An international policy on returning genomic research results

Two founder variants account for over 90% of pathogenic BRCA alleles in the Orkney and Shetland Isles in Scotland

For breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment in the isolated populations of the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland (in Scotland, UK) and their diasporas, quantifying genetically drifted BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants is important. Two actionable variants in these genes have reached much higher frequencies than in cosmopolitan UK populations. Here, we report a BRCA2 splice acceptor variant, c.517-2A>G, found in breast and ovarian cancer families from Shetland. We investigated the frequency and origin of this variant in a population-based research cohort of people of Shetland ancestry, VIKING I. The variant segregates with female breast and ovarian cancer in diagnosed cases and is classified as pathogenic. Exome sequence data from 2108 VIKING I participants with three or more Shetlandic grandparents was used to estimate the population prevalence of c.517-2A>G in Shetlanders. Nine VIKING I research volunteers carry this variant, on a shared haplotype (carrier frequency 0.4%). This frequency is ~130-fold higher than in UK Biobank, where the small group of carriers has a different haplotype. Records of birth, marriage and death indicate genealogical linkage of VIKING I carriers to a founder from the Isle of Whalsay, Shetland, similar to our observations for the BRCA1 founder variant c.5207T>C from Westray, Orkney. In total, 93.5% of pathogenic BRCA variant carriers in Northern Isles exomes are accounted for by these two drifted variants. We thus provide the scientific evidence of an opportunity for screening people of Orcadian and Shetlandic origins for each drifted pathogenic variant, particularly women with Westray or Whalsay ancestry.

Genetic tests as the strongest motivator of cooperation between participants and biobanks-Findings from cross-sectional study

Introduction

The development of the scientific potential linked with biobanking and research on human biological material is highly dependent on the willingness of potential donors to cooperate with entities that collect the material. For this reason, it is crucial to identify the circumstances and factors that may encourage potential participants to donate their biological material. In particular, knowledge of the motivational factors that can be modified by the persons managing a biobank may prove notably important for shaping the organizational and communication policy of the biobank and other scientific institutions.

Material and methods

The research was carried out on a group of 1,100 people over 18 years of age representing the adult population of Poland in 2021.

Results

More than half of the respondents declared their willingness to donate a blood sample for research purposes to a biobank (57.8%). The most often indicated incentives among the factors supporting the donation of biological material were offers of: obtaining the results of genetic tests predicting the risk of diseases (77.1%), blood tests (71.3%), the possibility of obtaining a small remuneration (64.6%) and the carrying out of genetic ancestry tests (60.4%).

Conclusion

Offering the possibility of performing additional diagnostic tests, especially genetic tests, may significantly increase the willingness of potential donors to cooperate with biobanks and other entities collecting human biological material for the purpose of scientific research. However, attention should also be paid to the challenges and risks linked with respecting the privacy and autonomy of research participants.

Development and utility of a clinical research informatics application for participant recruitment and workflow management for a return of results pilot trial in familial hypercholesterolemia in the Million Veteran Program

Objective

The development of clinical research informatics tools and workflow processes associated with re-engaging biobank participants has become necessary as genomic repositories increasingly consider the return of actionable research results.

Materials and Methods

Here we describe the development and utility of an informatics application for participant recruitment and enrollment management for the Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results Study, a randomized controlled pilot trial returning individual genetic results associated with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Results

The application is developed in Python-Flask and was placed into production in November 2021. The application includes modules for chart review, medication reconciliation, participant contact and biospecimen logging, survey recording, randomization, and documentation of genetic counseling and result disclosure. Three primary users, a genetic counselor and two research coordinators, and 326 Veteran participants have been integrated into the system as of February 23, 2023. The application has successfully handled 3367 task requests involving greater than 95 000 structured data points. Specifically, application users have recorded 326 chart reviews, 867 recruitment telephone calls, 158 telephone-based surveys, and 61 return of results genetic counseling sessions, among other available study tasks.

Conclusion

The development of usable, customizable, and secure informatics tools will become increasingly important as large genomic repositories begin to return research results at scale. Our work provides a proof-of-concept for developing and using such tools to aid in managing the return of results process within a national biobank.

Parents' attitudes towards research involving genome sequencing of their healthy children: a qualitative study

With widespread genomic sequencing research efforts, there is increasing impetus to return results to participants. Parents of healthy children are increasingly asked to participate in genomic research, yet there are limited studies of parental expectations for the return of results amongst healthy children. We explored parental attitudes towards their healthy children's participation in genomic research and expectations for return of results. Data collection involved semi-structured telephone interviews with parents of healthy children participating in a primary care research network. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. A total of 26 parents were interviewed: 22 were female, 19 self-reported as White/European, and 20 were aged 30-39. Three themes emerged: (1) Reciprocity; Parents preferred to receive medically actionable, childhood-onset results and expected recontact overtime in exchange for their research participation. (2) Downstream impacts of testing; Parents expected future clinical benefits but were concerned about the risk of genetic discrimination. (3) Power and empowerment; Some parents felt empowered to take preventative action for their child and relatives, while others did not want to limit their child's autonomy. Considering these tensions may help to inform participant-centered approaches to optimize parental decision-making and participation, as well as maximize the utility of results.

Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.

CONCLUSION

There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.

Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that researchers should offer to return genetic results to participants, but returning results in lower-resource countries has received little attention. In this study, we return results on genetic susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to participants in a Bangladeshi cohort exposed to arsenic through naturally-contaminated drinking water. We examine the impact on behavioral changes related to exposure reduction.

METHODS

We enrolled participants from the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study who had (1) high arsenic (≥150 μg/g creatinine) in a recent urine sample and (2) existing data on genetic variants impacting arsenic metabolism efficiency (AS3MT and FTCD). We used genetic data to recruit three study groups, each with n = 103: (1) efficient metabolizers (low-risk), (2) inefficient metabolizers (high-risk), and (3) a randomly-selected control group (NCT05072132). At baseline, all participants received information on the effects of arsenic and how to reduce exposure by switching to a low arsenic well. The two intervention groups also received their arsenic metabolism efficiency status (based on their genetic results). Changes in behavior and arsenic exposure were assessed using questionnaires and urine arsenic measures after six months.

RESULTS

Clear decreases in urine arsenic after six months were observed for all three groups. The inefficient group self-reported higher levels of attempted switching to lower arsenic wells than the other groups; however, there was no detectable difference in urine arsenic reduction among the three groups. Participants showed strong interest in receiving genetic results and found them useful. The inefficient group experienced higher levels of anxiety than the other groups. Among the efficient group, that receiving genetic results did not appear to hinder behavioral change.

CONCLUSION

Returning genetic results increased self-reported exposure-reducing behaviors but did not have a detectable impact on reducing urine arsenic over and above a one-on-one educational intervention.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Ethical considerations for biobanking and use of genomics data in Africa: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Biobanking and genomic research requires collection and storage of human tissue from study participants. From participants' perspectives within the African context, this can be associated with fears and misgivings due to a myriad of factors including myths and mistrust of researchers. From the researchers angle ethical dilemmas may arise especially with consenting and sample reuse during storage. The aim of this paper was to explore these ethical considerations in the establishment and conduct of biobanking and genomic studies in Africa.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative synthesis following a comprehensive search of nine (9) databases and grey literature. All primary research study designs were eligible for inclusion as well as both quantitative and qualitative evidence from peer reviewed journals, spanning a maximum of 20 years (2000-2020). It focused on research work conducted in Africa, even if data was stored or analysed outside the region.

RESULTS

Of 2,663 title and abstracts screened, 94 full texts were retrieved and reviewed for eligibility. We included 12 studies (7 qualitative; 4 quantitative and one mixed methods). Ethical issues described in these papers related to community knowledge and understanding of biobanking and genomic research, regulation, and governance of same by research ethics committees, enrolment of participants, types of informed consents, data collection, storage, usage and sharing as well as material transfer, returning results and benefit sharing. ca. Biospecimen collection and storage is given in trust and participants expect confidentially of data and results generated. Most participants are comfortable with broad consent due to trust in researchers, though a few would like to be contacted for reconsenting in future studies, and this would depend on whether the new research is for good cause. Sharing data with external partners is welcome in some contexts but some research participants did not trust foreign researchers.

CONCLUSION

Biobanking and genomic studies are a real need in Africa. Linked to this are ethical considerations related to setting up and participation in biobanks as well as data storage, export, use and sharing. There is emerging or pre-existing consensus around the acceptability of broad consent as a suitable model of consent, the need for Africans to take the lead in international collaborative studies, with deliberate efforts to build capacity in local storage and analysis of samples and employ processes of sample collection and use that build trust of communities and potential study participants. Research ethics committees, researchers and communities need to work together to work together to adapt and use clearly defined ethical frameworks, guidelines, and policy documents to harmonize the establishment and running of biobanking and genomic research in Africa.

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of the return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action. This was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. Subsequently, microarray genotype data became available, providing over 2 million variants, incidentally including some conferring risk for conditions for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the tribal government, and local clinicians to better inform our approach. We were able to notify the two participants heterozygous for the one clinically actionable variant identified. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up. While demanding considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank

The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

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.

A FinnGen pilot clinical recall study for Alzheimer's disease

Successful development of novel therapies requires that clinical trials are conducted in patient cohorts with the highest benefit-to-risk ratio. Population-based biobanks with comprehensive health and genetic data from large numbers of individuals hold promise to facilitate identification of trial participants, particularly when interventions need to start while symptoms are still mild, such as for Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study describes a process for clinical recall studies from FinnGen. We demonstrate the feasibility to systematically ascertain customized clinical data from FinnGen participants with ICD10 diagnosis of AD or mild cognitive disorder (MCD) in a single-center cross-sectional study testing blood-based biomarkers and cognitive functioning in-person, computer-based and remote. As a result, 19% (27/140) of a pre-specified FinnGen subcohort were successfully recalled and completed the study. Hospital records largely validated registry entries. For 8/12 MCD patients, other reasons than AD were identified as underlying diagnosis. Cognitive measures correlated across platforms, with highest consistencies for dementia screening (r = 0.818) and semantic fluency (r = 0.764), respectively, for in-person versus telephone-administered tests. Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) (p < 0.002) and phosphorylated-tau 181 (pTau-181) (p < 0.020) most reliably differentiated AD from MCD participants. We conclude that informative, customized clinical recall studies from FinnGen are feasible.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

VIKING II, a worldwide observational cohort of volunteers with northern isles ancestry

Introduction

The purpose of VIKING II is to create an observational cohort of volunteers with ancestry from the Northern Isles of Scotland, primarily for identifying genetic variants influencing disease. The new online protocol is separate to, but follows on from, earlier genetic epidemiological clinic-based studies in the isolated populations of Orkney and Shetland. These populations are favourable for the study of rarer genetic variants due to genetic drift, the large number of relatives, and availability of pedigree information. They are known to be genetically distinct from mainland British populations.

Methods and analysis

Online methods are being used to recruit ~4,000 people who have Northern Isles ancestry, living anywhere in the world. The option for participants to have actionable genetic results returned is offered. Consent will be taken electronically. Data will be collected at baseline through an online questionnaire and longitudinally through linkage to NHS data in the electronic health record. The questionnaire collects a variety of phenotypes including personal and family health. DNA will be extracted from saliva samples then genome-wide genotyped and exome sequenced. VIKING II aims to capitalise on the special features of the Northern Isles populations to create a research cohort that will facilitate the analysis of genetic variants associated with a broad range of traits and disease endpoints, including otherwise rare variants that have drifted to high frequency in these populations.

Ethics and dissemination

The South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee gave the study a favourable opinion. VIKING II is sponsored by the University of Edinburgh and NHS Lothian. Summary research findings will be disseminated to participants and funding bodies, presented at conferences and reported in peer-reviewed publications.

Article summary

Strengths and limitations of this studyDetailed data and biological sample collection of research volunteers with unique ancestry.Consent for access to routinely collected clinical EHR data and for future re-contact, providing a longitudinal component.Optional consent for return of actionable genetic results.~4,000 participants is a relatively small number for certain types of genetic analyses, so the cohort is underpowered on its own, in some study designs.Resources to maintain the cohort, and to store data and DNA samples, are significant, with sustainability dependent on infrastructure support and funding.

Clinical case study meets population cohort: identification of a BRCA1 pathogenic founder variant in Orcadians

We multiply ascertained the BRCA1 pathogenic missense variant c.5207T > C; p.Val1736Ala (V1736A) in clinical investigation of breast and ovarian cancer families from Orkney in the Northern Isles of Scotland, UK. We sought to investigate the frequency and clinical relevance of this variant in those of Orcadian ancestry as an exemplar of the value of population cohorts in clinical care, especially in isolated populations. Oral history and birth, marriage and death registrations indicated genealogical linkage of the clinical cases to ancestors from the Isle of Westray, Orkney. Further clinical cases were identified through targeted testing for V1736A in women of Orcadian ancestry attending National Health Service (NHS) genetic clinics for breast and ovarian cancer family risk assessments. The variant segregates with female breast and ovarian cancer in clinically ascertained cases. Separately, exome sequence data from 2088 volunteer participants with three or more Orcadian grandparents, in the ORCADES research cohort, was interrogated to estimate the population prevalence of V1736A in Orcadians. The effects of the variant were assessed using Electronic Health Record (EHR) linkage. Twenty out of 2088 ORCADES research volunteers (~1%) carry V1736A, with a common haplotype around the variant. This allele frequency is ~480-fold higher than in UK Biobank participants. Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA1 founder pathogenic variants has been demonstrated at a carrier frequency below the ~1% observed here. Thus we suggest that Orcadian women should be offered testing for the BRCA1 V1736A founder pathogenic variant, starting with those with known Westray ancestry.

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.

Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem

We previously proposed a structure for recording consent-based data use 'categories' and 'requirements' - Consent Codes - with a view to supporting maximum use and integration of genomic research datasets, and reducing uncertainty about permissible re-use of shared data. Here we discuss clarifications and subsequent updates to the Consent Codes (v4) based on new areas of application (e.g., the neurosciences, biobanking, H3Africa), policy developments (e.g., return of research results), and further practical considerations, including developments in automated approaches to consent management.

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

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.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally.

METHODS

We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa

As human genomics research in Africa continues to generate large amounts of data, ethical issues arise regarding how actionable genetic information is shared with research participants. The Human Heredity and Health in Africa Consortium (H3Africa) Ethics and Community Engagement Working group acknowledged the need for such guidance, identified key issues and principles relevant to genomics research in Africa and developed a practical guideline for consideration of feeding back individual genetic results of health importance in African research projects. This included a decision flowchart, providing a logical framework to assist in decision-making and planning for human genomics research projects. Although presented in the context of the H3Africa Consortium, we believe the principles described, and the decision flowchart presented here is applicable more broadly in African genomics research.

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

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

Return of Results Policies for Genomic Research: Current Practices & The Hearts in Rhythm Organization Approach

Research teams developing biobanks and/or genomic databases must develop policies for the disclosure and reporting of potentially actionable genomic results to research participants. Currently, a broad range of approaches to the return of results exist, with some studies opting for non-disclosure of research results while others follow clinical guidelines for the return of potentially actionable findings from sequencing. In this review, we describe current practices and highlight decisions a research team must make when designing a return of results policy, from informed consent to disclosure practices and clinical validation options. The unique challenges of returning incidental findings in cardiac genes, including reduced penetrance and the lack of clinical screening standards for phenotype-negative individuals are discussed. Lastly, the National Hearts in Rhythm Organization (HiRO) Registry approach is described to provide a rationale for the selective return of field-specific variants to those participating in disease-specific research. Our goal is to provide researchers with a resource when developing a return of results policy tailored for their research program, based on unique factors related to study design, research team composition and availability of clinical resources.