The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an "ethically important moment" in pediatric research and practice

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Parents, their children, whole exome sequencing and unsolicited findings: growing towards the child's future autonomy

In a previous study we found that parents of children with developmental delay (DD) favoured acceptance of unsolicited findings (UFs) for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier status. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason for withholding UFs for the present, despite an unfavourable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. This might be different for children undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) for reasons other than DD and who are expected to exert future autonomy. This is the focus of the current study. We conducted nine qualitative, semi-structured interviews with parents of children, ages <1-15, after consenting to WES, but prior to feedback of results, and with three adolescent children. Several parents wished to receive any information that might in whatever way be relevant to the health and well-being of their child, and to a lesser extent wished the inclusion of information about non-actionable disorders and information concerning carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Although parents understood the rationale behind the centre's UFs disclosure policy, they also felt that they needed this information in order to be able to exert their parental responsibility and take good care of a child still dependent on them. Parents reason from their notion of parental responsibility but are also inclined to take adolescent children's preferences seriously and acknowledge the child's incipient autonomy as a ground for granting an increasing degree of self-determination on the road to adulthood.

The experience of parents of children with rare diseases when communicating with healthcare professionals: towards an integrative theory of trust

BACKGROUND

Given the inherent complexity of rare paediatric diseases and the sensitive emotional context of the situations they create (due to the patients' age and the tense uncertainty surrounding the progression of the disease), communication between the adults involved is a key tool in the efforts to provide these children and youths a better quality of life. We conducted ten interviews with families of children with rare diseases, in the aim of exploring how communication between doctors and patients affect their daily lives. All participants, members of FEDER (a Spanish federation of associations of patients with rare diseases) were invited by phone or email to participate in a semi-structured interview including questions on clinical information, communication experiences with healthcare professionals, and the impact these had on the interviewees' relationships with them. To analyse these interviews, we used the 'grounded theory' methodology and open and axial text coding techniques, in addition to those identifying the properties and dimensions of the categories formulated.

RESULTS

The core category we have proposed is 'adjustment of mutual trust', with said category describing the attitude and behaviour of doctors who inspire trust in the parents of paediatric patients diagnosed with a rare disease. More specifically, said behaviours or sources of trust are: appearing human, sensitive and empathetic; showing transparency and communicative openness; being supportive of parental proactivity; and being available to families at all times.

CONCLUSIONS

Trust is the cornerstone of parent-doctor communication in the field of children with rare diseases. If the sources of trust are present, they create a degree of trust that bolsters both parties in the search for a common goal: providing the child with the best possible care.

Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings

BACKGROUND

The use of genomic sequencing techniques is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream health care. However, there is a lack of agreement on how "incidental findings" (IFs) should be managed and a dearth of research on patient perspectives.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews were carried out with 31 patients undergoing genomic sequencing at a regional genetics service in England. Interviews explored decisions around IFs and were comparatively analyzed with published recommendations from the literature.

RESULTS

Thirteen participants opted to receive all IFs from their sequence, 12 accepted some and rejected others, while six participants refused all IFs. The key areas from the literature, (a) genotype/phenotype correlation, (b) seriousness of the condition, and (c) implications for biological relatives, were all significant; however, patients drew on a broader range of social and cultural information to make their decisions.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the range of costs and benefits for patients of receiving IFs from a genomic sequence. While largely positive views toward the dissemination of genomic data were reported, ambivalence surrounding genetic responsibility and its associated behaviors (e.g., duty to inform relatives) was reported by both IF decliners and accepters, suggesting a need to further explore patient perspectives on this highly complex topic area.

Genomic sequencing identifies secondary findings in a cohort of parent study participants

PURPOSE

Clinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability.

METHODS

Exome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 "unaffected" parents was performed.

RESULTS

Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. These 25 individuals self-reported either relevant clinical diagnoses (5); relevant family history or symptoms (13); or no relevant family history, symptoms, or clinical diagnoses (7). A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate pairs (n = 365) to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease, yielding three such cases (0.8%), two of which had children with the relevant recessive disease. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one noncarrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

We provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.

Autism spectrum disorder and genetic testing: Parental perceptions and decision-making

PURPOSE

Advances in genomic technology and research have led to genetic testing being recognized as an essential component of the etiological workup for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is a first-tier diagnostic test for patients with ASD, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and other professional societies. An accurate underlying medical diagnosis for ASD has many potential benefits, including appropriate medical management, detailed therapeutic recommendations, and accurate recurrence risk. Genetic testing is relatively complicated, expensive, and, currently, in the majority of the cases, does not provide any organic improvement in the management of symptoms.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 parents to explore the decision-making process of genetic testing from the perspectives and experiences of parents of children with ASD. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Parents had limited knowledge of genetic testing for ASD prior to a genetics clinic visit. The majority of the participants thought genetic testing would be beneficial for their child, their reproductive choices, and potential future generations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Various stakeholders (geneticists, primary care providers, nurses, and families) would benefit from future establishment of educational strategies to inform parental decision-making regarding genetic testing for children with ASD.

Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs)

Whole genome or exome sequencing is increasingly used in the clinical contexts, and ‘incidental’ findings are generated. There is need for an adequate policy for the reporting of these findings to individuals. Such a policy has been suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). We argue that ACMG’s policy is overly paternalistic, and that an adequate policy must take into account population preferences. We conducted a choice based conjoint survey of population preferences for reporting in a representative sample of the Danish population. In a 12 task survey respondents were asked about their preference for reporting in relation to three scenarios with seven different attributes. Of 1200 respondents 66.4% participated. We show that population preferences for reporting differs from ACMG’s recommendations, and suggest a new policy based on both medically and patient actionable genes.

Preferences for the provision of whole genome sequencing services among young adults

Objectives

As whole genome sequencing (WGS) becomes increasingly available, clinicians will be faced with conveying complex information to individuals at different stages in life. The purpose of this study is to characterize the views of young adults toward obtaining WGS, learning different types of genomic information, and having choice about which results are disclosed.

Methods

A mixed-methods descriptive study was conducted with a diverse group of 18 and 19-years-olds (N = 145). Participants watched an informational video about WGS and then completed an online survey.

Results

Participants held a positive attitude toward obtaining WGS and learning about a range of health conditions and traits. Increased interest in learning WGS information was significantly associated with anticipated capacity to handle the emotional consequences if a serious risk was found (β = 0.13, P = .04). Young adults wanted the ability to choose what types of genomic risk information would be returned and expressed decreased willingness to undergo WGS if clinicians made these decisions (t(138) = -7.14, P <.01). Qualitative analysis showed that young adults emphasized procedural factors in WGS decision-making and that perceived health benefits of WGS had a substantial role in testing preferences and anticipated usage of WGS results.

Conclusions

Clinicians are likely to encounter enthusiasm for obtaining WGS results among young adults and may need to develop strategies for ensuring that this preference is adequately informed.

A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Information empowerment has been the greatest gain of genomics, yet it also poses serious threat to its survival, especially when the information is incidental. There may be an emerging consensus that actionable incidental findings be returned. But this has not been supported by any systematic review. Future directions are equally missing. These are significant gaps.

To fill these gaps, an online search on PubMed and Genetics in Medicine website was conducted between 20th of August to 23rd of October, 2013; combining certain filters and phrases, such as ‘return incidental findings’. Nineteen (19) articles were selected from an avalanche of results, and reviewed. The review confirms a majority support for return of clinically actionable findings. The result also shows that the support represents views of Northern Americans. Critical contributions of Africans, Asians and Europeans are missing in this discourse. I recommended studies in this direction.

Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents' considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child

Parents' preferences for unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic whole-exome sequencing (WES) for their children remain largely unexplored. Our aim was to gain insight into parental considerations favoring acceptance/decline of UFs pertaining to their child. We conducted 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews with parents (n=34) of children with a developmental delay, aged <1 to 17 years, after consenting to WES, but before feedback of results. Key findings from our study were that all parents favored acceptance of UFs for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences and considerations diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier-status. Sometimes non-medical utility considerations (considerations of usefulness of knowing UFs, not rooted in (preventive) medical treatment or controls) were given in favor of disclosure of UFs. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason to withhold UFs at present, despite an unfavorable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. Some parents only preferred receiving UFs if these findings were directly related to their reasons for seeking a diagnosis. These findings are essential for developing morally responsible policy and for counseling. Further research should focus on whether considerations of non-medical utility alone can justify disclosure of UFs and whether reasons for seeking a diagnosis place further constraints on what UFs may be returned/withheld. How parents can be aided in contemplating different scenarios regarding their child's future development also deserves further inquiry.

Utilization of genetic testing among children with developmental disabilities in the United States

Purpose

Several professional societies recommend that genetic testing be routinely included in the etiologic workup of children with developmental disabilities. The aim of this study was to determine the rate at which genetic testing is performed in this population, based on data from a nationally representative survey.

Methods

Data were analyzed from the Survey of Pathways to Diagnosis and Services, a telephone-based survey of parents and guardians of US school-age children with current or past developmental conditions. This study included 3,371 respondents who indicated that their child had an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability (ID), and/or developmental delay (DD) at the time of survey administration. History of genetic testing was assessed based on report by the parent/s. Children were divided into the following five mutually exclusive condition groups: ASD with ID; ASD with DD, without ID; ASD only, without ID or DD; ID without ASD; and DD only, without ID or ASD. Logistic regression was used to assess the demographic correlates of genetic testing, to compare the rates of genetic testing across groups, and to examine associations between genetic testing and use of other health-care services.

Results

Overall, 32% of this sample had a history of genetic testing, including 34% of all children with ASD and 43% of those with ID. After adjusting for demographics, children with ASD + ID were more than seven times as likely as those with ASD only, and more than twice as likely as those who had ID without ASD, to have undergone genetic testing. Prior specialist care (developmental pediatrician or neurologist) and access to all needed providers within the previous year were associated with higher odds of genetic testing.

Conclusion

The majority of children in this nationally representative sample did not undergo recommended genetic testing. Research is needed to identify barriers to the use of genetic testing in this population.

Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions

While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative and empirical ethical literature. Four ethical signposts are thereby developed to help guide disclosure discussions. These are: respectful sharing of the clinician's expertise; transparent communication; epistemic modesty; and respect for the embedded nature of the patient. We conclude by considering the most common current disclosure positions in the light of the four ethical signposts.

Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases

PURPOSE

To explore parental perceptions and experiences regarding the return of genomic incidental research findings in children with rare diseases.

METHODS

Parents of children affected by various rare diseases were invited to participate in focus groups or individual telephone interviews in Montreal and Ottawa. Fifteen participants were interviewed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four emergent themes underscored parental enthusiasm for receiving incidental findings concerning their child's health: (1) right to information; (2) perceived benefits and risks; (3) communication practicalities: who, when, and how; and (4) service needs to promote the communication of incidental findings. Parents believed they should be made aware of all results pertaining to their child's health status, and that they are responsible for transmitting this information to their child, irrespective of disease severity. Despite potential negative consequences, respondents generally perceived a favourable risk-benefit ratio in receiving all incidental findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how parents assess the risks and benefits of returning incidental findings is essential to genomic research applications in paediatric medicine. The authors believe the study findings will contribute to establishing future best practices, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of parental decisions on themselves and their child.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays and unexpected consanguinity: considerations for clinicians when returning results to families

PURPOSE

The broad use of single-nucleotide polymorphism microarrays has increased identification of unexpected consanguinity. Therefore, guidelines to address reporting of consanguinity have been published for clinical laboratories. Because no such guidelines for clinicians exist, we describe a case and present recommendations for clinicians to disclose unexpected consanguinity to families.

METHODS

In a boy with multiple endocrine abnormalities and structural birth defects, single-nucleotide polymorphism array analysis revealed ~23% autosomal homozygosity suggestive of a first-degree parental relationship. We assembled an interdisciplinary health-care team, planned the most appropriate way to discuss results of the single-nucleotide polymorphism array with the adult mother, including the possibility of multiple autosomal recessive disorders in her child, and finally met with her as a team.

RESULTS

From these discussions, we developed four major considerations for clinicians returning results of unexpected consanguinity, all guided by the child's best interests: (i) ethical and legal obligations for reporting possible abuse, (ii) preservation of the clinical relationship, (iii) attention to justice and psychosocial challenges, and (iv) utilization of the single-nucleotide polymorphism array results to guide further testing.

CONCLUSION

As single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays become a common clinical diagnostic tool, clinicians can use this framework to return results of unexpected consanguinity to families in a supportive and productive manner.

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.

Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research

Genomic research-including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing-has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research-historically referred to as "incidental findings"-has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled-that is, whether incidental results should be returned, and if so, which ones.Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of "the procedures to be followed" in the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume-and indeed, many commentators have concluded-that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants.To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in-depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants' decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings.

Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research

The disclosure of incidental findings, also called unsolicited findings, unexpected results, and secondary variants, is increasingly recognised as an issue in clinical and research genetics contexts. The rise of next generation sequencing methods has only intensified the issue, increasing the likelihood of incidental findings appearing. This review focuses on empirical research on the ethical issues involved. Electronic databases were searched for articles covering quantitative and qualitative research on the ethical issues involved in the disclosure of incidental findings in clinical and research genetics contexts. 16 articles were ultimately accepted for review. Data was extracted and synthesised on the factors that should be taken into account during the decision-making process surrounding the disclosure of an incidental finding in a genetics context. These factors include the possibility of disclosure, various practical and technical factors, and various ethical factors. We suggest the development of a decision-making tree, involving an exploration of the practical and ethical concerns raised by the studies. This is in our view the best way of handling the wide variety of both possible incidental findings and parties interested in the disclosure of incidental findings.

'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing

The potential for genomic incidental findings is increasing with the use of genome-based testing. At the same time approaches to clinical decision making are shifting to shared decision-making models involving both the healthcare community and the public. The public's voice has been nearly absent in discussions on managing incidental findings. We conducted nine focus groups and nine interviews (n = 63) with a broad cross-section of lay public groups to elucidate public viewpoints on incidental findings that could occur as a result of genome-based testing in clinical and research situations. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Participants wanted incidental findings disclosed to them whether or not these were clinical or research findings. Participants used different terms to define and describe incidental findings; they wanted to know that incidental findings are possible and be given a choice to learn about them. Personal utility was an important reason for disclosure, and participants believed that managing information is a shared responsibility between professionals and themselves. Broad public input is needed in order to understand and incorporate the public's perspective on management of incidental findings as disclosure guidelines, and policies are developed in clinical and research settings.