Returning individual research results: development of a cancer genetics education and risk communication protocol

Returning study results to research participants: Data access, format, and sharing preferences

INTRODUCTION

Research participants have a growing expectation for transparency with their collected information; however, there is little guidance on participant preferences for receiving health information and how researchers should return this information to participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 502 participants in the United States. Participants were asked about their preferences for receiving, sharing, and the formatting of health information collected for research purposes.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted their health information returned (84 %) to use it for their own knowledge and to manage their own health. Email was the most preferred format for receiving health data (67 %), followed by online website (44 %), and/or paper copy (32 %). Data format preferences varied by age, education, financial resources, subjective numeracy, and health literacy. Around one third of Generation Z (25 %), Millennials (30 %), and Generation X (29 %) participants preferred to receive their health information with a mobile app. In contrast, very few Baby Boomers (12 %) and none from the Silent Generation preferred the mobile app format. Having a paper copy of the data was preferred by 38 % of participants without a college degree compared to those with a college degree. Preferences were highest for sharing all health information with doctors and nurses (77 %), and some information with friends and family (66 %).

CONCLUSION

Study findings support returning research information to participants in multiple formats, including email, online websites, and paper copy. Preferences for whom to share information with varied by stakeholders and by sociodemographic characteristics. Researchers should offer multiple formats to participants and tailor data sharing options to participants' preferences. Future research should further explore combinations of individual characteristics that may further influence data sharing and format preferences.

The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care

The promises of precision medicine are often heralded in the medical and lay literature, but routine integration of genomics in clinical practice is still limited. While the "last mile' infrastructure to bring genomics to the bedside has been demonstrated in some healthcare settings, a number of challenges remain - both in the receptivity of today's health system and in its technical and educational readiness to respond to this evolution in care. To improve the impact of genomics on health and disease management, we will need to integrate both new knowledge and new care processes into existing workflows. This change will be onerous and time-consuming, but hopefully valuable to the provision of high quality, economically feasible care worldwide.

Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors

The growing importance of genome sequencing means that patients will increasingly face decisions regarding what results they would like to learn. The present study examined psychological and clinical factors that might affect these preferences. 1,080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey. We assessed their interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results: risk of preventable disease or unpreventable disease, cancer treatment response, uncertain meaning, risk to relatives' health, and ancestry/physical traits. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine whether being "very" interested in each result type was associated with clinical factors: BRCA1/2 mutation status, prior genetic testing, family history of breast cancer, and psychological factors: cancer recurrence worry, genetic risk worry, future orientation, health information orientation, and genome sequencing knowledge. The proportion of respondents who were very interested in learning each type of result ranged from 16% to 77%. In all multivariable models, those who were very interested in learning a result type had significantly higher knowledge about sequencing benefits, greater genetic risks worry, and stronger health information orientation compared to those with less interest (p-values < .05). Our findings indicate that high interest in return of various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors. Shared decision-making approaches that increase knowledge about genome sequencing and incorporate patient preferences for health information and learning about genetic risks may help support patients' informed choices about learning different types of sequencing results.

Precision medicine in pediatric oncology: Lessons learned and next steps

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

The Advantages and Challenges of Testing Children for Heritable Predisposition to Cancer

The increased application of germline genetic testing is expanding our understanding of the risk factors associated with childhood cancer development, and, in some cases, such testing is also informing clinical management. Nonetheless, the incorporation of genetic testing into the pediatric oncology setting is complex and associated with many ethical and practical challenges. The decision as to whether to pursue clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition for children should always be guided by the best interest of the child. Despite this fundamental ethical principle, patients, parents, and health care providers may differ in their opinions. Clinical genetic testing to detect the presence of predisposition syndromes associated with childhood-onset cancers, particularly those for which surveillance and preventive measures have proven to enhance outcome, is currently well accepted. On the other hand, clinical genetic testing of children for syndromes associated with adult-onset cancers has raised many concerns about the potential for psychological harm and disrespect of patient autonomy. As a consequence, such testing is not encouraged. The challenges surrounding germline genetic testing are further complicated when testing is done in the research setting and/or when it involves whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing approaches, which can uncover genetic variants that may or may not be associated with the disease under study. Accordingly, there is great debate around these processes and the most appropriate approaches regarding the return of test results. Future research is needed to enhance knowledge about how best to incorporate genomic information into clinical practice.

How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Background

The increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

Methods

We conducted 60 semistructured, in‐person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10.

Results

The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining.

Conclusions

A critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision‐making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned.

While the issue of what genome sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person.

Adolescent perspectives on the return of individual results in genomic addiction research

This study surveyed all adolescents who were enrolled in behavioral genomic research and provided DNA to a biobank, including 320 patients undergoing treatment for substance and conduct problems (SCPs) and 109 non-SCP controls. Participants selected from three options on the return of individual genomic results (RIR) and rated eight methods of re-contact. Most individuals with SCPs (77.8%) and non-SCP controls (72.5%) wanted RIR involving health or behavioral implications. The majority of individuals with SCPs (67.2%) and non-SCP controls (69.7%) indicated that phone re-contact was 'best', with e-mail (22.5% SCPs, 33.9% non-SCPs) and social networking websites (21.3% SCPs, 20.2% non-SCPs) being viable options. These results suggest a layered approach for RIR: phone calls, followed by e-mails and a secure message to a social networking account. Data from this special and vulnerable population, which includes youth involved in the criminal justice system and substantial minority participation, bring an essential and missing perspective to the discussion of RIR.

Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study

Background

Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies.

Objective

To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals.

Design

Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Participants

Thirty‐four participants from the public.

Methods

Participants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats.

Results

Participants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a ‘double pie chart’ and ‘100 person diagram’ (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web‐based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or ‘informed’ general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face‐to‐face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high‐risk results.

Conclusions

These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome‐based knowledge into improved population health.

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

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

Using community-based participatory research principles to develop more understandable recruitment and informed consent documents in genomic research

BACKGROUND

Heart Healthy Lenoir is a transdisciplinary project aimed at creating long-term, sustainable approaches to reduce cardiovascular disease risk disparities in Lenoir County, North Carolina using a design spanning genomic analysis and clinical intervention. We hypothesized that residents of Lenoir County would be unfamiliar and mistrustful of genomic research, and therefore reluctant to participate; additionally, these feelings would be higher in African-Americans.

METHODOLOGY

To test our hypothesis, we conducted qualitative research using community-based participatory research principles to ensure our genomic research strategies addressed the needs, priorities, and concerns of the community. African-American (n = 19) and White (n = 16) adults in Lenoir County participated in four focus groups exploring perceptions about genomics and cardiovascular disease. Demographic surveys were administered and a semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. The discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti.

RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

From our analysis, key themes emerged: transparent communication, privacy, participation incentives and barriers, knowledge, and the impact of knowing. African-Americans were more concerned about privacy and community impact compared to Whites, however, African-Americans were still eager to participate in our genomic research project. The results from our formative study were used to improve the informed consent and recruitment processes by: 1) reducing misconceptions of genomic studies; and 2) helping to foster participant understanding and trust with the researchers. Our study demonstrates how community-based participatory research principles can be used to gain deeper insight into the community and increase participation in genomic research studies. Due in part to these efforts 80.3% of eligible African-American participants and 86.9% of eligible White participants enrolled in the Heart Healthy Lenoir Genomics study making our overall enrollment 57.8% African-American. Future research will investigate return of genomic results in the Lenoir community.

Cancer screening and genetics: a tale of two paradigms

The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR.

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project

OBJECTIVE

To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.

RESULTS

Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.

CONCLUSIONS

OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.

Connecting patients, researchers and clinical genetics services: the experiences of participants in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS)

Population-based genetic research may produce information that has clinical implications for participants and their family. Researchers notify participants or their next of kin (NoK) about the availability of genetic information via a notification letter; however, many subsequently do not contact a family cancer centre (FCC) to clarify their genetic status. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine research participants' experience of receiving a notification letter and the factors that influenced contact with an FCC. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with research participants (n=10) or their NoK (n=15) who had received a notification letter following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. There were a number of factors which impacted participants' access to genetic counselling at an FCC. Some participants had unmet information and support needs, which were addressed by their participation in this psychosocial interview study. Recruitment and participation in this study therefore inadvertently increased a number of participants' intention to contact an FCC. For others, participation in this study facilitated access to an FCC. Recommendations are proposed regarding future notification as well as implications for clinical practice. An approach that also provides opportunity to address research participants' support and informational needs before contacting a clinical genetics service as well as practical guidance for accessing genetic services would facilitate timely and smooth access for research participants who are interested in following up clinically relevant genetic test results.

Communication of genetic test results to family and health-care providers following disclosure of research results

PURPOSE

Few studies have examined methods to promote communication following the return of DNA mismatch repair genetic test results obtained during research. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate a telephone protocol for returning research results of DNA mismatch repair gene testing to identify Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

We invited individuals with known DNA mismatch repair mutations in their family, who were enrolled in the Colon Cancer Family Registry at the Mayo Clinic, to participate in this study. Participants completed surveys before and 6 months after DNA mismatch repair test result disclosure.

RESULTS

Among 107 participants, 79% opted to learn their DNA mismatch repair test results; of these, 44 (41%) carried DNA mismatch repair mutations. After disclosure, 54% reported screening for any type of cancer. Among carriers, >74% reported communicating results to family; communication was predicted by baseline confidence in coping with the genetic test result (Z = 1.97; P = 0.04). Result disclosure to a physician was predicted by greater perceived cancer risk (Z = 2.08; P = 0.03) and greater intention to share results with family (Z = 3.07; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Research versus clinically based gene disclosure presents challenges. A telephone disclosure process for the return of research-based results among Lynch syndrome families led to high rates of result uptake and participant communication of results to providers and family members.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

How do researchers manage genetic results in practice? The experience of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry

There is consensus internationally that research participants should be offered the opportunity to receive clinically relevant genetic information identified through research, but there is little empirical peer-reviewed work documenting this process. We report the experience of conducting genetic research with nearly 35,000 participants in the Colon Cancer Family Registry, based in the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Investigators from six multinational sites provided information about disclosure protocols, implementation, and uptake of genetic results and made suggestions to inform practice. Across 5 of the 6 registry sites, 1,634 participants in families with mismatch repair or MutYH gene mutations have been offered results. Participant uptake ranged from 56 to 86 %. Researchers faced significant challenges in the effort to return results. We offer suggestions in five key areas: (1) planning for the disclosure process, (2) participant information, (3) autonomy of participants, (4) monitoring scientific progress, and (5) involvement of stakeholders. Despite increasing discussion of the importance of returning incidental findings from genetic research, this paper highlights the considerable diversity, challenges, and costs faced in practice when returning expected findings with established utility and validity. We argue that more work is needed to ensure that genetic results in research are optimally managed.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

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

Reporting actionable research results: shared secrets can save lives

In this Commentary, we describe a cryptographic method for returning research results to individuals who participate in clinical studies. Controlled use of this method, which relaxes the typical anonymization guarantee, can ensure that clinically actionable results reach participants while also addressing most privacy concerns.

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

BACKGROUND

Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To explore publicly accessible IRB websites for guidance in this area, using summative content analysis.

FINDINGS

Three types of research results were addressed in 45 informed consent templates and instructions from 20 IRBs based at centres conducting genomic research: (1) IRRs in general, (2) incidental findings (IFs) and (3) a broad and unspecified category of 'significant new findings' (SNFs). IRRs were more frequently referenced than IFs or SNFs. Most documents stated that access to IRRs would not be an option for research participants. These non-disclosure statements were found to coexist in some documents with statements that SNFs would be disclosed to participants if related to their willingness to participate in research. The median readability of template language on IRRs, IFs and SNFs exceeded a ninth-grade level.

CONCLUSION

IRB guidance may downplay the possibility of IFs and contain conflicting messages on IRR non-disclosure and SNF disclosure. IRBs may need to clarify why separate IRR and SNF language should appear in the same consent document. The extent of these issues, nationally and internationally, needs to be determined.

Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.

When They Hear What We Say: Ethical Challenges in Presenting Research Findings to the Huntington Disease Community

Sharing findings with the Huntington disease (HD) community and other genetic disease communities is challenging because of the sensitivity involved in effectively communicating findings to participants. We describe our experiences of presenting multi-disciplinary research findings to the HD community, and discuss the need to: (1) balance potential benefits and harms for participants, researchers, and others; (2) demonstrate respect for participants' needs, expectations, and priorities; and (3) ensure transparency and respect for autonomy.

Disclosing individual CDKN2A research results to melanoma survivors: interest, impact, and demands on researchers

BACKGROUND

Whether to return individual research results from cancer genetics studies is widely debated, but little is known about how participants respond to results disclosure or about its time and cost burdens on investigators.

METHODS

We recontacted participants at one site of a multicenter genetic epidemiologic study regarding their CDKN2A gene test results and implications for melanoma risk. Interested participants were disclosed their results by telephone and followed for 3 months.

RESULTS

Among 39 patients approached, 27 were successfully contacted, and 19 (70% uptake) sought results, including three with mutations. Prior to disclosure, participants endorsed numerous benefits of receiving results (mean=7.7 of 9 posed), including gaining information relevant to their children's disease risk. Mean psychological well-being scores did not change from baseline, and no decreases to melanoma prevention behaviors were noted. Fifty-nine percent of participants reported that disclosure made participation in future research more likely. Preparation for disclosure required 40 minutes and $611 per recontact attempt. An additional 78 minutes and $68 was needed to disclose results.

CONCLUSION

Cancer epidemiology research participants who received their individual genetic research results showed no evidence of psychological harm or false reassurance from disclosure and expressed strong trust in the accuracy of results. Burdens to our investigators were high, but protocols may differ in their demands and disclosure may increase participants' willingness to enroll in future studies.

IMPACT

Providing individual study results to cancer genetics research participants poses potential challenges for investigators, but many participants desire and respond positively to this information.

Return of research results: general principles and international perspectives

Five years ago, an article co-written by two of us (Joly and Simard) presented an emerging trend to disclose certain individual genetic results to research participants. Since then, both technologies and research practices have evolved significantly. Given this rapid evolution, our goal is to provide updated and thorough guidance on this issue. Our paper begins by identifying the ethical principles that support the return of results: justice, beneficence, and respect for persons. Then, it presents the results of an analysis of international norms on the return of results, covering both general and individual research results. It reveals existing divergence and consensus on these topics within the international community. With the goal of promoting greater harmonization, we conclude by proposing a flexible framework for the return of individual research results.