Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research

Public Attitude towards Biobanking: An Italian University Survey

Biobanks have established a critical role in biomedical research by collecting, preserving, organizing, and disseminating biospecimens and related health data, contributing to precision medicine development. Participation in biobanks is influenced by several factors, such as trust in institutions and scientists, knowledge about biobanking, and the consideration of benefit sharing. Understanding public attitudes, fears, and concerns toward biobanking is fundamental to designing targeted interventions to increase trust towards biobanks. The aim of our study was to investigate the level of knowledge and perception of biobanks in students and personnel of the University of Piemonte Orientale. An online questionnaire was designed and administered via e-mail. A total of 17,758 UPO personnel and students were invited to participate in the survey, and 1521 (9.3%) subjects completed the survey. The results showed that 65.0% of the participants were aware of the term "biobank" and knew what the activity of a biobank was, and 76.3% of subjects were willing to provide biospecimens to a research biobank, whereas 67.3% of the respondents were willing to contribute, in addition to biospecimens, their health and lifestyle data. Concerns were raised about the confidentiality of the information (25.6%) and the commercial use of the samples (25.0%). In conclusion, participants were aware of the role that biobanks play in research and were eager to participate for the sake of furthering scientific research. Still, several concerns need to be addressed regarding the confidentiality of the data along with the commercial use of the samples and associated data.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance

Biobanks act as the custodians for the access to and  responsible use of human biological samples and related data that have been generously donated by individuals to serve the public interest and scientific advances in the health research realm. Risk assessment has become a daily practice for biobanks and has been discussed from different perspectives. This paper aims to provide a literature review on risk assessment in order to put together a comprehensive typology of diverse risks biobanks could potentially face. Methodologically set as a typology, the conceptual approach used in this paper is based on the interdisciplinary analysis of scientific literature, the relevant ethical and legal instruments and practices in biobanking to identify how risks are assessed, considered and mitigated. Through an interdisciplinary mapping exercise, we have produced a typology of potential risks in biobanking, taking into consideration the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as institutional actors and publics, including participants and representative organizations. With this approach, we have identified the following risk types: economic, infrastructural, institutional, research community risks and participant's risks. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity of an adaptive risk governance as an integral part of good governance in biobanking. In this regard, it contributes to sustainability in biobanking by assisting in the design of relevant risk management practices, where they are not already in place or require an update. The typology is intended to be useful from the early stages of establishing such a complex and multileveled biomedical infrastructure as well as to provide a catalogue of risks for improving the risk management practices already in place.

Legal and Ethical Considerations for the Design and Use of Web Portals for Researchers, Clinicians, and Patients: Scoping Literature Review

Background

This study aims to identify a novel potential use for web portals in health care and health research: their adoption for the purposes of rapidly sharing health research findings with clinicians, scientists, and patients. In the era of precision medicine and learning health systems, the translation of research findings into targeted therapies depends on the availability of big data and emerging research results. Web portals may work to promote the availability of novel research, working in tandem with traditional scientific publications and conference proceedings.

Objective

This study aims to assess the potential use of web portals, which facilitate the sharing of health research findings among researchers, clinicians, patients, and the public. It also summarizes the potential legal, ethical, and policy implications associated with such tools for public use and in the management of patient care for complex diseases.

Methods

This study broadly adopts the methods for scoping literature reviews outlined by Arskey and O’Malley in 2005. Raised by the integration of web portals into patient care for complex diseases, we systematically searched 3 databases, PubMed, Scopus, and WestLaw Next, for sources describing web portals for sharing health research findings among clinicians, researchers, and patients and their associated legal, ethical, and policy challenges. Of the 719 candidate source citations, 22 were retained for the review.

Results

We found varied and inconsistent treatment of web portals for sharing health research findings among clinicians, researchers, and patients. Although the literature supports the view that portals of this kind are potentially highly promising, they remain novel and are not yet widely adopted. We also found a wide range of discussions on the legal, ethical, and policy issues related to the use of web portals to share research data.

Conclusions

We identified 5 important legal and ethical challenges: privacy and confidentiality, patient health literacy, equity, training, and decision-making. We contend that each of these has meaningful implications for the increased integration of web portals into clinical care.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Return of genetic and genomic research findings: experience of a pediatric biorepository

Background

Assess process, uptake, validity and resource needs for return of actionable research findings to biobank participants.

Methods

Participants were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter biorepository of childhood onset heart disease. Clinically actionable research findings were reviewed by a Return of Research Results Committee (RRR) and returned to the physician or disclosed directly to the participant through a research genetic counselor. Action taken following receipt of this information was reviewed.

Results

Genetic data was generated in 1963 of 7408 participants. Fifty-nine new findings were presented to the RRR committee; 20 (34%) were deemed reportable. Twelve were returned to the physician, of which 7 were disclosed to participants (median time to disclosure, 192 days). Seven findings were returned to the research genetic counselor; all have been disclosed (median time to disclosure, 19 days). Twelve families (86%) opted for referral to clinical genetics after disclosure of findings; 7 results have been validated, 5 results are pending. Average cost of return and disclosure per reportable finding incurred by the research program was $750 when utilizing a research genetic counselor; clinical costs associated with return were not included.

Conclusions

Return of actionable research findings was faster if disclosed directly to the participant by a research genetic counselor. There was a high acceptability amongst participants for receiving the findings, for referral to clinical genetics, and for clinical validation of research findings, with all referred cases being clinically confirmed.

Legal issues in governing genetic biobanks: the Italian framework as a case study for the implications for citizen's health through public-private initiatives

This paper outlines some of the challenges faced by regulation of genetic biobanking, using case studies coming from the Italian legal system. The governance of genetic resources in the context of genetic biobanks in Italy is discussed, as an example of the stratification of different inputs and rules: EU law, national law, orders made by authorities and soft law, which need to be integrated with ethical principles, technological strategies and solutions. After providing an overview of the Italian legal regulation of genetic data processing, it considers the fate of genetic material and IP rights in the event of a biobank’s insolvency. To this end, it analyses two case studies: a controversial bankruptcy case which occurred in Sardinia, one of the first examples of private and public partnership biobanks. Another case study considered is the Chris project: an example of partnership between a research institute in Bolzano and the South Tyrolean Health System. Both cases seem to point in the same direction, suggesting expediency of promoting and improving public-private partnerships to manage biological tissues and biotrust to conciliate patent law and public interest.

Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Biobank research has the potential to return results that could have beneficial and even life-saving consequences for participants. This possibility raises some important questions, not only about the ethical duty to return results within a research setting, but also about participants' right to refuse results and researchers' responsibility to respect that choice. This article argues in favor of adopting a return-of-results policy that limits participants' ability to refuse clinically relevant and actionable results. We state that biobanks should allow donors only if they are aware of and agree to this return policy. If they do not agree to this, they retain the option not to participate in the biobank research. The aim of this article is to discuss the practical and ethical reasons in favor of this return-of-result policy and, thus, to underline the importance of "honesty" in biobanking regulations.

Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach

Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care.

Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine

BACKGROUND

The practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research.

METHODS

Thirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research.

RESULTS

Cancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results.

DISCUSSION

In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

Biobanking Comes of Age: The Transition to Biospecimen Science

Biobanking involves the collection, processing, storage, and distribution of biological specimens and the policies and procedures necessary to accomplish those aims successfully. Although biobanking may also involve collections for environmental studies or museum archives, most efforts to standardize biobanking practices have been directed toward human biomedical research. Initially focused primarily on collecting samples for diagnostic purposes in pathology settings, biobanks have evolved into complex organizations engaged in advancing personalized (or precision) medicine and translational research. This evolution has involved the development of biobanking best practices and the transformation of a field driven by empirical approaches into the emerging area of biospecimen science. It has become increasingly important to develop evidence-based practices for collecting biospecimens and data that can be shared with confidence with international collaborators. Aside from these technical approaches, other factors play crucial roles, such as ethical and regulatory issues, business planning and sustainability, and approaches to data collection and sharing.

Stability of Attitudes to the Ethical Issues Raised by the Return of Incidental Genomic Research Findings in Children: A Follow-Up Study

OBJECTIVE

We explore the stability of parental attitudes to the ethical issues raised by the return of genomic research results.

METHODS

A 19-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in a large genome research consortium 18 months following a baseline survey. We describe the stability of parental attitudes to (a) sharing of genomic research results, (b) endorsement of children in genomic research, (c) responsibilities of researchers, and (d) responsibilities to extended family. We also explore their experience in receiving results.

RESULTS

Of 170 original participants, 154 (91%) responded. Most participants expressed positive rights to receive incidental genomic research findings (85%), including when ameliorative therapy was unknown (85%). Only 3% found it acceptable to delegate the decision to return results to an independent committee. Researchers, either with a parent (42%) or physician (17%), were felt to be responsible to convey research results to children when they reach adulthood. Most participants (74%) indicated that results should be shared with potentially affected extended family. These results are very similar to those of the baseline survey. All participants who received genomic results would do so again and reported actions similar to their expressed attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

The opinions of parents regarding genomic research remain stable over time. Guidelines on the return of results should incorporate these findings.

Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles

We surveyed IRB chairs' perspectives on offering individual genetic research results to participants and families, including family members of deceased participants, and the IRB's role in addressing these issues. Given a particular hypothetical scenario, respondents favored offering results to participants but not family members, giving choices at the time of initial consent, and honoring elicited choices. They felt IRBs should have authority regarding the process issues, but a more limited role in medical and scientific issues.

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Perspectives from Managers of Two Distinct Research Biobanks

Research biobanks are heterogeneous and exist to manage diverse biosample types with the goal of facilitating and serving biomedical discovery. The perspectives of biobank managers are reviewed, and the perspectives of two biobank directors, one with experience in institutional biobanks and the other with national cooperative group banks, are presented. Most research biobanks are not designed, nor do they have the resources, to return research results and incidental findings to participants or their families.

Disclosure of incidental findings in cancer genomic research: investigators' perceptions on obligations and barriers

Although there has been significant research surrounding incidental findings (IFs), the guidelines and information provided to investigators remain unspecific, unclear, and often generalize the course of action to everyone in the field. We explored the perceptions and experiences of investigators regarding the return of IFs in genetic research. Researchers and clinician-researchers were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews in Quebec and Ontario. Twenty professionals participated, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcriptions. Four contextual elements emerged: (i) degree of significance of results, (ii) respect for persons, (iii) infrastructure implications, and (iv) professional responsibilities. Our findings demonstrate that all investigators raised similar contextual elements surrounding the return of IFs. However, some nuances in participants' experiences of the understanding of professional responsibilities also emerged. Because of the existing nuances, a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate, suggesting that context ought to be considered in decisions about IFs.

Biobanks and personalized medicine

We provide a mini-review of how biobanks can support clinical genetics in the era of personalized medicine. We discuss types of biobanks, including disease specific and general biobanks not focused on one disease. We present considerations in setting up a biobank, including consenting and governance, biospecimens, risk factor and related data, informatics, and linkage to electronic health records for phenotyping. We also discuss the uses of biobanks and ongoing considerations, including genotype-driven recruitment, investigations of gene-environment associations, and the re-use of data generated from studies. Finally, we present a brief discussion of some of the unresolved issues, such as return of research results and sustaining biobanks over time. In summary, carefully designed biobanks can provide critical research and infrastructure support for clinical genetics in the era of personalized medicine.