A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research

Mainstreaming Cancer Genomic Testing: A Scoping Review of the Acceptability, Efficacy, and Impact

Finite clinical genetics services combined with expanding genomic testing have driven development of mainstreaming models-of-care for genomic testing: specifically genetic counselor embedded (GEM) and upskilled-clinician (UPC) models. To determine feasibility, acceptability, and health economic impact in cancer mainstreaming settings we conducted a scoping review of the literature. A comprehensive PubMed search identified relevant manuscripts, published in English between 2013 and 2023. Of 156 identified articles, 37 proceeded to full review, encompassing five cancer types. In both models-of-care, testing uptake was > 90% and referral/testing rates increased 1.2-6.7-fold. Time from diagnosis to result disclosure decreased 1.5-6-fold and pathogenic variant detection rates were ≥ 10%. GEM model studies evaluated neither cost-effectiveness nor physician/patient outcomes. UPC models were economically viable, primarily through reducing genetics-related appointments. Physicians found the UPC model workload acceptable and reported improvements in knowledge and confidence. Patient distress in the UPC model was low overall and comparable to standard-of-care. Patients' acceptance and satisfaction/decisional satisfaction were high, and continuity-of-care was appreciated. Mainstreaming cancer genomic testing is feasible and beneficial to patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. More studies are needed to capture GEM model impacts and to compare GEM with UPC models. Further detail of allied health and nursing support for the UPC model is also required.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

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.

Sustained agreement rates in the longitudinal assessment of lupus patients to a Broad Consent for personal data and specimen usage in the RHINEVIT biobank

Background

Biobanks are essential structures for scientific research. The RHINEVIT biobank is used to recruit biomaterials from rheumatology patients in outpatient care and to conduct clinical research studies (e.g., cohort studies) and basic research. RHINEVIT established Broad Consents (BC) to allow extensive and relevant usage of data and biospecimens without the need for specific project restrictions. For quality assurance, we compared the consent rate of individual items of the BC versions in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the longitudinal study.

Methods

BCs were used for biomaterial donation. Informed consent data from RHINEVIT were analyzed. Due to the content restructuring of the BC items due to changes from the templates of the working group of the Medical Ethics Commissions in the Federal Republic of Germany and GDPR requirements, content mapping of the items was performed for the analysis.

Results

From September 2015 to March 2022, 291 SLE outpatients donated biomaterials. In 119 patients, the BC was renewed at least once in a subsequent biomaterial donation. Three biomaterial donations were obtained from 21 patients and four from six patients using the respective BC. However, one consent was later revoked. Consent to the BC topics showed consistently high rates of agreement (range 97.5%-100%), with only some patients disagreeing with individual topics. This remained stable over time (median 526 days [Q1 400, Q3 844]). None of the patients disagreed with a certain topic in two consecutive visits.

Conclusion

Modifications to the BC did not result in any relevant changes in the approval rates for SLE patients. RHINEVIT's BC is successfully used for the quality-assured handling of excellently annotated biomaterial. The long-term use of these highly valuable biospecimens for unrestricted research, also in an international context, remains assured.

Public Attitude towards Biobanking: An Italian University Survey

Biobanks have established a critical role in biomedical research by collecting, preserving, organizing, and disseminating biospecimens and related health data, contributing to precision medicine development. Participation in biobanks is influenced by several factors, such as trust in institutions and scientists, knowledge about biobanking, and the consideration of benefit sharing. Understanding public attitudes, fears, and concerns toward biobanking is fundamental to designing targeted interventions to increase trust towards biobanks. The aim of our study was to investigate the level of knowledge and perception of biobanks in students and personnel of the University of Piemonte Orientale. An online questionnaire was designed and administered via e-mail. A total of 17,758 UPO personnel and students were invited to participate in the survey, and 1521 (9.3%) subjects completed the survey. The results showed that 65.0% of the participants were aware of the term "biobank" and knew what the activity of a biobank was, and 76.3% of subjects were willing to provide biospecimens to a research biobank, whereas 67.3% of the respondents were willing to contribute, in addition to biospecimens, their health and lifestyle data. Concerns were raised about the confidentiality of the information (25.6%) and the commercial use of the samples (25.0%). In conclusion, participants were aware of the role that biobanks play in research and were eager to participate for the sake of furthering scientific research. Still, several concerns need to be addressed regarding the confidentiality of the data along with the commercial use of the samples and associated data.

My Research Results: a program to facilitate return of clinically actionable genomic research findings

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants

INTRODUCTION

Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.

METHODS

A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.

RESULTS

Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.

CONCLUSION

Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

Strategic vision for improving human health at The Forefront of Genomics

Starting with the launch of the Human Genome Project three decades ago, and continuing after its completion in 2003, genomics has progressively come to have a central and catalytic role in basic and translational research. In addition, studies increasingly demonstrate how genomic information can be effectively used in clinical care. In the future, the anticipated advances in technology development, biological insights, and clinical applications (among others) will lead to more widespread integration of genomics into almost all areas of biomedical research, the adoption of genomics into mainstream medical and public-health practices, and an increasing relevance of genomics for everyday life. On behalf of the research community, the National Human Genome Research Institute recently completed a multi-year process of strategic engagement to identify future research priorities and opportunities in human genomics, with an emphasis on health applications. Here we describe the highest-priority elements envisioned for the cutting-edge of human genomics going forward-that is, at 'The Forefront of Genomics'.

Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach

This study adopts a heuristic technique to argue the thesis that a set of norms rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully supplement current research guidelines for dealing with incidental findings discovered in genomic research. The consensus regarding incidental findings is that there is an ethical obligation to return individual genetic incidental findings that meet the threshold of analytic and clinical validity, have clinical utility, and are actionable, provided that research contributors have not opted out from receiving such information. This study outlines the hurdles that may hinder the integration of this consensus in mainstream clinical practice, and shows how an ethical theory from the global south may be used to address the same. This will advance the field of ethical, legal and social issues of personalized medicine by providing exposure to the under-represented African perspective on the ethical, legal, and social issues of genomics.

Genetic counseling, 2030: An on-demand service tailored to the needs of a price conscious, genetically literate, and busy world

The practice of genetic counseling is going to be impacted by the public's expectation that goods, services, information, and experiences happen on demand, wherever and whenever people want them. Building from trends that are currently taking shape, this article looks just over a decade into the future-to 2030-to provide a description of how the field of genetics and genetic counseling will be changed, as well as advice for genetic counselors for how to prepare. We build from the prediction that a large portion of the general public will have access to their digitized whole genome sequence anytime, any place, on any device. We focus on five topics downstream of this prediction: public health, personal autonomy, polygenic scores (PGS), evolving clinical practices, and genetic privacy.

Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings

Much new global genetic research employs whole genome sequencing, which provides researchers with large amounts of data. The quantity of data has led to the generation and discovery of more incidental or secondary findings and to vigorous theoretical discussions about the ethical obligations that follow from these incidental findings. After a decade of debate in the genetic research community, there is a growing consensus that researchers should, at the very least, offer to return incidental findings that provide high-impact, medically relevant information, when it is not unduly burdensome to the research enterprise to do so. Much as genetic research has been limited to U.S. and European settings, the incidental findings debate has primarily focused on research conducted in high-income countries. In a 2015 paper, Alberto Ortiz-Osorno, Linda Ehler, and Judith Brooks note salient differences between the circumstances of research participants in low- and high-resource settings that alter the analysis of when and why incidental findings should be offered to research participants. In this article, we expand on their analysis and present a framework for thinking about how investigators' obligations to return genomic data might change in low-resource settings, particularly in settings where participants do not have access to the medical care needed to treat, assess, or monitor incidental findings that are actionable in settings with plentiful resources.

Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience

BACKGROUND

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is primarily used to address specific clinical concerns by detecting risk of future disease, clarifying diagnosis, or directing treatment. Additionally, CGES makes possible the disclosure of autosomal recessive and X-linked carrier results as additional secondary findings, and research about the impact of carrier results disclosure in this context is needed.

METHODS

Representatives from 11 projects in the clinical sequencing exploratory research (CSER) consortium collected data from their projects using a structured survey. The survey focused on project characteristics, which variants were offered and/or disclosed to participants as carrier results, methods for carrier results disclosure, and project-specific outcomes. We recorded quantitative responses and report descriptive statistics with the aim of describing the variability in approaches to disclosing carrier results in translational genomics research projects.

RESULTS

The proportion of participants with carrier results was related to the number of genes included, ranging from 3% (three genes) to 92% (4,600 genes). Between one and seven results were disclosed to those participants who received any positive result. Most projects offered participants choices about whether to receive some or all of the carrier results. There were a range of approaches to communicate results, and many projects used separate approaches for disclosing positive and negative results.

CONCLUSION

Future translational genomics research projects will need to make decisions regarding whether and how to disclose carrier results. The CSER consortium experience identifies approaches that balance potential participant interest while limiting impact on project resources.

Evaluation of Recipients of Positive and Negative Secondary Findings Evaluations in a Hybrid CLIA-Research Sequencing Pilot

While consensus regarding the return of secondary genomic findings in the clinical setting has been reached, debate about such findings in the research setting remains. We developed a hybrid, research-clinical translational genomics process for research exome data coupled with a CLIA-validated secondary findings analysis. Eleven intramural investigators from ten institutes at the National Institutes of Health piloted this process. Nearly 1,200 individuals were sequenced and 14 secondary findings were identified in 18 participants. Positive secondary findings were returned by a genetic counselor following a standardized protocol, including referrals for specialty follow-up care for the secondary finding local to the participants. Interviews were undertaken with 13 participants 4 months after receipt of a positive report. These participants reported minimal psychologic distress within a process to assimilate their results. Of the 13, 9 reported accessing the recommended health care services. A sample of 107 participants who received a negative findings report were surveyed 4 months after receiving it. They demonstrated good understanding of the negative secondary findings result and most expressed reassurance (64%) from that report. However, a notable minority (up to 17%) expressed confusion regarding the distinction of primary from secondary findings. This pilot shows it is feasible to couple CLIA-compliant secondary findings to research sequencing with minimal harms. Participants managed the surprise of a secondary finding with most following recommended follow up, yet some with negative findings conflated secondary and primary findings. Additional work is needed to understand barriers to follow-up care and help participants distinguish secondary from primary findings.

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens-traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions-as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable "tough" cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.

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

Purpose

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Enrolling Genomics Research Participants through a Clinical Setting: the Impact of Existing Clinical Relationships on Informed Consent and Expectations for Return of Research Results

Genetic counselors working in a clinical setting may find themselves recruiting, enrolling, and returning results for genomic research, and existing clinical relationships with study participants may impact these research interactions. We present a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of participants enrolled in a genome sequencing/exome sequencing (GS/ES) study at the same institution where they receive clinical care. Interviews were coded for motivations to participate and expectations of this research. The interviews revealed common motivations for participation, including altruism and hope for benefit for themselves, family members, and/or others with their condition. Additionally, themes emerged related to unintentional influence based on trust of the clinical provider that recruited them to the study. Participant trust in the enrolling provider at times appeared to extend to the study team to decide which research results to return and to do so in an appropriate format. Participants also based expectations for research results return on previous clinical genetic testing experiences, which may or may not be realistic depending on study design. It is imperative that genetic counselors enrolling patients into research studies be aware of the potential influence of their clinical relationship on potential subjects, be transparent about their role on the study team, and help set expectations about the study process, including results return.

Broad consent for health care-embedded biobanking: understanding and reasons to donate in a large patient sample

PurposeTo facilitate ethically acceptable and practically successful health care-embedded biobanking, the attitudes and understanding of patients and their motivation to participate need to be explored.MethodsA questionnaire study was conducted among 760 outpatients of a northern German university hospital to assess their awareness of, and motivation for giving broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking, also addressing the issue of feedback on individual-level research findings.ResultsThe overall willingness to give broad consent was high (86.9%) in our study, even though the subjective and objective understanding of patients was found to be only modest. Most participants who consented did so for prosocial reasons (altruism, solidarity, reciprocity, gratitude), whereas self-interest or worries about disadvantages played only a marginal role. Better objective understanding was associated with both a greater demand for feedback on individual research findings and a higher willingness to consent. Intermittent modification of the information material provided by the hospital led to significantly improved objective understanding.ConclusionPatient willingness to give broad consent to health care-embedded biobanking is high, with prosocial reasons driving decision making more than factual knowledge and approval or disapproval of specific consent elements. Future efforts to improve the information material used in health care-embedded biobanking should therefore emphasize prosocial reasons to consent.

Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.

GROWING POINTS

SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.

Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease

Although consensus is building that primary (PR) and secondary findings (SF) from genomic research should be offered to participants under some circumstances, data describing (1) actual choices of study participants and (2) factors associated with these choices are limited, hampering study planning. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of choices made for return of PR and SF during informed consent by members of the first 247 families (790 individuals) enrolled in the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics, a genome sequencing study. Most (619; 78.3%) chose to receive SF and PR, 66 (8.4%) chose PR only, 65 (8.2%) wanted no results, and 40 (5.1%) chose SF only. Choosing SF was associated with an established clinical diagnosis in the proband (87.8 vs 79%, P=0.009) and European ancestry (EA) (87.7 vs 73%, P<0.008). Participants of non-European ancestry (NEA) were as likely as those of EA to choose SF when consented by a genetic counselor (GC) (82% NEA vs 88.3% EA, P=0.09) but significantly less likely when consented by a physician (67.4% NEA vs 85.4% EA, P=0.001). Controlling for proband diagnosis, individuals of NEA were 2.13-fold (95% CI: 1.11-4.08) more likely to choose SF when consented by a GC rather than a physician. Participants of NEA were 3-fold more likely than those of EA to decline all study results (14.7% NEA vs 5.4% EA, P<0.008). In this ethnically diverse population, whereas most participants desired PR and SF, more than 20% declined some or all results, highlighting the importance of research participant choice.

Exome and Genome Sequencing and Parallels in Radiology: Searching for Patient-Centered Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings

Incidental and secondary findings have become an important by-product of diagnostic testing, and their ramifications affect clinical care, research, and policy. Given parallels in the reporting and management of such findings on diagnostic imaging, radiologists may draw from ongoing discussions in medical genetics to rethink more patient-centered approaches to analogous clinical, ethical, and medicolegal dilemmas. Low-risk incidental findings in particular may be drivers of unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, and overtreatment, with associated financial, psychological, and clinical consequences. As radiologists act in patients' best interests by strengthening standardized guidelines on how each finding merits further diagnostic testing or treatment, perhaps the greatest challenge for producing such guidelines is for low-risk incidental findings, for which adverse consequences are unlikely but associated with substantial uncertainty because of the lack of strong evidence on which to base the recommendations. More uniform recommendations for managing low-risk radiologic incidental findings should therefore aim to provide reasonable options that apply across a spectrum of patient preferences. These will require evaluation through research and will ultimately influence the quality of care. Specific areas for exploration may include (1) better gauging of patient attitudes and preferences regarding low-risk incidental findings, (2) using patient preferences to inform more uniform recommendations for low-risk findings that apply across a spectrum of preferences and help guide shared decision making, and (3) when patients endorse a strong preference not to discover low-risk incidental findings, how it might be possible for professional standards to curtail their generation in specific circumstances.

Communicating BRCA research results to patients enrolled in international clinical trials: lessons learnt from the AGO-OVAR 16 study

Background

The focus on translational research in clinical trials has the potential to generate clinically relevant genetic data that could have importance to patients. This raises challenging questions about communicating relevant genetic research results to individual patients.

Methods

An exploratory pharmacogenetic analysis was conducted in the international ovarian cancer phase III trial, AGO-OVAR 16, which found that patients with clinically important germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations had improved progression-free survival prognosis. Mechanisms to communicate BRCA results were evaluated, because these findings may be beneficial to patients and their families.

Results

Communicating individual BRCA results was not anticipated during clinical trial design. Consequently, options were not available for patients to indicate their preference for receiving their individual results when they signed pharmacogenetic informed consent. Differences in local requirements, clinical practice, and opinion regarding the ethical aspects of how to convey genetic results to patients are all potential barriers to returning individual BRCA results to patients. Communicating the aggregate BRCA result from this study provided clinical investigators with a mechanism to disseminate the overall study finding to patients while taking individual circumstances, local guidelines and clinical practice into account.

Conclusion

This study illustrates the importance of increasing the clarity and scope of informed consent and the need for patient engagement to ensure clinical trial participants can indicate their preference regarding receipt of potentially important individual pharmacogenetic results.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the NCT Clinical Trial Registry under NCT00866697 on March 19, 2009, following approval from participating ethics committees (Additional file 1).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0144-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing genomics and pharmacogenomics in the clinic: The National Human Genome Research Institute's genomic medicine portfolio

Increasing knowledge about the influence of genetic variation on human health and growing availability of reliable, cost-effective genetic testing have spurred the implementation of genomic medicine in the clinic. As defined by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), genomic medicine uses an individual's genetic information in his or her clinical care, and has begun to be applied effectively in areas such as cancer genomics, pharmacogenomics, and rare and undiagnosed diseases. In 2011 NHGRI published its strategic vision for the future of genomic research, including an ambitious research agenda to facilitate and promote the implementation of genomic medicine. To realize this agenda, NHGRI is consulting and facilitating collaborations with the external research community through a series of "Genomic Medicine Meetings," under the guidance and leadership of the National Advisory Council on Human Genome Research. These meetings have identified and begun to address significant obstacles to implementation, such as lack of evidence of efficacy, limited availability of genomics expertise and testing, lack of standards, and difficulties in integrating genomic results into electronic medical records. The six research and dissemination initiatives comprising NHGRI's genomic research portfolio are designed to speed the evaluation and incorporation, where appropriate, of genomic technologies and findings into routine clinical care. Actual adoption of successful approaches in clinical care will depend upon the willingness, interest, and energy of professional societies, practitioners, patients, and payers to promote their responsible use and share their experiences in doing so.