Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance

Feedback of individual genetic and genomics research results: A qualitative study involving grassroots communities in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.

CONCLUSION

Participation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

OBJECTIVES

Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR).

METHODS

Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

Variation among Consent Forms for Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing

The goal of this study was to explore variation among informed consent documents for clinical whole exome sequencing (WES) in order to identify the level of consistency with the recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) regarding informed consent for clinical WES. Recommendations were organized into a framework of key points for analysis. Content analysis was conducted on a sample of informed consent documents for clinical WES downloaded from 18 laboratory websites. We observed considerable variability in the content of informed consent documents among the sample of 18 laboratories. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, a measure of readability, of the consent forms was 10.8, above the recommended 8th grade level. For each of the individual ACMG and Bioethics Commission recommendations, the frequency of inclusion ranged from 11% to 100%. For the overall list of 18 consent items, inclusion ranged from 11 to 17 items (Mean = 13.44, Mode = 14). This analysis will be useful to laboratories that wish to create informed consent documents that comply with these recommendations. The consistent use of standardized informed consent process could improve communication between clinicians and patients and increase understanding of genetic testing.

Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples

Discussions about disclosing individual genetic research results include calls to consider participants' preferences. In this study, parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients set preferences for disclosure based on disease preventability and severity, and could exclude mental health, developmental, childhood degenerative, and adult-onset disorders. Participants reviewed hypothetical reports and reset preferences, if desired. Among 661 participants who initially wanted all results (64%), 1% reset preferences. Among 336 participants who initially excluded at least one category (36%), 38% reset preferences. Participants who reset preferences added 0.9 categories, on average; and their mean satisfaction on 0 to 10 scales increased from 4.7 to 7.2 ( p < .001). Only 2% reduced the number of categories they wanted disclosed. Findings demonstrate the benefits of providing examples of preference options and the tendency of participants to want results disclosed. Findings also suggest that preference-setting models that do not provide specific examples of results could underestimate participants' desires for information.

Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants' willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.

Ethical considerations in malaria research proposal review: empirical evidence from 114 proposals submitted to an Ethics Committee in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Malaria research is typically conducted in developing countries in areas of endemic disease. This raises specific ethical issues, including those related to local cultural concepts of health and disease, the educational background of study subjects, and principles of justice at the community and country level. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are responsible for regulating the ethical conduct of research, but questions have been raised whether RECs facilitate or impede research, and about the quality of REC review itself. This study examines the review process for malaria research proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine at Mahidol University, Thailand.

METHODS

Proposals for all studies submitted for review from January 2010 to December 2014 were included. Individual REC members' reviewing forms were evaluated. Ethical issues (e.g., scientific merit, risk-benefit, sample size, or informed-consent) raised in the forms were counted and analysed according to characteristics, including study classification/design, use of specimens, study site, and study population.

RESULTS

All 114 proposals submitted during the study period were analysed, comprising biomedical studies (17 %), drug trials (13 %), laboratory studies (24 %) and epidemiological studies (46 %). They included multi-site (13 %) and international studies (4 %), and those involving minority populations (28 %), children (17 %) and pregnant women (7 %). Drug trials had the highest proportion of questions raised for most ethical issues, while issues concerning privacy and confidentiality tended to be highest for laboratory and epidemiology studies. Clarifications on ethical issues were requested by the ethics committee more for proposals involving new specimen collection. Studies involving stored data and specimens tended to attract more issues around privacy and confidentiality. Proposals involving minority populations were more likely to raise issues than those that did not. Those involving vulnerable populations were more likely to attract concerns related to study rationale and design.

CONCLUSIONS

This study stratified ethical issues raised in a broad spectrum of research proposals. The Faculty of Tropical Medicine at Mahidol University is a significant contributor to global malaria research output. The findings shed light on the ethical review process that may be useful for stakeholders, including researchers, RECs and sponsors, conducting malaria research in other endemic settings.

Latent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process

Background

To investigate the factors related to approval after review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), the structure equation model was used to analyze the latent variables ‘investigators’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘review process’ for 221 proposals submitted to our IRB.

Methods

The vulnerability factor included vulnerable cases, and studies that involved drug tests and genetic analyses. The principal investigator (PI) factor included the license level of the PI and whether they belonged to our institution. The review factor included administration time, total review time, and revision frequency. The revision frequency and total review time influenced the efficiency of review.

Results

The latent variable of reviewing was the most important factor mediating the PIs and vulnerability to IRB review approval. The local PIs moderated with genetic study and revision frequency had an impact on the review process and mediated non-approval.

Conclusions

Better guidance of the investigators and reviewers might improve the efficiency with which IRBs function.

Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

While experts have made recommendations, information is needed regarding what genome sequencing results patients would want returned. We investigated what results women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want returned and why. We conducted 60 semi-structured, in-person individual interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined interest in six types of incidental findings and reasons for interest or disinterest in each type. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Most participants were at least somewhat interested in all six result types, but strongest interest was in actionable results (i.e. variants affecting risk of a preventable or treatable disease and treatment response). Reasons for interest varied between different result types. Some participants were not interested or ambivalent about results not seen as currently actionable. Participants wanted to be able to choose what results are returned. Participants distinguished between types of individual genome sequencing results, with different reasons for wanting different types of information. The findings suggest that a focus on actionable results can be a common ground for all stakeholders in developing a policy for returning individual genome sequencing results.

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.

Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children

PURPOSE

We describe parental attitudes toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research results in the setting of high-risk pediatric cancer and inherited childhood diseases.

METHODS

A validated 36-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in three large-scale genome research consortia examining attitudes toward receipt of genomic research results and the influence of certainty, severity, and onset of the condition, in addition to responsibilities to extended family and provision of results even after death of the proband.

RESULTS

Of the 563 participants who were sent questionnaires, 362 (64%) responded. Most of them stated a positive right to receive results related to the target condition (97%) or to incidental findings (86%); no difference was found in results between participants with cancer and those with orphan diseases. Furthermore, 92% indicated that genomic research for childhood-onset conditions should occur. The majority wanted incidental results predicting susceptibility even to untreatable fatal conditions (83%), to multiple conditions (87%), or to those with uncertain impact (70%). Most felt sibling genomic results showing serious conditions, whether treatable (93%) or not (88%), and/or results discovered after death of the proband should be shared with family (74%).

CONCLUSION

Many parents of children in pediatric genomic research indicated a strong desire to receive a broader range of results than is described in consensus recommendations. Clear delineation of what will be offered should be established at the time of consent.

Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore the clinical management of incidental findings. Advances in the speed and sensitivity of genetic technologies have not only improved the diagnostic rate but also result in an increase in unanticipated diagnoses. Recent debate on such "incidental findings" has considered whether or not to actively search for and, then, disclose incidental findings. In our experience, many incidental findings need to be investigated in family members before their clinical significance can be assessed. This adds complexity to the debate about disclosure.

METHODS

Using anonymized clinical examples, we illustrate the downstream implications when a result reveals an incidental abnormality of potential clinical significance that is not related to the reasons for doing the test.

RESULTS

Our examples illustrate that the determination of clinical significance may require participation of family members in both testing and surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The need to investigate multiple relatives in order to decide whether or not a finding is clinically significant has implications for consent and disclosure practices. Communication with, and care for, relatives who have no reason to suspect particular diagnoses is a challenge for any health-care service. These costs also need to be taken into account as genetic testing enters mainstream medicine.

Update on pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes

Hereditary cancer syndromes in children and adolescents are becoming more recognized in the field of pediatric hematology/oncology. A recent workshop held at the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) 2012 Annual Meeting included several interactive sessions related to specific familial cancer syndromes, genetic testing and screening, and ethical issues in caring for families with inherited cancer risk. This review highlights the workshop presentations, including a brief background about pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes and the importance of learning about them for the practicing pediatric hematologists/oncologists. This is followed by a brief summary of the newly described cancer predisposition syndromes including Rhabdoid Tumor Predisposition Syndrome, Hereditary Paragangliomas and Pheochromocytoma Syndrome, and Familial Pleuropulmonaryblastoma Tumor Predisposition (DICER1) Syndrome. The next section covers genetic testing and screening for pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes. Ethical issues are also discussed including preimplantation genetic diagnosis or testing (PGD/PGT), suspicious lesions found on tumor screening, and incidental mutations discovered by whole genome sequencing. Finally, the perspective of a family with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is shared.

Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data

The ethical landscape in the field of genomics is rapidly shifting. Plummeting sequencing costs, along with ongoing advances in bioinformatics, now make it possible to generate an enormous volume of genomic data about vast numbers of people. The informational richness, complexity, and frequently uncertain meaning of these data, coupled with evolving norms surrounding the sharing of data and samples and persistent privacy concerns, have generated a range of approaches to the ethical management of genomic information. As calls increase for the expanded use of broad or even open consent, and as controversy grows about how best to handle incidental genomic findings, these approaches, informed by normative analysis and empirical data, will continue to evolve alongside the science.

Incidental variants are critical for genomics

The topic of incidental variants detected through exome and genome sequencing is controversial, both in clinical practice and in research. The arguments for and against the deliberate analysis and return of incidental variants focus on issues of clinical validity, clinical utility, autonomy, clinical and research infrastructure and costs, and, in the research arena, therapeutic misconception. These topics are briefly reviewed and an argument is made that these variants are the future of genomic medicine. As a field, we should take full advantage of all opportunities to study these variants by searching them out, returning them to patients and research participants, and studying their utility for predictive medicine.

Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data

The scale of tumor genomic profiling is rapidly outpacing human cognitive capacity to make clinical decisions without the aid of tools. New frameworks are needed to help researchers and clinicians process the information emerging from the explosive growth in both the number of tumor genetic variants routinely tested and the respective knowledge to interpret their clinical significance. We review the current state, limitations, and future trends in methods to support the clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genomes. This includes the processes of genome-scale variant identification, including tools for sequence alignment, tumor-germline comparison, and molecular annotation of variants. The process of clinical interpretation of tumor variants includes classification of the effect of the variant, reporting the results to clinicians, and enabling the clinician to make a clinical decision based on the genomic information integrated with other clinical features. We describe existing knowledge bases, databases, algorithms, and tools for identification and visualization of tumor variants and their actionable subsets. With the decreasing cost of tumor gene mutation testing and the increasing number of actionable therapeutics, we expect the methods for analysis and interpretation of cancer genomes to continue to evolve to meet the needs of patient-centered clinical decision making. The science of computational cancer medicine is still in its infancy; however, there is a clear need to continue the development of knowledge bases, best practices, tools, and validation experiments for successful clinical implementation in oncology.

A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs

Next generation sequencing offers benefit of improved health through knowledge, but comes with challenges, such as inevitable incidental findings (IFs). The applicability of recommended criteria for disclosure of individual results when applied to disclosure of IFs is not well known. The purpose of this study was to examine how medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairs perceive the importance of recommended criteria when applied to genetic/genomic IFs. We conducted telephone interviews with medical genetic specialists (genetic counselors, genetic nurses, medical geneticists, laboratory professionals), genomic researchers, and IRB chairs (N = 103). Respondents rated and discussed the importance of nine recommended criteria regarding disclosure of genetic/genomic IFs. Stakeholders agreed the most important criteria for disclosure were: (1) the IF points to a life-threatening condition; (2) there is a treatment; (3) individuals indicate in writing they wanted to be informed of IFs. Criteria rated less important were: analytic validity, high penetrance, association with a young age of onset and relative risk more than 2.0. Respondents indicated that some technical criteria were confusing, and in need of context. Our findings suggest that development of guidelines regarding management of IF include multiple stakeholders' perspectives and be based on a common language.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.