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

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

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.

Ethical Issues in Newborn Sequencing Research: The Case Study of BabySeq

The BabySeq Project is a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and aimed at exploring the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of both healthy newborns and newborns who are sick. Infants were randomly assigned to receive standard of care or standard of care plus sequencing. The protocol and consent specified that only childhood-onset conditions would be returned. When 1 child was found to carry a BRCA2 mutation despite a negative family history, the research team experienced moral distress about nondisclosure and sought institutional review board permission to disclose. The protocol was then modified to require participants to agree to receive results for adult-onset-only conditions as a precondition to study enrollment. The BabySeq team asserted that their new protocol was in the child's best interest because having one's parents alive and well provides both an individual child benefit and a "family benefit." We begin with a short description of BabySeq and the controversy regarding predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. We then examine the ethical problems with (1) the revised BabySeq protocol and (2) the concept of family benefit as a justification for the return of adult-onset-only conditions. We reject family benefit as a moral reason to expand genomic sequencing of children beyond conditions that present in childhood. We also argue that researchers should design their pediatric studies to avoid, when possible, identifying adult-onset-only genetic variants and that parents should not be offered the return of this information if discovered unless relevant for the child's current or imminent health.

Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel

Background

Congenital hearing loss affects approximately 1–2 infants out of every 1000, with 50% of the cases resulting from genetic factors. Targeted gene panels have been widely used for genetic diagnosis of hearing loss. This study aims to reveal new diagnoses via reanalyzing historical data of a multigene panel, and exam the reasons for new diagnoses.

Methods

A total of 210 samples were enlisted, including clinical reports and sequencing data of patients with congenital/prelingual hearing loss who were referred to clinical genetic testing from October 2014 to June 2017. All variants listed on the original clinical reports were reinterpreted according to the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP). Expanded analysis of raw data were performed in undiagnosed cases.

Results

Re-analysis resulted in nine new diagnoses, improving the overall diagnostic rate from 39 to 43%. New diagnoses were attributed to newly published clinical evidence in the literature, adoption of new interpretation guidelines and expanded analysis range.

Conclusion

This work demonstrates benefits of reanalysis of targeted gene panel data, indicating that periodical reanalysis should be performed in clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-019-0531-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors-a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks

Biobanks accumulate huge amounts of research findings, including participants' genomic data. Increasingly this leads to biobanks receiving research results that could be of clinical significance to biobank participants. The EU Horizon 2020 Project 'Genetics Clinic of the Future' surveyed European biobanks' perceptions of the legal and regulatory requirements for communicating individual research results to donors. The goal was to gain background knowledge for possible future guidelines, especially relating to the consent process. The Survey was implemented using a web-based Webropol tool. The questionnaire was sent at the end of 2015 to 351 European biobanks in 13 countries that are members of BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium). Seventy-two biobanks responded to the survey, representing each of the 13 BBMRI Member States. Respondents were mainly individuals responsible for the governance of biobanks. The replies indicate that the majority of the respondents thought that their national legislation allowed them to contact participants to communicate results, and that research participants had the right to request their results. However, respondents' understanding of their national legislation varied even within member states. Our results indicate that legislation applied to biobanks in many countries may be scattered and difficult to interpret. In BBMRI-ERIC, there is an ongoing discussion about the need for European recommendations on sharing genomic biobank results with donors, which may pave the way for more coherent global guidelines. Our results form a basis for this work.

Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening

Purpose

As genome sequencing moves from research to clinical practice, sequencing technologies focused on “medically actionable” targets are being promoted for preventive screening despite the dearth of systematic evidence of risks and benefits and criteria for who should be screened. This study investigates researchers’ and research participants’ perceptions of these issues within the context of a preventive genomic screening study, GeneScreen.

Methods

We recorded researcher deliberations regarding age eligibility criteria and the risks and benefits of screening, and conducted interviews with 50 GeneScreen participants about their motivations for joining and perceptions of risks and benefits.

Results

Researchers made assumptions about who would want and benefit from screening based on age. After discussion, researchers opted not to have an upper age limit for enrollment. Participants of all ages perceived similar benefits, including prevention, treatment, and cascade testing, and similar risks such as insurance discrimination and worry.

Conclusion

While clinical benefits of preventive genomic screening for older adults are debatable, our respondents perceived a range of benefits of screening in both clinical and research settings. Researchers and clinicians should carefully consider decisions about excluding older adults and providing information about benefits and risks across age groups.

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.

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.