Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science

Facilitating return of actionable genetic research results from a biobank repository: Participant uptake and utilization of digital interventions

Research participants report interest in receiving genetic research results. How best to return results remains unclear. In this randomized pilot study, we sought to assess the feasibility of returning actionable research results through a two-step process including a patient-centered digital intervention as compared with a genetic counselor (GC) in the Penn Medicine biobank. In Step 1, participants with an actionable result and procedural controls (no actionable result) were invited to digital pre-disclosure education and provided options for opting out of results. In Step 2, those with actionable results who had not opted out were randomized to receive results via a digital disclosure intervention or with a GC. Five participants (2%) opted out of results after Step 1. After both steps, 52 of 113 (46.0%) eligible cases received results, 5 (4.4%) actively declined results, 34 (30.1%) passively declined, and 22 (19.5%) could not be reached. Receiving results was associated with younger age (p < 0.001), completing pre-disclosure education (p < 0.001), and being in the GC arm (p = 0.06). Being older, female, and of Black race were associated with being unable to reach. Older age and Black race were associated with passively declining. Forty-seven percent of those who received results did not have personal or family history to suggest the mutation, and 55.1% completed clinical confirmation testing. The use of digital tools may be acceptable to participants and could reduce costs of returning results. Low uptake, disparities in uptake, and barriers to confirmation testing will be important to address to realize the benefit of returning actionable research results.

Design and pilot results from the Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study

BACKGROUND

As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition.

METHODS

The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months.

RESULTS

The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122.

Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback.

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.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Think Pragmatically: Investigators' Obligations to Patient-Subjects When Research is Embedded in Care

Growing interest in embedded research approaches-where research is incorporated into clinical care-has spurred numerous studies to generate knowledge relevant to the real-world needs of patients and other stakeholders. However, it also has presented ethical challenges. An emerging challenge is how to understand the nature and extent of investigators' obligations to patient-subjects. Prior scholarship on investigator duties has generally been grounded upon the premise that research and clinical care are distinct activities, bearing distinct duties. Yet this premise-and its corresponding implications-are challenged when research and clinical care are deliberately integrated. After presenting three case studies from recent pragmatic clinical trials, we identify six differences between explanatory trials and embedded research that limit the application of existing scholarship for ascertaining investigator duties. We suggest that these limitations indicate a need to account for the implications of usual care and to move beyond a narrow focus on the investigator-subject dyad, one that better reflects the team- and institution-based nature of contemporary health systems.

Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits

Genome-wide association studies have led to the identification of robust statistical associations of genetic variants with numerous brain-related traits, including neurological and psychiatric conditions, and psychological and behavioral measures. These results may provide insight into the biology underlying these traits and may facilitate clinically useful predictions. However, these results also carry the risk of harm, including possible negative effects of inaccurate predictions, violations of privacy, stigma and genomic discrimination, raising serious ethical and legal implications. Here, we discuss ethical concerns surrounding the results of genome-wide association studies for individuals, society and researchers. Given the success of genome-wide association studies and the increasing availability of nonclinical genomic prediction technologies, better laws and guidelines are urgently needed to regulate the storage, processing and responsible use of genetic data. Also, researchers should be aware of possible misuse of their results, and we provide guidance to help avoid such negative impacts on individuals and society.

Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Surrounding Biospecimen Research Conducted or Supported in the USA

Rapid and dramatic advances in molecular sequencing technology, as well as medical discoveries from genome-wide association and other precision medicine studies, have highlighted the longstanding ethical and legal challenges research biobanks consistently face. Whose authority is needed to conduct research with excised tissue, and how that authority may be exercised with respect and transparency, are central questions. This review article explores how scholars have addressed ethical and legal controversies such as the proper breadth and scope of consent for collection and future research use of biological specimens and data, the importance of disclosing individual research results and secondary findings, and collecting cadaver tissue from deceased persons. This article focuses on the legal and regulatory environment for conducting and/or supporting biospecimen research in the United States of America. It takes the position that proper biobank governance strategies, which ensure accountability and model respect toward biospecimen contributors, as well as transparency in communications between participants and researchers, reduce the likelihood of downstream legal disputes.

Ethical Frameworks for Disclosure of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers to Research Participants: Conflicting Norms and a Nuanced Policy

More and more frequently, clinical trials for Alzheimer disease (AD) are targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals who are at increased risk of developing the disease. It is not always clear whether AD biomarker information should be disclosed to research participants: on the one hand, research participants may be interested in learning this information because of its perceived utility, but on the other hand, learning this information may be harmful, as there are very few effective preventive or therapeutic options available for AD. In this article, we bring together three separate sets of ethical guidance literature: on the return of individual research results, on an individual's right to access personal data, and on transparent enrollment into clinical trials. Based on these literatures, we suggest policies for the disclosure of AD biomarker test results in longitudinal observational cohort studies, clinical trials, and hybrid research projects, such as the European Prevention of Alzheimer's Dementia (EPAD) project, in which we served as an ethics team. We also present and critically discuss recommendations for disclosure of AD biomarkers in practice. We underscore that, as long as the clinical validity of AD biomarkers remains limited, there are good reasons to avoid actively disclosing them to cognitively unimpaired research participants.

Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

Considerations of Autonomy in Guiding Decisions around the Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results from Genomics Research: Expectations of and Preferences from Researchers in Botswana

Background

The Human Health and Heredity (H3Africa) Consortium continues to generate large amounts of genomic data leading to new insights into health and disease among African populations. This has however generated debate among stakeholders involved in developing, implementing, and applying ethical standards and policies for the return of individual genetic research results. The key questions are about when results must, should, may, or must not be returned and by whom. This study aimed to explore the views on the feedback of individual pertinent and incidental genetic research results of researchers, ethics committee members, and policymakers in Botswana.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 key stakeholders from academic, research institutions, and regulatory bodies in Botswana. An analysis of the coded data was done through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes and patterns.

Results

Overall, the study indicated that researchers have at least a partial obligation to return individual genetic research results to research participants. Respondents placed emphasis on the ethical principle of autonomy. They felt that it was inappropriate for researchers to make decisions about the return of results on participants' behalf except in situations of avoiding participant self-harm or harm to society.

Conclusion

Findings helped to highlight the importance of considering participants' autonomy in the development of sustainable and credible guidelines for feedback of findings from genomics research in Botswana, which can be explained during community engagement and consent processes. Such guidelines would ultimately be used to develop policies, guide African genomics research, and promote participant autonomy, transparency, and possibly participant trust in research.

An Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry: Viewpoint

BACKGROUND

Psychiatry has long needed a better and more scalable way to capture the dynamics of behavior and its disturbances, quantitatively across multiple data channels, at high temporal resolution in real time. By combining 24/7 data-on location, movement, email and text communications, and social media-with brain scans, genetics, genomics, neuropsychological batteries, and clinical interviews, researchers will have an unprecedented amount of objective, individual-level data. Analyzing these data with ever-evolving artificial intelligence could one day include bringing interventions to patients where they are in the real world in a convenient, efficient, effective, and timely way. Yet, the road to this innovative future is fraught with ethical dilemmas as well as ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI).

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the Ethics Checklist is to promote careful design and execution of research. It is not meant to mandate particular research designs; indeed, at this early stage and without consensus guidance, there are a range of reasonable choices researchers may make. However, the checklist is meant to make those ethical choices explicit, and to require researchers to give reasons for their decisions related to ELSI issues. The Ethics Checklist is primarily focused on procedural safeguards, such as consulting with experts outside the research group and documenting standard operating procedures for clearly actionable data (eg, expressed suicidality) within written research protocols.

METHODS

We explored the ELSI of digital health research in psychiatry, with a particular focus on what we label "deep phenotyping" psychiatric research, which combines the potential for virtually boundless data collection and increasingly sophisticated techniques to analyze those data. We convened an interdisciplinary expert stakeholder workshop in May 2020, and this checklist emerges out of that dialogue.

RESULTS

Consistent with recent ELSI analyses, we find that existing ethical guidance and legal regulations are not sufficient for deep phenotyping research in psychiatry. At present, there are regulatory gaps, inconsistencies across research teams in ethics protocols, and a lack of consensus among institutional review boards on when and how deep phenotyping research should proceed. We thus developed a new instrument, an Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry ("the Ethics Checklist"). The Ethics Checklist is composed of 20 key questions, subdivided into 6 interrelated domains: (1) informed consent; (2) equity, diversity, and access; (3) privacy and partnerships; (4) regulation and law; (5) return of results; and (6) duty to warn and duty to report.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep phenotyping research offers a vision for vastly more effective care for people with, or at risk for, psychiatric disease. The potential perils en route to realizing this vision are significant; however, and researchers must be willing to address the questions in the Ethics Checklist before embarking on each leg of the journey.

Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research

A rapidly growing proportion of health research uses 'secondary data': data used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected. Do researchers using secondary data have an obligation to disclose individual research findings to participants? While the importance of this question has been duly recognised in the context of primary research (ie, where data are collected from participants directly), it remains largely unexamined in the context of research using secondary data. In this paper, we critically examine the arguments for a moral obligation to disclose individual research findings in the context of primary research, to determine if they can be applied to secondary research. We conclude that they cannot. We then propose that the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is what gives rise to particular moral obligations, including the obligation to disclose individual results. We argue that the relationship between researchers and participants in secondary research does not generate an obligation to disclose. However, we also argue that the biobanks or data archives which collect and provide access to secondary data may have such an obligation, depending on the nature of the relationship they establish with participants.

The burden of pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes in a founder population

Founder populations may be enriched with certain genetic variants of high clinical impact compared to nonfounder populations due to bottleneck events and genetic drift. Using exome sequencing (ES), we quantified the load of pathogenic variants that may be clinically actionable in 6136 apparently healthy adults living in the Lancaster, PA Old Order Amish settlement. We focused on variants in 78 genes deemed clinically actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) or Geisinger's MyCode Health Initiative. ES revealed 3191 total variants among these genes including 480 nonsynonymous variants. After quality control and filtering, we applied the ACMG/AMP guidelines for variant interpretation and classified seven variants, across seven genes, as either pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Through genetic drift, all seven variants, are highly enriched in the Amish compared to nonfounder populations. In total, 14.7% of Lancaster Amish individuals carry at least one of these variants, largely explained by the 13% who harbor a copy of a single variant in APOB. Other studies report combined frequencies of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in actionable genes between 2.0% and 6.2% in outbred populations. The Amish population harbors fewer actionable variants compared to similarly characterized nonfounder populations but have a higher frequency of each variant identified, offering opportunities for efficient and cost-effective targeted precision medicine.

Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect?

Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017-2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non-study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45-1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant's preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.

The return of individual genomic results to research participants: design and pilot study of Tohoku Medical Megabank Project

Certain large genome cohort studies attempt to return the individual genomic results to the participants; however, the implementation process and psychosocial impacts remain largely unknown. The Tohoku Medical Megabank Project has conducted large genome cohort studies of general residents. To implement the disclosure of individual genomic results, we extracted the potential challenges and obstacles. Major challenges include the determination of genes/disorders based on the current medical system in Japan, the storage of results, prevention of misunderstanding, and collaboration of medical professionals. To overcome these challenges, we plan to conduct multilayer pilot studies, which deal with different disorders/genes. We finally chose familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as a target disease for the first pilot study. Of the 665 eligible candidates, 33.5% were interested in the pilot study and provided consent after an educational "genetics workshop" on the basic genetics and medical facts of FH. The genetics professionals disclosed the results to the participants. All positive participants were referred to medical care, and a serial questionnaire revealed no significant psychosocial distress after the disclosure. Return of genomic results to research participants was implemented using a well-prepared protocol. To further elucidate the impact of different disorders, we will perform multilayer pilot studies with different disorders, including actionable pharmacogenomics and hereditary tumor syndromes.

Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Biobanking provides exciting opportunities for research on stored biospecimens. However, these opportunities to advance medical science are fraught with challenges including ethical and legal dilemmas. This study was undertaken to establish perspectives of South African stakeholders on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking.

METHODS

An in-depth exploratory study was conducted with 25 purposively selected biobankers, clinicians, researchers, postgraduate students in biobanking research, and research ethics committee (REC) members in South Africa. Potential study participants were recruited through known hubs for biobanking in the country, online searches and the snowball sampling technique. A semi-structured face-to-face or Skype interview was arranged. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The emergent themes included: inconsistency in understanding consent models, disconnect between biobank researchers and biosample donors, inadequate processes to support re-consenting minors, inconsistent governance processes for biobanking research; challenges with sample and data sharing, and suboptimal strategies for benefit sharing and return of results. Biobanking practice in general appeared to be inconsistent and fragmented. While the need for consent in research is explicitly outlined in legislative documents, some respondents were unclear on the type of consent model to apply in biosample collection. They also reported inconsistencies in research participants' understanding of consent. Furthermore, these respondents' own understanding of consent and consent models were dependent on where they were positioned in biobanking practice (roles occupied). Respondents were unsure about the process to follow to re-consent child participants once the age of majority (≥ 18 years) was reached. It was not surprising that consent was identified as one of the major ethical challenges in biobanking practice. In certain settings, some respondents reported suboptimal governance processes for sample collection. Participants were generally unsure about how to operationalise benefit sharing and how to approach the idea of returning results to research participants and biobank donors.

CONCLUSION

The study findings indicated inconsistencies in stakeholder understanding of ethico-legal considerations related to biobanking in South Africa. A need for ongoing ethics capacity development among stakeholders was identified. Improving understanding of the ethics of biobanking could be facilitated by acknowledging the disconnect created by biosamples in the relationship between biobank researchers and donors.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance

Purpose:

How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance (VUS), or benign) is unknown.

Methods:

We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1=highest priority, 6=lowest priority).

Results:

PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (72% vs 16%, p<0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or EGD, in response to pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (43% vs 4%, p<0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUSs (both p>0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUSs, 4.3 for benign variants, all p≤0.014).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUSs as SFs would substantially increase downstream health care utilization.

Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to explore 1) the impact of returning unexpected pharmacogenomic (PGx) results to biobank contributors, and 2) participant views about improving communication.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative focus group study with biobank participants (N = 54) who were notified by mail of an individual research result indicating increased risk for adverse events associated with the common cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We employed a framework approach for analysis.

RESULTS

Our results revealed three themes illustrating participants' questions and uncertainty, especially regarding how to share results with health providers and family members, and remember them over time. Participants valued results for themselves and others, and for the future of medicine. Risk perception was framed by health identity. "Toxicity narratives," or familiarity with another's adverse reaction to chemotherapy, increased the sense of importance participants reported.

CONCLUSION

These focus group results highlight research participant remaining questions and high valuation of PGx results, even when unexpected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We identify PGx research participants' needs for clear clinical translation messaging that attends to health identity, pragmatics of sharing information with family members, and patient perceptions of barriers to transferring research results to a clinical context.

Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Objectives: Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty. Design: This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Results: We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. Conclusion: While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.

Ethical challenges of precision cancer medicine

Amongst common diseases, cancer is often both a leader in self-regulatory policy, or the field for contentious ethical issues such as the patenting of the BRCA1/2 genes. With the advent of genomic sequencing technologies, achieving precision cancer medicine requires prospective norms due to the large and varied sources of data involved. Here, we discuss the ethical and legal aspects of the policy debate around the relevant topics in precision cancer medicine: the return of incidental findings and sequencing raw data to patients, the communication of genetic results to patients' relatives, privacy and communication risks with concomitant oversight strategies, patient participation and consent models. We present the arguments and empirical data supporting specific policy solutions delineating still contested areas. What type of consent and oversight are required to acquire genomic data or to access it where desired, either by the participant/patient or third-party researchers? Most of the raw sequencing data is still uninterpretable and the variants revealed subject to reinterpretation over time. No doubt the ethical challenges of precision cancer medicine are a prototype of what's to come for other diseases. They are also paradigmatic for regulatory and ethical questions of the translational endeavors since the two worlds - basic science and patient care - are governed by different ethical and legal principles that need to be reconciled in precision cancer medicine.

Ethical Issues Posed by Field Research Using Highly Portable and Cloud-Enabled Neuroimaging

Highly portable, cloud-enabled neuroimaging technologies will fundamentally change neuroimaging research. Instead of participants traveling to the scanner, the scanner will now come to them. Field-based brain imaging research, including populations underrepresented in neuroscience research to date, will enlarge and diversify databases and pave the way for clinical and direct-to-consumer (DTC) applications. Yet these technological developments urgently require analysis of their ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). No consensus ethical frameworks for mobile neuroimaging exist, and existing policies for traditional MRI research are inadequate. Based on literature review and ethics analysis of neurotechnology development efforts, Shen et al. identify seven foundational, yet unresolved, ELSI issues posed by portable neuroimaging: (1) informed consent; (2) privacy; (3) capacity to accurately communicate neuroimaging results to remote participants; (4) extensive reliance on cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) for data analysis; (5) potential bias of interpretive algorithms in diverse populations; (6) return of research results and incidental (or secondary) findings to research participants; and (7) responding to participant requests for access to their data. The article proposes a path forward to address these urgent issues.

Challenges in returning results in a genomic medicine implementation study: the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) study

To inform the process of returning results in genome sequencing studies, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative assessment of challenges encountered during the Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study conducted at Mayo Clinic. Participants (n = 2535, mean age 63 ± 7, 57% female) were sequenced for 68 clinically actionable genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of 122 actionable results detected, 118 were returnable; results were returned by a genetic counselor—86 in-person and 12 by phone. Challenges in returning actionable results were encountered in a significant proportion (38%) of the cohort and were related to sequencing and participant contact. Sequencing related challenges (n = 14), affecting 13 participants, included reports revised based on clinical presentation (n = 3); reports requiring corrections (n = 2); mosaicism requiring alternative DNA samples for confirmation (n = 3); and variant re-interpretation due to updated informatics pipelines (n = 6). Participant contact related challenges (n = 44), affecting 38 participants, included nonresponders (n = 20), decedents (n = 1), and previously known results (n = 23). These results should be helpful to investigators preparing for return of results in large-scale genomic sequencing projects.

Pioneering Informed Consent for Return of Research Results to Breast Cancer Patients Facing Barriers to Implementation of Genomic Medicine: The Kenyan BRCA1/2 Testing Experience Using Whole Exome Sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Obtaining informed consent from study participants and disseminating the findings responsibly is a key principle required for ethically conducted clinical and genetic research. Reports from African researchers providing feedback on insights gained during the return of whole exome sequencing (WES) results to breast cancer patients treated in resource-limited settings is lacking.

AIM

The empirical process used to fill this gap in relation to BRCA1/2 variant detection using WES provided unique insights incorporated into a pathology-supported genetic testing algorithm for return of research results to Kenyan breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The Informed consent form approved by the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Kenya was adopted from a translational research study conducted in South Africa. Initially, the informed consent process was piloted in 16 Kenyan female patients referred for breast surgery, following a community-based awareness campaign. A total of 95 female and two male breast cancer patients were enrolled in the study from 2013 to 2016. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) results of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status were obtained from hospital records. DNA of patients with a family history of cancer was extracted from saliva and screened for pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes as the first step using WES.

RESULTS

Ten patients approached for participation in this study declined to sign the informed consent form. Data on IHC used as a proxy for molecular subtype were available in 8 of 13 breast cancer patients (62%) with a family history of cancer. Five BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain clinical significance were detected, as well as a pathogenic BRCA2 variant (c.5159C > A; S1720∗) in a female patient eligible for return of WES results.

CONCLUSION

Experience gained during the qualitative pilot phase was essential to overcome challenges associated with the translation of sophisticated genetic terms into native African languages. Detection of a pathogenic BRCA2 variant in a patient with familial breast cancer, frequently associated with hormone receptor-positive breast carcinoma as reported in this case, led to a high level of confidence on which to base risk management in future. Implementation of new technologies alongside standard pathology provides a practical approach to the application of genomic medicine in Africa.

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.

From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care

Health care is transitioning from genetics to genomics, in which single-gene testing for diagnosis is being replaced by multi-gene panels, genome-wide sequencing, and other multi-genic tests for disease diagnosis, prediction, prognosis, and treatment. This health care transition is spurring a new set of increased or novel liability risks for health care providers and test laboratories. This article describes this transition in both medical care and liability, and addresses 11 areas of potential increased or novel liability risk, offering recommendations to both health care and legal actors to address and manage those liability risks.

Research Participants' Attitudes towards Receiving Information on Genetic Susceptibility to Arsenic Toxicity in Rural Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

In human genetics research, it has become common practice for researchers to consider returning genetic information to participants who wish to receive it. Research participants in lower-resource settings may have barriers or competing interests that reduce the benefit or relevance of such information. Thus, the decision to return genetic information in these settings may involve special considerations of participants' interests and preferences. In this project, our goal was to assess Bangladeshi research participants' attitudes towards receiving information regarding genetic susceptibility to the effects of consuming arsenic-contaminated drinking water, a serious environmental health concern in Bangladesh and other countries.

METHODS

We administered a short questionnaire to 200 individuals participating in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study. Associations between survey responses and participant characteristics were estimated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 100% of our participants were interested in receiving information regarding their genetic susceptibility to arsenic toxicities, and 91% indicated that being at increased genetic risk would motivate them to make efforts to reduce their exposure. Lower levels of education showed evidence of association with less concern regarding the health effects of arsenic and lower levels of motivation to reduce exposure in response to genetic information.

CONCLUSIONS

Research participants in this low-resource setting appeared interested in receiving information on their genetic susceptibility to arsenic toxicity and motivated to reduce exposure in response to such information. Additional research is needed to understand how best to communicate genetic information in this population and to assess the impact of such information on individuals' behaviors and health.

At the Research-Clinical Interface: Returning Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants

Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions.

Why genomics researchers are sometimes morally required to hunt for secondary findings

Background

Genomic research can reveal ‘unsolicited’ or ‘incidental’ findings that are of potential health or reproductive significance to participants. It is widely thought that researchers have a moral obligation, grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to return certain kinds of unsolicited findings to research participants. It is less widely thought that researchers have a moral obligation to actively look for health-related findings (for example, by conducting additional analyses to search for findings outside the scope of the research question).

Main text

This paper examines whether there is a moral obligation, grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to actively hunt for genomic secondary findings. We begin by showing how the duty to disclose individual research findings can be grounded in the duty of easy rescue. Next, we describe a parallel moral duty, also grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to actively hunt for such information. We then consider six possible objections to our argument, each of which we find unsuccessful. Some of these objections provide reason to limit the scope of the duty to look for secondary findings, but none provide reason to reject this duty outright.

Conclusions

We argue that under a certain range of circumstances, researchers are morally required to hunt for these kinds of secondary findings. Although these circumstances may not currently obtain, genomic researchers will likely acquire an obligation to hunt for secondary findings as the field of genomics continues to evolve.

Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) offer important benefits, such as generating evidence that is suited to inform real-world health care decisions and increasing research efficiency. However, PCTs also present ethical challenges. One such challenge involves the management of information that emerges in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for the individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which research data were collected. We term these findings as ?pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings,? or ?PCT-CFs?. In this article, we explore the ethical considerations associated with the identification, assessment, and management of PCT-CFs, and how these considerations may vary based upon the attributes of a specific PCT. Our purpose is to map the terrain of PCT-CFs to serve as a foundation for future scholarship as well as policy-making and to facilitate careful deliberation about actual cases as they occur in practice.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Return of Value in the New Era of Biomedical Research-One Size Will Not Fit All

Background: There is a growing interest in creating large-scale repositories that store genetic, behavioral, and environmental data for future, unspecified uses. The All of Us Research Program is one example of such a repository. Its participants will get access to their personal data and the results of the studies that used them. However, little is known about what researchers should return to participants and how they should do it in a way that is valuable and meaningful to participants. Methods: To better understand the concept of "return of value" and the practice of returning valuable study information, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 44 stakeholders with diverse perspectives on this topic. All interviews have been transcribed and coded thematically to identify the most salient themes, to explore differences between returning different types of study results, and to describe differences and similarities in perspectives of different stakeholder groups. Results: We found that one size does not fit all when it comes to returning value to participants: the decisions about return of results are affected by participant preferences, researchers' concerns about feasibility, the types of data collected, their level of granularity, and available options for supporting result interpretation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the key to operationalizing return of value and to identifying ways to return valuable information to study participants may be to find a point of equilibrium between criteria that may affect usefulness and feasibility. The point of equilibrium may vary by study, by participants' backgrounds and preferences, by their health literacy and access to regular healthcare, and by the resources available to professionals controlling the data. Future studies should explore the factors that determine the point of equilibrium between feasibility and usefulness.

A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS

A 2018 committee report published by the highly respected National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (the Report) recommends stripping research participants of crucial data privacy rights and discarding decades of carefully deliberated consensus guidelines for the ethical return of results and data from research. This Article traces these disturbing recommendations to three root causes: (1) a statement of task that blocked careful and impartial analysis of a disputed legal matter central to the Report; (2) a piecemeal legal analysis that omitted relevant strands of law; and (3) the inappropriate conflation of two distinct concepts-the return of individual research results (the stated subject of the Report) and privacy-enabling individual access rights, which have a nearly fifty-year legal history long predating the modern debate about return of results. The Report's recommendations would erect new barriers to the return of results and, simultaneously, dial back a core data privacy right that Americans-including many research participants-currently enjoy. We urge extreme caution in implementing this Report's flawed recommendations. Congress has elevated the right to see one's personal information to the status of a civil right in many different data environments. Diminishing individual access in the research context erodes its status as a right more broadly.

Managing "incidental findings" in biobank research: Recommendations of the Taiwan biobank

BACKGROUND

In this article, incidental findings (IF) refer to unforeseen findings made possible through biobanking research and advances in medical diagnostic technologies that raise issues regarding the obligation and/or responsibility of biobank-users and biobanks to return clinically significant information to participants. The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Taipei (2016) highlights the possibility of encountering IF and requires that research on biospecimens address biobank feedback policies in their informed consent process, leaving open the possibility that the policy may be "no return". As clinicians and researchers begin to use these "resources", the possibility of finding clinically significant IF is becoming a reality.

DISCUSSION

In line with the WMA's Declaration of Taipei, a pragmatic approach is needed to deal with the issue of returning IF in biobank governance. Indeed, the impacts and concerns associated with the return of IF differ across different stakeholder groups and jurisdictions. Therefore, the framework governing IF return needs to be custom-built, taking into account the nature of each research project and the unique features of biobanks. To this end, in addition to facilitating biobank transparency, establishing an endurable and horizontal connection among biobanks and clinical institutions under a public health system will improve efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, subject to contemporary Taiwanese ethical and/or legal regulations, this article argues for the establishment of an updated framework for imaging-related and genetic-related IF return within the Taiwan Biobank (TWB), mainly based on a limited obligation to disclose life-threatening information revealed by imaging, but not genetic, information.

SUMMARY

After discussing some of the ethical, legal and social issues encountered by the TWB and accounting for the experiences of other international biobanks, we propose a systematic framework for returning IF, mainly on a "limited obligation" basis, which offers better and more comprehensive protection for biobank-participants' rights and health.

Untangling the ethical intersection of epidemiology, human subjects research, and public health

PURPOSE

Members of the American College of Epidemiology (ACE) Ethics Committee identified current ethics and epidemiology topic areas to consider for further discussion, consultation, teaching opportunities, and conference presentation. This article reflects on the activities of the Committee at the ACE Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 24-26, 2017.

METHODS

The overall aim for the Ethics Committee was to engage members of the College and other audiences and highlight the evolution of ethics and epidemiology since the inception of the original Ethics Guidelines published by the ACE Ethics and Standards of Practice Committee in 2000. The Ethics Committee organized a symposium session at the 2017 Annual Meeting of ACE on the ethics of human subjects research as it relates to specialized areas of epidemiology and the intersecting role of public health. This article presents a summary and further discussion of that symposium session.

RESULTS

Three topic areas were presented: an overview of ethics and epidemiology (E.S.P.), very high biomarker levels in environmental epidemiology research (S.M.P.), and the interface of epidemiology, human subjects research, and public health interventions (S.M.). This article begins by reviewing the foundations of epidemiology and public health and the well-known ethical principles of human subjects research. Then, it considers the ethical considerations in the use of population registry data in epidemiological research, environmental epidemiology, and epidemic surveillance and response. This article may form the basis of teaching of ethics principles related to epidemiology and public health and may serve as a companion piece to the original ACE Ethics Guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers are increasingly faced with ethical considerations in diverse, nontraditional, and specialized areas of epidemiology and public health. This article illustrates these challenges with real-world examples of clinical and population registry data, the study of environmental biomarkers, and Zika virus epidemic; it also reviews relevant ethical principles underpinning these examples and identifies where gaps in knowledge may exist.

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.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results

Purpose

Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term “unsolicited genomic results” (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and: 1) perceived need for actionability, 2) impact on patients, 3) health care workflow, 4) return of results process, and 5) responsibility for results.

Results

Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based “paths” for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs.

Conclusion

The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Returning Individual Genetic Research Results to Research Participants: Uptake and Outcomes Among Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose

Understanding the outcomes of returning individual genetic research results to participants is critical because some genetic variants are found to be associated with health outcomes and have become available for clinical testing.

Materials and Methods

BRCA1/2-negative women with early-onset breast cancer, multiple primary cancers, or a family history of breast cancer who participated in a gene discovery cancer registry were offered the opportunity to learn their individual genetic research results of 24 breast cancer susceptibility genes with a genetic counselor after predisclosure genetic counseling. Outcomes included uptake of research results, knowledge, informed choice, psychosocial adjustment, uncertainty, satisfaction, and uptake of clinical confirmation testing.

Results

Four hundred two potential participants were contacted. One hundred ninety-four participants (48%) did not respond despite multiple attempts, and 85 participants (21%) actively or passively declined. One hundred seven participants (27%) elected for predisclosure counseling and were more likely to be younger, married, and white. Ninety percent of participants who had predisclosure counseling elected to receive their genetic research results, and 89% made an informed choice. Knowledge increased significantly after predisclosure counseling, and anxiety, intrusive cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and depression declined significantly after receipt of results. General anxiety and intrusive cancer-specific distress declined significantly for both participants with a positive result and those with a negative result. Sixty-four percent of participants had clinical confirmation testing when recommended, including all participants with a mutation in a high-penetrance gene.

Conclusion

Uptake of genetic research results may be lower than anticipated by hypothetical reports and small select studies. Participants who elected to receive research results with genetic providers did not experience increases in distress or uncertainty, but not all patients return for confirmation testing.

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.

"I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings

Lowered costs of genomic sequencing facilitate analyzing large segments of genetic data. Ethical debate has focused on whether and what kind of incidental or secondary findings (SFs) to report, and how to obtain valid informed consent. However, people's support needs after receiving SFs have received less attention. We explored Finnish adults' perspectives on reporting genetic SFs. In this qualitative study which included four focus group discussions (N = 23) we used four vignette letters, each reporting a genetic SF predisposing to a different disease: familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Transcribed focus group discussions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Major themes were immediate shock, dealing with worry and heightened risk, fear of being left alone to deal with SFs, disclosing to family, and identified support needs. Despite their willingness to receive SFs, participants were concerned about being left alone to deal with them. Empathetic expert support and timely access to preventive care were seen as essential to coping with shock and worry, and disclosing SFs to family. Discussion around SFs needs to concern not only which findings to report, but also how healthcare systems need to prepare for providing timely access to preventive care and support for individuals and families.

Return and Disclosure of Research Results: Parental Attitudes and Needs Over Time in Pediatric Oncology

OBJECTIVES

To explore parental attitudes regarding the return and disclosure of research findings in pediatric cancer trials over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Two surveys were set up to evaluate the stability of parental attitudes. One survey was carried out among 581 parents whose child was diagnosed recently (response rate, 53.5%). A second, population-based survey was set up with a time interval of 4 years between first cancer diagnosis and survey in which 1465 parents were included (response rate, 55.1%).

RESULTS

Almost all surveyed parents stated a parental right to receive aggregate research results. Fifty-five percent of the parents who recently participated in trials and 62% of those asked after a multiyear time interval thought that disclosure of individual findings is in any case necessary (P = .0034). The respondents wanted to restrict the duty to disclose study results to the child according to their notion of the child's well-being, composed of child's maturity, impairment of the parent-child relationship, and the quality of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes of parents regarding the return of research findings change over time. Shortly after diagnosis, parents are mainly interested in aggregate findings. Interest in individual findings appeared to increase as more time elapsed between cancer diagnosis and survey.

Ethical issues in Alzheimer's disease research involving human subjects

As we aggressively pursue research to cure and prevent Alzheimer's disease, we encounter important ethical challenges. None of these challenges, if handled thoughtfully, would pose insurmountable barriers to research. But if they are ignored, they could slow the research process, alienate potential study subjects and do damage to research recruits and others. These challenges are (1) the necessity of very large cohorts of research subjects, recruited for lengthy studies, probably ending only in the subjects' death; (2) the creation of cohorts of 'study ready' volunteers, many of whom will be competent to consent at the beginning of the process, but move into cognitive impairment later; (3) reliance on adaptive trial design, creating challenges for informed consent, equipoise and justice; (4) the use of biomarkers and predictive tests that describe risk rather than certainty, and that can threaten participants' welfare if the information is obtained by insurance companies or long-term care providers; (5) the use of study partners that creates unique risks of harm to the relationship of subject and study partner. We need greater attention, at all levels, to these complex ethical issues. Work on these issues should be included in research plans, from the federal to the local, and should be supported through NIH in the same way that it supported work on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic research.