic findings unrelated to the initial test request. Responses were collated and analysed for 15 laboratories in 2017, and 17 laboratories in 2020. Content analysis was also performed on seven laboratory policies in 2020. Analysis showed that overall there was a lack of consensus about the terminology used to describe such findings and reporting practices across different testing contexts. A clear exception was that no laboratories were actively searching for a list of medically actionable genes (eg, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics secondary findings gene list). Laboratory policies showed little consistency in the documentation of issues related to the handling of these findings. These findings indicate a need for Australian-specific policy guidance that covers all aspects of clinically important genetic findings unrelated to the initial test request. We present recommendations for consideration when developing laboratory policies.

Heath policy guiding the identification, analysis and management of secondary findings for individuals undergoing genomic sequencing: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing is increasingly enabling precision care across medical specialties; however, the discovery of genomic 'secondary findings' (SFs) unrelated to the patient's primary indication remains a profuse, unintended consequence. Existing practices within the continuum of SF identification, analysis and management are numerous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory across health conditions and regions. Final decisions are often at the discretion of the genomic sequencing laboratory, bioinformatician or treating physician. This difference in healthcare delivery causes inconsistent information, disclosure and downstream impacts required to manage SFs and patient outcomes. Improving our understanding of the SF health policy landscape can determine components of the SF policy continuum spanning generation through to management that are in conflict, limitations of current guidance and existing needs across clinical settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will carry out a systematic review to catalogue and appraise current guidance directing the identification, analysis and management of SFs for participants receiving genomic sequencing globally. We will conduct a comprehensive search of Medline (Medline R, Medline Epub Ahead of Print and Medline-In-Process & In-Data-Review Citations), Embase and Cochrane databases (n=5, inception to Feb 2022) and a grey literature search of international genomics websites (n=64; inception to May 2022). Key inclusion criteria include: guidance produced by health organisations, bioethics committees and professional associations, outlining recommendations for: (1) SF identification, (2) SF analysis or (3) SF management. Non-English language articles and conference abstracts will be excluded. Guidance will be critically appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument (AGREE) II tool. We will interpret our findings by process and across populations using a qualitative descriptive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our systematic review evaluates published data and does not require ethics review. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and workshops with precision medicine stakeholders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316079.

Expectations, concerns, and attitudes regarding whole-genome sequencing studies: a survey of cancer patients, families, and the public in Japan

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is being used in research and clinical settings in cancer genomics. Studies show that cancer patients generally have positive attitudes toward tumor profiling tests; however, few works revealed their attitudes toward WGS. This study clarifies the expectations, concerns, and result preferences of cancer patients (CPs), family members (FMs) and general adults (GAs) regarding WGS study in Japan. We conducted an anonymous survey with 1204 CPs, 5968 FMs, and 2915 GAs in 2021. Despite low awareness of the WGS studies, CPs had the highest expectations for it. FMs had a higher level of concern than CPs and GAs; feeling anxious by knowing the results, being treated unfavorably if germline findings were detected. Both the FMs and CPs were highly concerned about the protection of genetic information. CPs preferred results with actionability, however, only half preferred to know germline findings. Given the possibility of detecting variants across multidisciplinary diseases and the long-term continuity of WGS research, a system is needed in which study participants can consult and receive decision-making support at any time according to their needs.

Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next‐generation sequencing: “A great technology creating new dilemmas”

Unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic genetic testing are a subject of debate. The emerging consensus is that some UFs from genetic testing should be disclosed, but recommendations on UF disclosure generally leave room for variation in practice. This study aimed to explore clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with UFs during pretest counseling and UF disclosure. We interviewed 20 certified clinical genetics medical specialists and clinical genetics residents, working in 7 Dutch genetic centers. Participants indicated that discussing the probability of detecting UFs is an integral part of pretest counseling and informed consent. However, they expressed doubts about the degree to which this discussion should occur and about what information they should share with patients. They argued that the contents of their counseling should depend on the individual patient's capacity to understand information. These results endorse the importance of tailored pretest counseling alongside informed consent for optimal genetic consultations. While "medical actionability" is broadly accepted as an important criterion for the disclosure of UFs, participants experienced substantial uncertainty regarding this concept. This study underscores the need for further demarcation of what exactly constitutes medical actionability. Installation of an expert panel to help healthcare professionals decide what variants to disclose will support them when facing the dilemmas presented by UFs.

Parents' experiences with large-scale sequencing for genetic predisposition in pediatric renal cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

In pediatric oncology, large-scale genetic sequencing contributes to the identification of cancer predisposition, which can facilitate surveillance and family counseling. Our qualitative study explores families' motives, knowledge, and views regarding germline genetic sequencing to improve future counseling and support.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children with renal tumors participating in a national center, germline sequencing study. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used. Twenty nine parents participated, 17 mothers and 12 fathers. The median age of the affected children was 4 years.

RESULTS

Parents were generally positive about sequencing and reported a combination of individual and altruistic motives to participate. Some families counseled about sequencing shortly after cancer diagnosis felt overwhelmed. Many parents had difficulties distinguishing between panel and exome-wide analysis. Families in which no predisposition was identified felt reassured. Most families did not experience distress after a predisposition was disclosed, although sometimes stress following disclosure of a predisposition added to pre-existing (cancer-related) stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though families reported positive experiences with germline genetic sequencing to detect cancer predisposition, timing of consent for sequencing as well as parents' understanding of genetic concepts can be further improved.

Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

My Research Results: a program to facilitate return of clinically actionable genomic research findings

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

Cancer Diagnoses Following Abnormal Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Case Series, Literature Review, and Proposed Management Model

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a screening test for fetal chromosomal aneuploidy using cell-free DNA derived from maternal blood. It has been rapidly accepted into obstetric practice because of its application from 10-weeks' gestation, and its high sensitivity and specificity. NIPT results can be influenced by several factors including placental or maternal mosaicism and co-twin demise; cell-free DNA from a maternal origin can also complicate interpretation, with evidence that NIPT can detect previously unsuspected malignancies. This study aimed to develop management guidelines for women with NIPT results suspicious of maternal malignancy. The Peter MacCallum Cancer Center's experience of seven cases where abnormal NIPT results led to investigation for maternal malignancy between 2016 and 2019 were reviewed, along with the published literature. Six of the seven women (86%) referred for investigation were diagnosed with advanced malignancies, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Based on our single-center experience, as well as the available literature, guidelines for the investigation of women with NIPT results suspicious of malignancy are proposed, including utilization of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, which had a high concordance with other investigations and diagnoses. These guidelines include maternal and fetal investigations, as well as consideration of the complex medical, psychologic, social, and ethical needs of these patients and their families.

"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.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research

A rapidly growing proportion of health research uses 'secondary data': data used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected. Do researchers using secondary data have an obligation to disclose individual research findings to participants? While the importance of this question has been duly recognised in the context of primary research (ie, where data are collected from participants directly), it remains largely unexamined in the context of research using secondary data. In this paper, we critically examine the arguments for a moral obligation to disclose individual research findings in the context of primary research, to determine if they can be applied to secondary research. We conclude that they cannot. We then propose that the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is what gives rise to particular moral obligations, including the obligation to disclose individual results. We argue that the relationship between researchers and participants in secondary research does not generate an obligation to disclose. However, we also argue that the biobanks or data archives which collect and provide access to secondary data may have such an obligation, depending on the nature of the relationship they establish with participants.

Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.

Revisiting Secondary Information Related to Pharmacogenetic Testing

Incidental or secondary findings have been a major part of the discussion of genomic medicine research and clinical applications. For pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, secondary findings arise due to the pleiotropic effects of pharmacogenes, often related to their endogenous functions. Unlike the guidelines that have been developed for whole exome or genome sequencing applications for management of secondary findings (though slightly different from PGx testing in that these refer to detection of variants in multiple genes, some with clinical significance and actionability), no corresponding guidelines have been developed for PGx clinical laboratories. Nonetheless, patient and provider education will remain key components of any PGx testing program to minimize adverse responses related to secondary findings.

Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

Incorporating genetic counseling into the evaluation of pediatric bone marrow failure

The timely identification of germline genetic causes of pediatric bone marrow failure (BMF) impacts medical screening practices, family counseling, therapeutic decision-making, and risk of progression to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). At diagnosis, treatment decisions need to be made quickly to mitigate risks associated with profound cytopenias. As genetic testing options are rapidly evolving, an efficient multi-disciplinary approach and algorithm, including early involvement of a genetics team, is needed to expedite diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making. This process aids in the identification of appropriate candidates for molecular genetic testing. We present our single center experience reviewing the implementation of genetic counseling and a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm used to guide genetic evaluation of pediatric BMF. Disease-specific next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels were most often pursued in patients who presented with a clinical phenotype consistent with a known inherited BMF syndrome and when trying to reduce incidental or uninformative results. Broader BMF NGS panels were most often utilized when unable to narrow the suspected etiology to a single disorder. Whole exome sequencing helped with optimizing treatment decision-making in higher risk children with BMF who required expedited hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The experience has led to improvements to our process for evaluating patients with BMF.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings

Purpose:

Secondary findings (SF) are present in 1–4% of individuals undergoing genome/exome sequencing. A review of how SF are disclosed and what outcomes result from their receipt is urgent and timely.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of SF disclosure practices and outcomes after receipt including cascade testing, family and provider communication, and healthcare actions. Of the 1,184 non-duplicate records screened we summarize findings from 27 included research articles describing SF disclosure practices, outcomes after receipt, or both.

Results:

The included articles reported 709 unique SF index recipients/families. Referrals and/or recommendations were provided 647 SF recipients and outcome data were available for 236. At least one recommended evaluation was reported for 146 SF recipients; 16 reports of treatment or prophylactic surgery were identified. We found substantial variations in how the constructs of interest were defined and described.

Conclusion:

Variation in how SF disclosure and outcomes were described limited our ability to compare findings. We conclude the literature provided limited insight into how the ACMG guidelines have been translated into precision health outcomes for SF recipients. Robust studies of SF recipients are needed and should be prioritized for future research.

A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings

Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients’ interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients’ needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient’s lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient’s family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information’s family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients’ lived illness experiences and family context.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.