The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR.

RESULTS

Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non-clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Genomic newborn screening: Are we entering a new era of screening?

Population newborn screening (NBS) for phenylketonuria began in the United States in 1963. In the 1990s electrospray ionization mass spectrometry permitted an array of pathognomonic metabolites to be identified simultaneously, enabling up to 60 disorders to be recognized with a single test. In response, differing approaches to the assessment of the harms and benefits of screening have resulted in variable screening panels worldwide. Thirty years on and another screening revolution has emerged with the potential for first line genomic testing extending the range of screening conditions recognized after birth to many hundreds. At the annual SSIEM conference in 2022 in Freiburg, Germany, an interactive plenary discussion on genomic screening strategies and their challenges and opportunities was conducted. The Genomics England Research project proposes the use of Whole Genome Sequencing to offer extended NBS to 100 000 babies for defined conditions with a clear benefit for the child. The European Organization for Rare Diseases seeks to include "actionable" conditions considering also other types of benefits. Hopkins Van Mil, a private UK research institute, determined the views of citizens and revealed as a precondition that families are provided with adequate information, qualified support, and that autonomy and data are protected. From an ethical standpoint, the benefits ascribed to screening and early treatment need to be considered in relation to asymptomatic, phenotypically mild or late-onset presentations, where presymptomatic treatment may not be required. The different perspectives and arguments demonstrate the unique burden of responsibility on those proposing new and far-reaching developments in NBS programs and the need to carefully consider both harms and benefits.

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.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

Genetic testing and insurance implications: Surveying the US general population about discrimination concerns and knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

Globally, due to public concerns of genetic discrimination, some countries and insurance industries have adopted policies restricting insurer use of genetic information, such as the US Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This study reports on combined analysis of two surveys assessing public knowledge of GINA and concerns of genetic discrimination in a diverse U.S. sample (N=1616). We focus on whether occupation, genetic testing history, and insurance status are correlated with knowledge of GINA or concerns of discrimination. While bivariate analysis identified some populations with higher subjective/objective knowledge and concern relative to counterparts, multivariable regression identified very few significant associations with outcomes of interest. Overall, this study highlights lack of awareness and understanding of GINA, even among subpopulations hypothesized to have greater knowledge of the law. These findings have implications for the broader debate around insurer use of genetic information.

Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing

Background

While integrating genomic sequencing into clinical care carries clear medical benefits, it also raises difficult ethical questions. Compared to traditional sequencing technologies, genomic sequencing and analysis is more likely to identify unsolicited findings (UF) and variants that cannot be classified as benign or disease-causing (variants of uncertain significance; VUS). UF and VUS pose new challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) who are obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing from patients.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 GHPs across Europe, Australia and Canada to identify some of these challenges.

Results

Our results show that GHPs find it difficult to prepare patients to receive results because a vast amount of information is required to fully inform patients about VUS and UF. GHPs also struggle to engage patients – many of whom may be focused on ending their ‘diagnostic odyssey’ – in the informed consent process in a meaningful way. Thus, some questioned how ‘informed’ patients actually are when they agree to undergo clinical genomic sequencing.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a tension remains between sufficient information provision at the risk of overwhelming the patient and imparting less information at the risk of uninformed decision-making. We suggest that a shift away from ‘fully informed consent’ toward an approach aimed at realizing, as far as possible, the underlying goals that informed consent is meant to promote.

Returning Results of Stored Biological Samples and Biobanks: Perspectives of Saudi Arabian Biomedical Researchers

Scientific medical research involving human samples often leads to improved diagnosis, the discovery of treatment modalities, or the identification of possible risk factors for many diseases. Some findings, including incidental findings, may be important to donors, and some may require intervention. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of health care professionals in their use of stored biological samples for biomedical research regarding the concept of the research results and the challenges of informing donors regarding the results. This qualitative study involved 19 medical researchers doing research with stored biological samples and biobanks. The data were gathered during face-to-face interviews in English using a semistructured interview technique. The participants provided rich and illuminating experiences, framed in the following themes: the professional duty of researchers to return the research results and the right of donors to know; factors affecting informing donors of results (e.g., severity of disease; impact of the provided information; reliability of the research results; and donor approval); challenges to physically returning the results; and the nature of the informed consent, as well as the elements required in the informed consent documentation. Although the majority of researchers agree on the importance of returning research results, some have contradictory views such as that returning research results is not the researcher's responsibility. The study results also support the view that a number of elements should be included in the informed consent, such as the intention of informing the donors of the results as well as the benefits and risks.

Shortened consent forms for genome-wide sequencing: Parent and provider perspectives

BACKGROUND

Consent forms for exome and/or genome sequencing, collectively called genome-wide sequencing (GWS), frequently contain detailed information on complex topics such as sequencing analysis and incidental findings. Considering recent endeavors by the health care community to simplify GWS consent forms, it is important to gain stakeholders' perspectives on the content, length, and use of consent forms.

METHODS

Thematic analysis was conducted on data obtained from focus groups with two participant cohorts: parents who previously provided consent for trio-based GWS as part of the translational pediatric GWS CAUSES Study, and genetic health care providers (HCP) who provide pre-test counseling for GWS.

RESULTS

Genetic HCP indicated that consent forms cannot replace pre-test counseling, and as such, a simplified consent form focusing on the implications of GWS would be beneficial to both patients and HCP. Although parents' primary concerns varied when considering GWS, they all highly valued information. Parents also indicated the need for community and support after the return of GWS results. Both participant cohorts recommended that consent forms be available online and include an appendix for supplementary information.

CONCLUSION

It is important to include both parents and HCP in the design of GWS consent forms, and also, to help connect families who have a shared diagnosis after the post-test counseling session.

Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics

Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Should You Participate in a Study Involving Genomic Sequencing of Your Patients?

Internists and other physicians may be asked to participate in research studies that include genomic screening of their patients. Because genomic studies can identify many variants with potential clinical or personal implications, physicians should carefully consider the effect of participation on their patients, as well as the time and effort needed for the physicians to interpret the results and decide how best to use the information. Among the questions they will need to explore is whether testing will be done in a laboratory that is certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and authorized to generate results for clinical purposes. Physicians should also determine which results will be returned and how these results are likely to affect their patients. Consent must be obtained from patients for return of results, and physicians may want to use the various informational tools that are available to help their patients through the process of deciding which results to receive. Given the complexity of genomic results, including variable penetrance and possible preventive interventions, the research study should support physicians in understanding the results and their implications for patients. Physicians should be prepared to communicate results in a manner that facilitates patients' understanding of the findings and their implications, using a communication process tailored to the needs of the individual patient. Engaging genetic counselors in helping patients understand the implications of genomic findings can be helpful because of their scientific understanding of genetic disorders, experience in dealing with patients, and training in counseling skills.

Challenges to informed consent for exome sequencing: A best-worst scaling experiment

As exome sequencing expands as a diagnostic tool, patients and providers have voiced concerns about communicating the breadth and scope of potential results when obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to understand how genetic counselors prioritize essential components of the informed consent process and whether counselor factors influence these decisions. Development of a best-worst scaling experiment was informed by a systematic literature review and two focus groups. In all, 11 choice sets were created using a balanced incomplete block design, where participants selected the most and least important object in each set. Mean best-worst (BW) scores were calculated to summarize the relative importance of each object, and mediation analyses assessed whether responses were associated with genetic counselor factors and attitudes. In all, 342 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed the online survey. Ranking of BW scores suggests that participants prioritize collaborative decision-making, assessing understanding and managing expectations, with the least emphasis placed on discussing technological complexities. Stratified analyses found that counselors more experienced with obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing and those reporting higher perceptions of patients' ability to manage information rated discussing variants of uncertain significance as significantly more important (p < .05). Our results suggest that genetic counselors report intentions to prioritize individual patient needs when obtaining informed consent for exome sequencing. Professional characteristics and attitudes may influence preemptive discussion of uncertain results.

Model consent clauses for rare disease research

Background

Rare Disease research has seen tremendous advancements over the last decades, with the development of new technologies, various global collaborative efforts and improved data sharing. To maximize the impact of and to further build on these developments, there is a need for model consent clauses for rare diseases research, in order to improve data interoperability, to meet the informational needs of participants, and to ensure proper ethical and legal use of data sources and participants’ overall protection.

Methods

A global Task Force was set up to develop model consent clauses specific to rare diseases research, that are comprehensive, harmonized, readily accessible, and internationally applicable, facilitating the recruitment and consent of rare disease research participants around the world. Existing consent forms and notices of consent were analyzed and classified under different consent themes, which were used as background to develop the model consent clauses.

Results

The IRDiRC-GA4GH MCC Task Force met in September 2018, to discuss and design model consent clauses. Based on analyzed consent forms, they listed generic core elements and designed the following rare disease research specific core elements; Rare Disease Research Introductory Clause, Familial Participation, Audio/Visual Imaging, Collecting, storing, sharing of rare disease data, Recontact for matching, Data Linkage, Return of Results to Family Members, Incapacity/Death, and Benefits.

Conclusion

The model consent clauses presented in this article have been drafted to highlight consent elements that bear in mind the trends in rare disease research, while providing a tool to help foster harmonization and collaborative efforts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-019-0390-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium

Implementing genome and exome sequencing in clinical practice presents challenges, including obtaining meaningful informed consent. Consent may be challenging due to test limitations such as uncertainties associated with test results and interpretation, complexity created by the potential for additional findings and high patient expectations. We drew on the experiences of research teams within the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) Consortium on informed consent for clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) to negotiate consensus considerations. We present six considerations for clinicians and 12 key points to communicate as they support patients in deciding whether to undergo CGES. These considerations and key points provide a helpful starting point for informed consent to CGES, grounded in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) experience.

Beyond the Helix: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications in Genomics

OBJECTIVE

To review ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics, a ground-breaking science that when applied improves cancer care outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, consensus statements, and professional guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Ethical, legal, and social domains of genomics are not fully delineated. Areas needing further discussion and policies include return of findings, informed consent, electronic health records, and data resources and sharing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

All nurses need a basic understanding of the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics.

Toward greater understanding of patient decision-making around genome sequencing

In the era of next-generation sequencing, it is essential to collect and understand the patient outcomes that result from this new technology. One critical determinant of these is the process by which individuals first decide whether and how to pursue genome sequencing. In this perspective article, we examine the literature on adult patient decision-making in genome sequencing and identify current research gaps to address. Several studies have explored the motivations and concerns of patients undergoing sequencing; less attention has been paid to those who decline sequencing or to individuals from lower socioeconomic groups. Many factors that might play a role in the decision to pursue or decline sequencing, including trust, family dynamics and barriers to access, have yet to be explored fully. Future research that captures the experience of the wider population will produce a more generalizable understanding of the clinical, psychosocial, and economic outcomes of pursuing or declining sequencing.

Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age

As new, high-powered sequencing technologies are increasingly incorporated into genomics research, we believe that there has been a break point in how risks and benefits associated with genetic information are being characterized and understood. Genomic sequencing provides the potential benefit of a wealth of information, but also has the potential to alter how we conceptualize risks of sequencing. Until now, our conceptions of risks and benefits have been generally static, arising out of the early ethical, legal and social implications studies conducted in the context of targeted genetics. This paper investigates how the increasing availability of genetic information is changing views about risks and benefits, particularly examining our evolving understanding of psychosocial harms and our expanding conception of benefit. We argue that the lack of robust empirical evidence of psychosocial harms and the expanding view that benefits of genomic research include indirect familial benefit necessitate continued ethical, legal and social implications research.

Opportunities for community awareness platforms in personal genomics and bioinformatics education

Precision and personalized medicine will be increasingly based on the integration of various type of information, particularly electronic health records and genome sequences. The availability of cheap genome sequencing services and the information interoperability will increase the role of online bioinformatics analysis. Being on the Internet poses constant threats to security and privacy. While we are connected and we share information, websites and internet services collect various types of personal data with or without the user consent. It is likely that genomics will merge with the internet culture of connectivity. This process will increase incidental findings, exposure and vulnerability. Here we discuss the social vulnerability owing to the genome and Internet combined security and privacy weaknesses. This urges more efforts in education and social awareness on how biomedical data are analysed and transferred through the internet and how inferential methods could integrate information from different sources. We propose that digital social platforms, used for raising collective awareness in different fields, could be developed for collaborative and bottom-up efforts in education. In this context, bioinformaticians could play a meaningful role in mitigating the future risk of digital-genomic divide.

Precision Medicine: Familiarity, Perceived Health Drivers, and Genetic Testing Considerations Across Health Literacy Levels in a Diverse Sample

A clear awareness of a patient's knowledge, values, and perspectives is an important component of effective genetic counseling. Advances in precision medicine, however, have outpaced our understanding of patient perceptions of this new approach. Patient views may differ across the three domains of precision medicine (genetics, behavioral, and environmental determinants of health), ethnic/racial groups, and health literacy levels. This study describes and compares group differences in familiarity, perceptions, and preferences for precision medicine in a diverse sample. Between 2016 and 2017, 252 participants completed a 10-15-min survey in three primary care clinics in Florida and Tennessee. The final sample was 42.5% African American/Black, 25.8% Hispanic/Latino, 25.0% White, and 6.7% other ethnicity/race. Less than a quarter of participants reported being familiar with the term "precision medicine," but were more familiar with basic genetic terms. Participants with higher health literacy reported greater familiarity with terms (p ≤ .003). African Americans/Black participants were more likely to identify ethnicity/race and discrimination as influencing their health (p ≤ .004). When deciding to get a genetic test, individuals across ethnic/racial groups shared similar considerations. Those with higher health literacy, however, gave significantly greater importance to provider trust (p ≤ .008). Given the recent emergence of precision medicine, at present there may be limited differences in patient perceptions across ethnic/racial groups. Culturally sensitive efforts, tailored to health literacy level, may aid equitable precision medicine uptake.

Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field

Genomic findings are emerging rapidly in 2 large, closely related epilepsy research consortia: the Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project and Epi4K. Disclosure of individual results to participants in genomic research is increasingly viewed as an ethical obligation, but strategies for return of results were not included in the design of these consortia, raising complexities in establishing criteria for which results to offer, determining participant preferences, managing the large number of sites involved, and covering associated costs. Here, we describe the challenges faced, alternative approaches considered, and progress to date. Experience from these 2 consortia illustrates the importance, for genomic research in epilepsy and other disorders, of including a specific plan for return of results in the study design, with financial support for obtaining clinical confirmation and providing ongoing support for participants. Participant preferences for return of results should be established at the time of enrollment, and methods for allowing future contacts with participants should be included. In addition, methods should be developed for summarizing meaningful, comprehensible information about findings in the aggregate that participants can access in an ongoing way.

Current state of genomic policies in healthcare among EU member states: results of a survey of chief medical officers

Background

A need for a governance of genomics in healthcare among European Union (EU) countries arose during an international meeting of experts on public health genomics (PHG). We have conducted a survey on existing national genomic policies in healthcare among Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) of the 28 EU member states, plus Norway.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to CMOs after a meeting on the policy implications of PHG held during the Italian presidency of the Council of EU in 2014. The survey was closed in November 2015.

Results

CMOs response rate was 65.5% (19/29). Twelve (63.2%) reported that their countries had a policy for genomics in healthcare in place, and 15 (78.9%) reported that public funding existed. Public research facilities for the development of such policies were documented in 13 (68.4%) countries, and 15 (83.3%) had working groups devoted to policy development. National agencies carrying out Health Technology Assessment of genomic-based technologies were present in nine countries (50%). Sixteen (88.9%) countries reported having agencies dealing with ethical issues related to genomic technologies. About 55% of countries disclosed the lack of information campaigns aimed at citizens, and 44.4% reported they had a legal framework for direct-to-consumer genetic tests.

Conclusion

Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and UK documented the presence of a policy on genomics in healthcare. While many caveats are necessary because of the methodology, results suggest a need for a co-ordinated effort to foster development and harmonization of dedicated policies across EU to responsibly integrate genomics policies into existing health systems.

Readability of informed consent forms for whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing

Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES, WGS) can generate an unprecedented amount of complex information, making the informed consent (IC) process challenging. The aim of our study was to assess the readability of English IC forms for clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing using the SMOG and Flesch-Kincaid formulas. We analysed 36 forms, most of which were from US providers. The median readability grade levels were 14.75 (the SMOG formula) and 12.2 (the Flesch-Kincaid formula); these values indicate the years of education after which a person would be able to understand a text studied. All forms studied seem to fail to meet the average recommended readability grade level of 8 (e.g. by Institutional Review Boards of US medical schools) for IC forms, indicating that the content of the forms may not be comprehensible to many patients. The sections aimed at health care professionals (HCPs) in the forms indicate that HCPs should be responsible for explaining IC information to the patients. However, WES and WGS may be increasingly offered by primary care professionals who may not (yet) have sufficient training to be able to communicate effectively with patients about genomics. Therefore, to secure an adequate, truly informed consent process, the task of developing good, legible examples of IC forms along with educating HCPs in genomics should be taken seriously, and adequate resources should be allocated to enable these tasks.

Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance

Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes.

A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study

To make an informed choice to participate in a genome sequencing study that may yield primary and secondary findings, one understands relevant information in the context of personal values. Consent forms to enroll in a sequencing study can be long and complex. The efficacy of the professional encounter to consider the information contained in the consent form and make an informed choice is unknown. Women diagnosed with primary ovarian insufficiency and eligible for a sequencing study were randomized to participate in one of two encounters with a genetic counselor: a consent intervention using a lower literacy, less dense form or a standard consent encounter. Data were complete for 188 of 225 participants. The average time was 32 min for the intervention and 34 min for the standard, with the intervention encounter generating more questions from participants. At six weeks following consent, no differences were found between the two groups in primary outcomes: 'sequencing benefits' knowledge (d  =  0.12, 95%CI: -0.03,0.27), 'sequencing limitations' knowledge (d  =  0.04, 95%CI: -0.13,0.21), expected personal benefits (d  =  -0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,0.23), and decisional conflict (d =  0.04, 95%CI: -0.14,0.21). Although intentions to learn secondary variants were high, only 60% (113) of participants made an informed choice as defined by the multi-dimensional model of informed choice. We found that a modified consent intervention was as effective as a standard encounter and led to more interaction. Our data suggest that making decisions to receive secondary findings may be particularly challenging and in need of further investigation to achieve informed choice.

Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories

BACKGROUND

Increasingly used for clinical purposes, genome and exome sequencing can generate clinically relevant information that is not directly related to the reason for testing (incidental or secondary findings). Debates about the ethical implications of secondary findings were sparked by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2013 policy statement, which recommended that laboratories report pathogenic alterations in 56 genes. Although wide variation in laboratories' secondary findings policies has been reported, little is known about its causes.

METHODS

We interviewed 18 laboratory directors and genetic counselors at 10 U.S. laboratories to investigate the motivations and interests shaping secondary findings reporting policies for clinical exome sequencing. Analysis of interview transcripts and laboratory documents was informed by sociological theories of standardization.

RESULTS

Laboratories varied widely in terms of the types of secondary findings reported, consent-form language, and choices offered to patients. In explaining their adaptation of the ACMG report, our participants weighed genetic information's clinical, moral, professional, and commercial value in an attempt to maximize benefits for patients and families, minimize the costs of sequencing and analysis, adhere to professional norms, attract customers, and contend with the uncertain clinical implications of much of the genetic information generated.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all laboratories in our study voluntarily adopted ACMG's recommendations, but their actual practices varied considerably and were informed by laboratory-specific judgments about clinical utility and patient benefit. Our findings offer a compelling example of standardization as a complex process that rarely leads simply to uniformity of practice. As laboratories take on a more prominent role in decisions about the return of genetic information, strategies are needed to inform patients, families, and clinicians about the differences between laboratories' practices and ensure that the consent process prompts a discussion of the value of additional genetic information for patients and their families.

Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium

Purpose

The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium encompasses nine National Institutes of Health–funded U-award projects investigating translation of genomic sequencing into clinical care. Previous literature has distinguished norms and rules governing research versus clinical care. This is the first study to explore how genomics investigators describe and navigate the research–clinical interface.

Methods

A CSER working group developed a 22-item survey. All nine U-award projects participated. Descriptive data were tabulated and qualitative analysis of text responses identified themes and characterizations of the research–clinical interface.

Results

Survey responses described how studies approached the research–clinical interface, including in consent practices, recording results, and using a research versus clinical laboratory. Responses revealed four characterizations of the interface: clear separation between research and clinical care, interdigitation of the two with steps to maintain separation, a dynamic interface, and merging of the two. All survey respondents utilized at least two different characterizations. Although research has traditionally been differentiated from clinical care, respondents pointed to factors blurring the distinction and strategies to differentiate the domains.

Conclusion

These results illustrate the difficulty in applying the traditional bifurcation of research versus clinical care to translational models of clinical research, including in genomics. Our results suggest new directions for ethics and oversight.

Social and Communicative Functions of Informed Consent Forms in East Asia and Beyond

The recent research and technology development in medical genomics has raised new issues that are profoundly different from those encountered in traditional clinical research for which informed consent was developed. Global initiatives for international collaboration and public participation in genomics research now face an increasing demand for new forms of informed consent which reflect local contexts. This article analyzes informed consent forms (ICFs) for genomic research formulated by four selected research programs and institutes in East Asia – the Medical Genome Science Program in Japan, Universiti Sains Malaysia Human Research Ethics Committee in Malaysia, and the Taiwan Biobank and the Taipei Medical University- Joint Institutional Review Board in Taiwan. The comparative text analysis highlights East Asian contexts as distinct from other regions by identifying communicative and social functions of consent forms. The communicative functions include re-contact options and offering interactive support for research participants, and setting opportunities for family or community engagement in the consent process. This implies that informed consent cannot be validated solely with the completion of a consent form at the initial stage of the research, and informed consent templates can facilitate interactions between researchers and participants through (even before and after) the research process. The social functions consist of informing participants of possible social risks that include genetic discrimination, sample and data sharing, and highlighting the role of ethics committees. Although international ethics harmonization and the subsequent coordination of consent forms may be necessary to maintain the quality and consistency of consent process for data-intensive international research, it is also worth paying more attention to the local values and different settings that exist where research participants are situated for research in medical genomics. More than simply tools to gain consent from research participants, ICFs function rather as a device of social communication between research communities and civic communities in liaison with intermediary agents like ethics committees, genetic counselors, and public biobanks and databases.

Precision medicine in pediatric oncology: Lessons learned and next steps

The maturation of genomic technologies has enabled new discoveries in disease pathogenesis as well as new approaches to patient care. In pediatric oncology, patients may now receive individualized genomic analysis to identify molecular aberrations of relevance for diagnosis and/or treatment. In this context, several recent clinical studies have begun to explore the feasibility and utility of genomics-driven precision medicine. Here, we review the major developments in this field, discuss current limitations, and explore aspects of the clinical implementation of precision medicine, which lack consensus. Lastly, we discuss ongoing scientific efforts in this arena, which may yield future clinical applications.

Return of Research Results in the Saudi Biobank: An Exploratory Survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are many research biobanks in the world, including a small number in the Middle East. The Saudi biobank, one of the newly established biobanks, has just started to collect data and samples in 2016.

METHODS

A survey was conducted to assess the opinions of stakeholders regarding the return of individual research results. A total of 180 adults from three different groups (researchers, physicians, and laypeople) participated in this cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

There was strong agreement among all respondents that the biobank has the duty and donors have the right to be provided with important results that may have direct or indirect benefits. Moreover, there was strong support for the view that donors have the right to refuse to receive any research results.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are compatible with many other studies and are in line with the governance of the Saudi biobank.

Is the $1000 Genome as Near as We Think? A Cost Analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing

BACKGROUND

The substantial technological advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS), combined with dropping costs, have allowed for a swift diffusion of NGS applications in clinical settings. Although several commercial parties report to have broken the $1000 barrier for sequencing an entire human genome, a valid cost overview for NGS is currently lacking. This study provides a complete, transparent and up-to-date overview of the total costs of different NGS applications.

METHODS

Cost calculations for targeted gene panels (TGP), whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) were based on the Illumina NextSeq500, HiSeq4000, and HiSeqX5 platforms, respectively. To anticipate future developments, sensitivity analyses are performed.

RESULTS

Per-sample costs were €1669 for WGS, € 792 for WES and €333 for TGP. To reach the coveted $1000 genome, not only is the long-term and efficient use of the sequencing equipment needed, but also large reductions in capital costs and especially consumable costs are also required.

CONCLUSIONS

WES and TGP are considerably lower-cost alternatives to WGS. However, this does not imply that these NGS approaches should be preferred in clinical practice, since this should be based on the tradeoff between costs and the expected clinical utility of the approach chosen. The results of the present study contribute to the evaluation of such tradeoffs.

Content Analysis of Informed Consent for Whole Genome Sequencing Offered by Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies

Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have become increasingly available in the research and clinical settings and are now also being offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) companies. This offer can be perceived as amplifying the already identified concerns regarding adequacy of informed consent (IC) for both WES/WGS and the DTC GT context. We performed a qualitative content analysis of Websites of four companies offering WES/WGS DTC regarding the following elements of IC: pre-test counseling, benefits and risks, and incidental findings (IFs). The analysis revealed concerns, including the potential lack of pre-test counseling in three of the companies studied, missing relevant information in the risks and benefits sections, and potentially misleading information for consumers. Regarding IFs, only one company, which provides opportunistic screening, provides basic information about their management. In conclusion, some of the information (and related practices) present on the companies' Web pages salient to the consent process are not adequate in reference to recommendations for IC for WGS or WES in the clinical context. Requisite resources should be allocated to ensure that commercial companies are offering high-throughput sequencing under responsible conditions, including an adequate consent process.

Return of individual genomic research results: what do consent forms tell participants?

Advances in genomic technology make possible the large-scale collection of genomic data for research purposes. Many international initiatives seek to collect genomic data on large populations, often relying on existing collections to populate their databases. As these efforts progress, the debate over whether or not to return individual genetic research results to study participants remains an area of much contention. Some recommend returning results to participants only if the issue was addressed in the original study consent form. Much of the data being used in current studies, however, may have been derived from biospecimens collected years ago with consent documents that did not anticipate the possibility of returning individual level genomic results. We conducted an analysis of informed consent documents from published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (n=40) to explore whether future research use of biospecimens or data is anticipated, and if return of results is addressed and how it is described to better understand participants' expectations for future disclosure. The majority (70%) of the GWAS consent documents we analyzed either stated explicitly that individual genomic results would not be returned or were silent on the issue. This has implications for how researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees manage the return of results from sequencing studies using legacy samples and data.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Recommendations for the integration of genomics into clinical practice

The introduction of diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is changing the scope of practice for clinical geneticists. Many large institutions are making a significant investment in infrastructure and technology, allowing clinicians to access CGES, especially as health-care coverage begins to extend to clinically indicated genomic sequencing-based tests. Translating and realizing the comprehensive clinical benefits of genomic medicine remain a key challenge for the current and future care of patients. With the increasing application of CGES, it is necessary for geneticists and other health-care providers to understand its benefits and limitations in order to interpret the clinical relevance of genomic variants identified in the context of health and disease. New, collaborative working relationships with specialists across diverse disciplines (e.g., clinicians, laboratorians, bioinformaticians) will undoubtedly be key attributes of the future practice of clinical genetics and may serve as an example for other specialties in medicine. These new skills and relationships will also inform the development of the future model of clinical genetics training curricula. To address the evolving role of the clinical geneticist in the rapidly changing climate of genomic medicine, two Clinical Genetics Think Tank meetings were held that brought together physicians, laboratorians, scientists, genetic counselors, trainees, and patients with experience in clinical genetics, genetic diagnostics, and genetics education. This article provides recommendations that will guide the integration of genomics into clinical practice.Genet Med 18 11, 1075-1084.

Dynamic software design for clinical exome and genome analyses: insights from bioinformaticians, clinical geneticists, and genetic counselors

BACKGROUND

The transition of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) from the research setting to routine clinical practice remains challenging.

OBJECTIVES

With almost no previous research specifically assessing interface designs and functionalities of WES and WGS software tools, the authors set out to ascertain perspectives from healthcare professionals in distinct domains on optimal clinical genomics user interfaces.

METHODS

A series of semi-scripted focus groups, structured around professional challenges encountered in clinical WES and WGS, were conducted with bioinformaticians (n = 8), clinical geneticists (n = 9), genetic counselors (n = 5), and general physicians (n = 4).

RESULTS

Contrary to popular existing system designs, bioinformaticians preferred command line over graphical user interfaces for better software compatibility and customization flexibility. Clinical geneticists and genetic counselors desired an overarching interactive graphical layout to prioritize candidate variants--a "tiered" system where only functionalities relevant to the user domain are made accessible. They favored a system capable of retrieving consistent representations of external genetic information from third-party sources. To streamline collaboration and patient exchanges, the authors identified user requirements toward an automated reporting system capable of summarizing key evidence-based clinical findings among the vast array of technical details.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful adoption of a clinical WES/WGS system is heavily dependent on its ability to address the diverse necessities and predilections among specialists in distinct healthcare domains. Tailored software interfaces suitable for each group is likely more appropriate than the current popular "one size fits all" generic framework. This study provides interfaces for future intervention studies and software engineering opportunities.

Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing

An increasing number of individuals are being recruited to whole genome sequencing (WGS) research. When asked hypothetically, the majority of the public express willingness to participate in this type of research, yet little is known about how many individuals will actually consent to research participation or what they perceive the risks to be. The MedSeq Project is a clinical trial exploring WGS in clinical care. We documented primary reason(s) for declining participation and reviewed audio-recorded informed consent sessions to identify participants' concerns. Of 514 individuals recruited, 173 (34%) actively declined, 205 (40%) enrolled, and the remaining 136 (26%) were ineligible, unresponsive or waitlisted. Although the majority of active decliners cited logistical barriers, 40% cited risks related to the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of WGS research. Participants similarly discussed ELSI-related concerns but felt the potential benefits of participation outweighed the risks. Findings provide insight into the perspectives of potential WGS research participants and identify potential barriers to participation.

Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research

Whole genome and whole exome sequencing technologies are being increasingly used in research. However, they have the potential to identify incidental findings (IF), findings not related to the indication of the test, raising questions regarding researchers' responsibilities toward the return of this information to participants. In this study we discuss the ethical considerations related to the return of IF to research participants, emphasizing that the type of the study matters and describing the current practice standards. There are currently no legal obligations for researchers to return IF to participants, but some viewpoints consider that researchers might have an ethical one to return IF of clinical validity and clinical utility and that are actionable. The reality is that most IF are complex to interpret, especially since they were not the indication of the test. The clinical utility often depends on the participants' preferences, which can be challenging to conciliate and relies on participants' understanding. In summary, in the context of a lack of clear guidance, researchers need to have a clear plan for the disclosure or nondisclosure of IF from genomic research, balancing their research goals and resources with the participants' rights and their duty not to harm.

Participant use and communication of findings from exome sequencing: a mixed-methods study

Purpose

This study investigated how genome sequencing results affect health behaviors, affect, and communication.

Methods

We report on 29 participants who received a sequence result in the ClinSeq^® study, a cohort of well-educated, post-reproductive volunteers. A mixed methods design was used to explore respondents’ use, communication, and perceived utility of results.

Results

Most participants (72%) shared their result with at least one health care provider, and 31% reported changes to their health care. Participants scored high on the Positive Experiences subscale and low on the Distress subscale of a modified version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). The majority (93%) shared their result with at least one family member. Participant’s described deriving personal utility from their results.

Conclusions

This paper is the first to describe research participants’ reactions to actionable sequencing results. Our findings suggest clinical and personal benefit from receiving sequencing results, both of which may contribute to improved health for the recipients. Given the participants’ largely positive or neutral affective responses and disclosure of their results to physicians and relatives, health care providers should redirect concern from the potential for distress and attend to motivating patients to follow their medical recommendations.

Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing

Despite the increased utilization of genome and exome sequencing, little is known about the actual content and process of informed consent for sequencing. We addressed this by interviewing 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators experienced in obtaining informed consent for sequencing in research and clinical settings. Interviews focused on the process and content of informed consent; patients/participants' common questions, concerns and misperceptions; and challenges to obtaining informed consent. Content analysis of transcribed interviews revealed that the main challenges to obtaining consent related to the broad scope and uncertainty of results, and patient/participants' unrealistic expectations about the likely number and utility of results. Interviewees modified their approach to sessions according to contextual issues surrounding the indication for testing, type of patient, and timing of testing. With experience, most interviewees structured sessions to place less emphasis on standard elements in the consent form and technological aspects of sequencing. They instead focused on addressing misperceptions and helping patients/participants develop realistic expectations about the types and implications of possible results, including secondary findings. These findings suggest that informed consent sessions should focus on key issues that may be misunderstood by patients/participants. Future research should address the extent to which various stakeholders agree on key elements of informed consent.

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.

Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice

This paper summarizes the current controversies surrounding the identification and disclosure of "incidental" or "secondary" findings from genomic sequencing and the implications for genetic counseling practice. The rapid expansion of clinical sequencing has influenced the ascertainment and return of incidental findings, while empiric data to inform best practices are still being generated. Using the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) research project as an example, we discuss the implications of different models of consent and their impact on patient decisions.

Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor's Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor's experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.

Community dissemination and genetic research: moving beyond results reporting

The community-based participatory research (CBPR) literature notes that researchers should share study results with communities. In the case of human genetic research, results may be scientifically interesting but lack clinical relevance. The goals of this study were to learn what kinds of information community members want to receive about genetic research and how such information should be conveyed. We conducted eight focus group discussions with Yup'ik Alaska Native people in southwest Alaska (N = 60) and 6 (N = 61) with members of a large health maintenance organization in Seattle, Washington. Participants wanted to receive genetic information they "could do something about" and wanted clinically actionable information to be shared with their healthcare providers; they also wanted researchers to share knowledge about other topics of importance to the community. Although Alaska Native participants were generally less familiar with western scientific terms and less interested in web-based information sources, the main findings were the same in Alaska and Seattle: participants wished for ongoing dialogue, including opportunities for informal, small-group conversations, and receiving information that had local relevance. Effective community dissemination is more than a matter of presenting study results in lay language. Community members should be involved in both defining culturally appropriate communication strategies and in determining which information should be shared. Reframing dissemination as a two-way dialogue, rather than a one-way broadcast, supports the twin aims of advancing scientific knowledge and achieving community benefit.

Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

In genomics research, it is becoming common practice to return individualized primary and incidental findings to participants and several ongoing major studies have begun to automatically transfer these results to a participant's clinical medical record. This paper explores who should decide whether to place genomic research findings into a clinical medical record. Should participants make this decision, or does a researcher's duty to place this information in a medical record override the participant's autonomy? We argue that there are no clear ethical, legal, professional, or regulatory duties that mandate placement without the consent of the participant. We conclude that informing participants of results, together with a clear explanation, relevant recommendations and referral sources, and the option to consent to placement in the medical records will best discharge researchers' ethical and legal duties towards participants.

The ethics of HIV "cure" research: what can we learn from consent forms?

The advent of HIV "cure" research has generated enormous attention, but also concern about its potential to engender false hope, leading to overestimation of benefits and underestimation of risks, and about recruiting relatively healthy participants to studies with uncertain or serious risks. Currently, little is known about potential ethical problems in the ways that informed consent for HIV cure research is described to potential participants. As a first step to address this question, early phase, HIV "cure" research consent forms were analyzed to assess how study aims and potential risks and benefits are presented. Thirteen consent forms from a diverse group of clinical studies were selected to represent the major categories of cure research, including 11 interventional (gene transfer, vaccine intensification, treatment interruption, and latency reversing) and two observational. Consent forms were coded using seven categories, abstracting data on study purpose and design, participant selection criteria, presentation of risks and benefits of participation, and potential return of research results. Findings demonstrate variation and deficiencies that merit attention, but that can largely be addressed by turning to existing guidance about early phase research and specific study designs from other research contexts. The most challenging of these is ensuring that clear, specific, and consistent language is used to describe study aims, risks, benefits, and possible return of results. Informed consent for HIV "cure" research represents an opportunity to apply relevant existing guidance, measure the effectiveness of its application, and develop standardized best-practice policies for consent forms and processes.