Managing incidental findings: lessons from neuroimaging

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.

Incidental Findings Among Youth Participating in Multimodal Imaging Research: Characteristics of Findings and Description of a Management Approach

Research imaging in healthy and clinical youth populations yields incidental findings that require a management strategy. Our primary objective was to document the frequency and nature of incidental findings within a research group integrating multiple imaging modalities. A second objective was to describe the evolution of an approach to handling incidental findings. A case example was included to display the intricacies of some of these scenarios. Youth, ages 13-20 years, with bipolar disorder, familial risk for bipolar disorder, or healthy controls, obtained one or a combination of neuroimaging, cardio-thoracic imaging, retinal imaging, and carotid imaging. All images were systematically reviewed for incidental findings. Overall, of 223 participants (n = 102 healthy controls), 59% (n = 131) had a brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) incidental finding and 27% (n = 60) had at least one incidental brain finding requiring non-urgent follow-up. In addition, of 109 participants with chest/cardiac MRI and carotid ultrasound, 3% (n = 3) had chest findings, 2% (n = 2) had cardiac findings, and 1% (n = 1) had a carotid finding. Of 165 youth with retinal imaging, 1% (n = 2) had incidental findings. While the vast majority of these incidental findings were of a non-serious, non-urgent nature, there were noteworthy exceptions. Imaging research groups need a system that emphasizes the value of clinical review of research images and one that is collaborative and responsive in order to inform follow-up plans. Rating systems that have been developed and used in neuroimaging for the classification of incidental findings can be adapted for use in areas other than the brain. Regardless of severity, incidental findings may raise anxiety in youth participants and their parents. The optimal threshold is one that balances transparency with utility.

Emerging ethical issues raised by highly portable MRI research in remote and resource-limited international settings

Smaller, more affordable, and more portable MRI brain scanners offer exciting opportunities to address unmet research needs and long-standing health inequities in remote and resource-limited international settings. Field-based neuroimaging research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can improve local capacity to conduct both structural and functional neuroscience studies, expand knowledge of brain injury and neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders, and ultimately improve the timeliness and quality of clinical diagnosis and treatment around the globe. Facilitating MRI research in remote settings can also diversify reference databases in neuroscience, improve understanding of brain development and degeneration across the lifespan in diverse populations, and help to create reliable measurements of infant and child development. These deeper understandings can lead to new strategies for collaborating with communities to mitigate and hopefully overcome challenges that negatively impact brain development and quality of life. Despite the potential importance of research using highly portable MRI in remote and resource-limited settings, there is little analysis of the attendant ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI). To begin addressing this gap, this paper presents findings from the first phase of an envisioned multi-staged and iterative approach for creating ethical and legal guidance in a complex global landscape. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to the emerging technology for field-based MRI research. Section 2 presents our methodology for generating plausible use cases for MRI research in remote and resource-limited settings and identifying associated ELSI issues. Section 3 analyzes core ELSI issues in designing and conducting field-based MRI research in remote, resource-limited settings and offers recommendations. We argue that a guiding principle for field-based MRI research in these contexts should be including local communities and research participants throughout the research process in order to create sustained local value. Section 4 presents a recommended path for the next phase of work that could further adapt these use cases, address ethical and legal issues, and co-develop guidance in partnership with local communities.

Prevalence, Severity, and Clinical Management of Brain Incidental Findings in Healthy Young Adults: MRi-Share Cross-Sectional Study

Background and Objectives: Young adults represent an increasingly large proportion of healthy volunteers in brain imaging research, but descriptions of incidental findings (IFs) in this age group are scarce. We aimed to assess the prevalence and severity of IFs on brain MRIs of healthy young research participants aged 18-35 years, and to describe the protocol implemented to handle them. Methods: The study population comprised 1,867 participants aged 22.1 ± 2.3 years (72% women) from MRi-Share, the cross-sectional brain MRI substudy of the i-Share student cohort. IFs were flagged during the MRI quality control. We estimated the proportion of participants with IFs [any, requiring medical referral, potentially serious (PSIFs) as defined in the UK biobank]: overall, by type and severity of the final diagnosis, as well as the number of IFs. Results: 78/1,867 participants had at least one IF [4.2%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.4-5.2%]. IFs requiring medical referral (n = 38) were observed in 36/1,867 participants (1.9%, 1.4-2.7%), and represented 47.5% of the 80 IFs initially flagged. Referred IFs were retrospectively classified as PSIFs in 25/1,867 participants (1.3%, 0.9-2.0%), accounting for 68.4% of anomalies referred (26/38). The most common final diagnosis was cysts or ventricular abnormalities in all participants (9/1,867; 0.5%, 0.2-0.9%) and in those with referred IFs (9/36; 25.0%, 13.6-41.3%), while it was multiple sclerosis or radiologically isolated syndrome in participants with PSIFs (5/19; 26.3%, 11.5-49.1%) who represented 0.1% (0.0-0.4%) and 0.2% (0.03-0.5%) of all participants, respectively. Final diagnoses were considered serious in 11/1,867 participants (0.6%, 0.3-1.1%). Among participants with referred IFs, 13.9% (5/36) required active intervention, while 50.0% (18/36) were put on clinical surveillance. Conclusions: In a large brain imaging study of young healthy adults participating in research we observed a non-negligible frequency of IFs. The etiological pattern differed from what has been described in older adults.

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.

Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know--that is not the question

BACKGROUND

Although the "right not to know" is well established in international regulations, it has been heavily debated. Ubiquitous results from extended exome and genome analysis have challenged the right not to know. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Recommendations urge to inform about incidental findings that pretend to be accurate and actionable. However, ample clinical cases raise the question whether these criteria are met. Many incidental findings are of uncertain significance (IFUS). The eager to feedback information appears to enter the field of IFUS and thereby threaten the right not to know. This makes it imperative to investigate the arguments for and against a right not to know for IFUS.

DISCUSSION

This article investigates how the various arguments for and against a right not to know hold for IFUS. The main investigated arguments are: hypothetical utilitarianism, the right-based argument, the feasibility argument, the value of knowledge argument, the argument from lost significance, the empirical argument, the duty to disclose argument, the avoiding harm argument; the argument from principle, from autonomy, from privacy, as well as the argument from the right to an open future. The analysis shows that both sides in the debate have exaggerated the importance of incidental findings. Opponents of a right not to know have exaggerated the importance of IFUS, while proponents have exaggerated the need to be protected from something that is not knowledge. Hence, to know or not to know is not the question. The question is whether we should be able to stay ignorant of incidental findings of uncertain significance, if we want to. The answer is yes: As long as the information is not accurate and/or actionable: ignorance is bliss. When answering questions that are not asked, we need to think twice.

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

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

Research findings with clinical implications

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

Neuroethical issues in clinical neuroscience research

In this chapter, we use the special features of neuroimaging to illustrate research ethics issues for the clinical neurologic sciences, and focus on one particularly compelling case: studies involving first-episode schizophrenic treatment-naïve individuals (FESTNIs) (Eijkholt et al., 2012). FESTNIs are scanned prior to the administration of medication in order to control for the confounding effects of treatment. By concentrating on this program of research, we capture the distinctive ethical challenges associated with neuroimaging research overall, and foreground the issues particular to neuroimaging research involving FESTNIs that have yet to receive sufficient attention in the literature. We highlight assessment of risks and burdens, including risks associated with treatment delays and incidental findings; assessment of benefit, including direct benefit, social value, and scientific quality; subject selection; justice questions related to responsiveness and poststudy access; and, finally, issues related to consent and capacity.