Stakeholder Opinions And Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure Of Incidental Findings In MRI Research

Factors associated with attitudes toward research MRI in older Asian Americans

INTRODUCTION

South Asian (SA) and East Asian (EA) older adults represent the fastest-growing racial/ethnic groups of Americans at risk for dementia. While recruiting older SA adults into a brain health study, we encountered unexpected hesitancy toward structural brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis and stigmatizing attitudes related to internal locus of control (LoC) for future dementia risks. We hypothesized that support for MRI-related research was influenced by these attitudes as well as personal MRI experience, perceived MRI safety, and concerns for personal risk for future dementia/stroke.

METHODS

We developed a brief cross-sectional survey to assess older adults' MRI experiences and perceptions, desire to learn of six incidental findings of increasing impact on health, and attitudes related to dementia (including LoC) and research participation. We recruited a convenience sample of 256 respondents (74% reporting as 50+) from the New Jersey/New York City area to complete the survey (offered in English, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish) and modeled the proportional odds (PO) for favorable attitudes toward research activities.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven SA and 84 EA respondents were analyzed alongside 95 White, Black, or Hispanic adults. White (PO = 2.54, p = 0.013) and EA (PO = 2.14, p = 0.019) respondents were both more likely than SA respondents to endorse healthy volunteers' participation in research, and the difference between White and SA respondents was mediated by the latter's greater internal LoC for dementia risks. EA respondents had more worries for future dementia/stroke than SA respondents (p = 0.006) but still shared SA respondents' lower wish (measured by proportion of total) to learn of incidental MRI findings.

DISCUSSION

SA-and EA compared to SA-older adults had low desire to learn of incidental MRI findings but had different attitudes toward future dementia/stroke risks. A culturally appropriate protocol to disclose incidental MRI findings may improve SA and EA participation in brain health research.

Highlights

Older Asian Americans have limited interest in incidental findings on research MRISouth Asians are most likely to attribute dementia to people's own behaviorsSouth Asians' attitudes mediate lower support for healthy volunteers in researchSouth and East Asians differ in dementia worries and research-related attitudes.

Too much information? Asian Americans' preferences for incidental brain MRI findings

INTRODUCTION

South Asian (SA) and East Asian (EA) older adults represent the fastest growing group of Americans at risk for dementia, but their participation in aging and dementia research has been limited. While recruiting healthy SA older adults into a brain health study, we encountered unexpected hesitancy towards structural brain MRI analysis along with some stigmatizing attitudes related to internal locus of control (LoC) for future dementia risks. We hypothesized that support for MRI-related research was influenced by these attitudes as well as one's own MRI experience, perceived MRI safety, and concerns for one's own risks for future dementia/stroke.

METHODS

We developed a brief cross-sectional survey to assess older adults' MRI experiences and perceptions, desire to learn of six incidental findings of increasing health implications, and attitudes related to dementia as well as research participation. We recruited a convenience sample of 256 respondents (74% reporting as 50+) from the New Jersey/New York City area to complete the survey, and modeled the proportional odds (P.O.) for pro-research attitudes.

RESULTS

77 SA and 84 EA respondents were analyzed with 95 non-Asian adults. White (P.O.=2.54, p=0.013) and EA (P.O.=2.14, p=0.019) respondents were both more likely than SA respondents to endorse healthy volunteers' participation in research, and the difference between White and SA respondents was mediated by the latter's greater internal LoC for dementia risks. EA respondents had more worries for future dementia/stroke than SA respondents (p=0.006), but still shared SA respondents' low desire to learn of incidental MRI findings.

DISCUSSION

SA and EA older adults had different attitudes towards future dementia/stroke risks, but shared a low desire to learn of incidental MRI findings. A culturally-appropriate protocol to disclose incidental MRI findings may improve SA and EA participation in brain health research.

To have and to hold: An exploratory qualitative study exploring why research participants with treatment-resistant depression undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment requested copies of their research brain MRI scans

PURPOSE

There has been little research providing an in-depth exploration of the reasons behind research participants, particularly in mental health settings, requesting copies of their research data, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. BRIGhTMIND is a large double blind randomised controlled trial using functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging to create personalised targets for transcranial magnetic stimulation delivery, and a number of trial participants requested copies of these scans.

METHODS

Seven participants involved in the BRIGhTMIND trial completed semi-structured interviews exploring their reasons behind their request for copies of their MRI scans. The qualitative data was co-analysed between researchers and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The interviews produced consistent themes concerning curiosity to visualise their MRI scans, and the hope that their participation would result in a better understanding of the nature and future treatment of depression. Concerns around the rights to access their own personal health data emerged as a clear theme as did their own ability to interpret any radiological information.

DISCUSSION

This study provides insight into the reasons why research participants with depression would like to retain copies of their MRI scans and the perceived role that such techniques may have for improving research and neuromodulation treatments in depression. Such first-hand experiential accounts emphasises the importance of listening to participants perspectives and lived experience, in order to improve research and health outcomes. Future research could aim to provide greater verbal and written information for participants, including details about the accessibility to their MRI scans, the difference between research and clinical MRI scans, and educational materials to help with the interpretation of MRI images.

The impact of reporting magnetic resonance imaging incidental findings in the Canadian alliance for healthy hearts and minds cohort

BACKGROUND

In the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, heart, and abdomen, that generated incidental findings (IFs). The approach to managing these unexpected results remain a complex issue. Our objectives were to describe the CAHHM policy for the management of IFs, to understand the impact of disclosing IFs to healthy research participants, and to reflect on the ethical obligations of researchers in future MRI studies.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2019, 8252 participants (mean age 58 ± 9 years, 54% women) were recruited with a follow-up questionnaire administered to 909 participants (40% response rate) at 1-year. The CAHHM policy followed a restricted approach, whereby routine feedback on IFs was not provided. Only IFs of severe structural abnormalities were reported.

RESULTS

Severe structural abnormalities occurred in 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.7-8.9%) of participants, with the highest proportions found in the brain (4.2%) and abdomen (3.1%). The majority of participants (97%) informed of an IF reported no change in quality of life, with 3% of participants reporting that the knowledge of an IF negatively impacted their quality of life. Furthermore, 50% reported increased stress in learning about an IF, and in 95%, the discovery of an IF did not adversely impact his/her life insurance policy. Most participants (90%) would enrol in the study again and perceived the MRI scan to be beneficial, regardless of whether they were informed of IFs. While the implications of a restricted approach to IF management was perceived to be mostly positive, a degree of diagnostic misconception was present amongst participants, indicating the importance of a more thorough consent process to support participant autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The management of IFs from research MRI scans remain a challenging issue, as participants may experience stress and a reduced quality of life when IFs are disclosed. The restricted approach to IF management in CAHHM demonstrated a fair fulfillment of the overarching ethical principles of respect for autonomy, concern for wellbeing, and justice. The approach outlined in the CAHHM policy may serve as a framework for future research studies. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02220582 .

A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research

Neuroimaging research regularly yields "incidental findings": observations of potential clinical significance in healthy volunteers or patients, but which are unrelated to the purpose or variables of the study.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03597165.

Biomedical ethics and clinical oversight in multisite observational neuroimaging studies with children and adolescents: The ABCD experience

Observational neuroimaging studies with children and adolescents may identify neurological anomalies and other clinically relevant findings. Planning for the management of this information involves ethical considerations that may influence informed consent, confidentiality, and communication with participants about assessment results. Biomedical ethics principles include respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Each project presents unique challenges. The Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study (ABCD) collaborators have systematically developed recommendations with written guidelines for identifying and responding to potential risks that adhere to biomedical ethics principles. To illustrate, we will review the ABCD approach to three areas: (1) hazardous substance use; (2) neurological anomalies; and (3) imminent potential for self-harm or harm to others. Each ABCD site is responsible for implementing procedures consistent with these guidelines in accordance with their Institutional Review Board approved protocols, state regulations, and local resources. To assure that each site has related plans and resources in place, site emergency procedures manuals have been developed, documented and reviewed for adherence to ABCD guidelines. This article will describe the principles and process used to develop these ABCD bioethics and medical oversight guidelines, the concerns and options considered, and the resulting approaches advised to sites.

Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: Review and multi-institutional study

BACKGROUND

Brain imaging studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sometimes reveal incidental findings (IFs) that might be relevant to some of the health issues in research participants. Although professional communities have discussed how to manage these IFs, there is no global consensus on the concrete handling procedures including how to inform participants of IFs.

METHODS

First, this study reviewed previous studies for the number of IFs discovered in brain imaging studies using MEDLINE. Second, a multi-institutional study determined the number of IF discoveries and evaluated the method of informing participants at multiple institutions, which participated in a national brain science project in Japan.

RESULTS

Both the review and multi-institutional study showed that IFs with a high urgency level were discovered in 0-2.0% of participants, including healthy volunteers, and that the rate of IF discovery in general was higher in studies conducted in elderly population. Moreover, multi-institutional study suggested the criteria used to judge whether or not to inform participants of IFs may differ by institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in order to ensure informing the participants of high urgency IFs, physicians who are capable of interpreting brain images clinically should review all brain images, and the establishment of a support system is required for brain imaging studies at nonmedical institutions. Since the method of informing participants of IFs might affect their understanding and acceptance of IFs, which are related to managing risks of false "clean bill of health" or psychological impacts of informing IFs, further research focusing on communication of IFs is needed.

A Social Constructivism Decision-Making Approach to Managing Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a powerful tool used in cognitive neuroscientific research. fMRI is noninvasive, safe, and relatively accessible, making it an ideal method to draw inferences about the brain-behavior relationship. When conducting fMRI research, scientists must consider risks associated with brain imaging. In particular, the risk of potentially identifying an abnormal brain finding in an fMRI research scan poses a complex problem that researchers should be prepared to address. This article illustrates how a social constructivism decision-making model can be used as a framework to guide researchers as they develop protocols to address this issue.

Ethical framework for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging studies, building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives

BACKGROUND

As thousands of healthy research participants are being included in small and large imaging studies, it is essential that dilemmas raised by the detection of incidental findings are adequately handled. Current ethical guidance indicates that pathways for dealing with incidental findings should be in place, but does not specify what such pathways should look like. Building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives, we identified key considerations for the set-up of pathways for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging research.

METHODS

We conducted an interview study with a purposive sample of researchers (n = 20) at research facilities across the Netherlands. Based on a qualitative analysis of these interviews and on existing guidelines found in the literature, we developed a prototype ethical framework, which was critically assessed and fine-tuned during a two-day international expert meeting with bioethicists and representatives from large population-based imaging studies from the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Belgium (n = 14).

RESULTS

Practices and policies for the handling of incidental findings vary strongly across the Netherlands, ranging from no review of research scans and limited feedback to research participants, to routine review of scans and the arrangement of clinical follow-up. Respondents felt that researchers do not have a duty to actively look for incidental findings, but they do have a duty to act on findings, when detected. The principle of reciprocity featured prominently in our interviews and expert meeting.

CONCLUSION

We present an ethical framework that may guide researchers and research ethics committees in the design and/or evaluation of appropriate pathways for the handling of incidental findings in imaging studies. The framework consists of seven steps: anticipation of findings, information provision and informed consent, scan acquisition, review of scans, consultation on detected abnormalities, communication of the finding, and further clinical management and follow-up of the research participant. Each of these steps represents a key decision to be made by researchers, which should be justified not only with reference to costs and/or logistical considerations, but also with reference to researchers' moral obligations and the principle of reciprocity.

Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: a qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges

Background

Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants’ health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF.

Methods

We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined.

Results

Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1–100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings.

Conclusions

The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants’ health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

Evolution of universal review and disclosure of MRI reports to research participants

BACKGROUND

Although incidental findings (IF) are commonly encountered in neuroimaging research, there is no consensus regarding what to do with them. Whether researchers are obligated to review scans for IF, or if such findings should be disclosed to research participants at all, is controversial. Objective data are required to inform reasonable research policy; unfortunately, such data are lacking in the published literature. This manuscript summarizes the development of a radiology review and disclosure system in place at a neuroimaging research institute and its impact on key stakeholders.

METHODS

The evolution of a universal radiology review system is described, from inception to its current status. Financial information is reviewed, and stakeholder impact is characterized through surveys and interviews.

RESULTS

Consistent with prior reports, 34% of research participants had an incidental finding identified, of which 2.5% required urgent medical attention. A total of 87% of research participants wanted their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results regardless of clinical significance and 91% considered getting an MRI report a benefit of study participation. A total of 63% of participants who were encouraged to see a doctor about their incidental finding actually followed up with a physician. Reasons provided for not following-up included already knowing the finding existed (14%), not being able to afford seeing a physician (29%), or being reassured after speaking with the institute's Medical Director (43%). Of those participants who followed the recommendation to see a physician, nine (38%) required further diagnostic testing. No participants, including those who pursued further testing, regretted receiving their MRI report, although two participants expressed concern about the excessive personal cost. The current cost of the radiology review system is about $23 per scan.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to provide universal radiology review of research scans through a system that is cost-effective, minimizes investigator burden, and does not overwhelm local healthcare resources.