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

Deep learning and predictive modelling for generating normalised muscle function parameters from signal images of mandibular electromyography

Challenges arise in accessing archived signal outputs due to proprietary software limitations. There is a notable lack of exploration in open-source mandibular EMG signal conversion for continuous access and analysis, hindering tasks such as pattern recognition and predictive modelling for temporomandibular joint complex function. To Develop a workflow to extract normalised signal parameters from images of mandibular muscle EMG and identify optimal clustering methods for quantifying signal intensity and activity durations. A workflow utilising OpenCV, variational encoders and Neurokit2 generated and augmented 866 unique EMG signals from jaw movement exercises. k-means, GMM and DBSCAN were employed for normalisation and cluster-centric signal processing. The workflow was validated with data collected from 66 participants, measuring temporalis, masseter and digastric muscles. DBSCAN (0.35 to 0.54) and GMM (0.09 to 0.24) exhibited lower silhouette scores for mouth opening, anterior protrusion and lateral excursions, while K-means performed best (0.10 to 0.11) for temporalis and masseter muscles during chewing activities. The current study successfully developed a deep learning workflow capable of extracting normalised signal data from EMG images and generating quantifiable parameters for muscle activity duration and general functional intensity.

GBA/GBN-position on the feedback of incidental findings in biobank-based research: consensus-based workflow for hospital-based biobanks

Incidental research findings pose a considerable challenge to hospital-based research biobanks since they are acting as intermediaries between healthcare and research. In a joint action the centralized biobank ibdw (Interdisciplinary Bank of Biomaterials and Data Wuerzburg) together with local authorities drafted a coherent concept to manage incidental research findings in full compliance with relevant ethical and data privacy regulations. The concept was developed and elaborated in close collaboration with the German Biobank Alliance (GBA). Comprehensive documentation of all steps guarantees the traceability of the process. By a mandatory assessment of the findings prior to re-identification of the individual concerned, unnecessary measures can be avoided. The individual's "right not to know" is respected according to the stipulations of the informed consent. As a general principle any communication with the individual occurs exclusively through the hospital and by competent physicians with appropriate knowledge and communication skills. We propose this scheme as a blueprint for reporting workflows for incidental research findings at hospital-based biobanks.

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.

Effects of Interventions to Prevent Work-Related Asthma, Allergy, and Other Hypersensitivity Reactions in Norwegian Salmon Industry Workers (SHInE): Protocol for a Pragmatic Allocated Intervention Trial and Related Substudies

BACKGROUND

Workers in the salmon processing industry have an increased risk of developing respiratory diseases and other hypersensitivity responses due to occupational exposure to bioaerosols containing fish proteins and microorganisms, and related allergens. Little is known about effective measures to reduce bioaerosol exposure and about the extent of skin complaints among workers. In addition, while identification of risk factors is a core activity in disease prevention strategies, there is increasing interest in health-promoting factors, which is an understudied area in the salmon processing industry.

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of this ongoing study is to generate knowledge that can be used in tailored prevention of development or chronification of respiratory diseases, skin reactions, protein contact dermatitis, and allergy among salmon processing workers. The main objective is to identify effective methods to reduce bioaerosol exposure. Further objectives are to identify and characterize clinically relevant exposure agents, identify determinants of exposure, measure prevalence of work-related symptoms and disease, and identify health-promoting factors of the psychosocial work environment.

METHODS

Data are collected during field studies in 9 salmon processing plants along the Norwegian coastline. Data collection comprises exposure measurements, health examinations, and questionnaires. A wide range of laboratory analyses will be used for further analysis and characterization of exposure agents. Suitable statistical analysis will be applied to the various outcomes of this comprehensive study.

RESULTS

Data collection started in September 2021 and was anticipated to be completed by March 2023, but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline data from all 9 plants included 673 participants for the health examinations and a total of 869 personal exposure measurements. A total of 740 workers answered the study's main questionnaire on demographics, job characteristics, lifestyle, health, and health-promoting factors. Follow-up data collection is not completed yet.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will contribute to filling knowledge gaps concerning salmon workers' work environment. This includes effective workplace measures for bioaerosol exposure reduction, increased knowledge on hypersensitivity, allergy, respiratory and dermal health, as well as health-promoting workplace factors. Together this will give a basis for improving the work environment, preventing occupational health-related diseases, and developing occupational exposure limits, which in turn will benefit employees, employers, occupational health services, researchers, clinicians, decision makers, and other stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05039229; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05039229.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/48790.

Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data

As ambitions to 'mainstream' genetic and genomic medicine in the UK advance, patients are increasingly exposed to information about genomic data. Unlike the results of many other medical investigations which are linked to the time of sample collection, genomic testing provides immortal data that do not change across time, and may have relevance for relatives and generations far beyond the patient's own lifespan. This immortality raises new ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, patients and families alike, such as ensuring consent for possible future interpretations; determining when genomic data are best sought (at birth, on illness etc) and reinterpreted; and balancing the confidentiality of patients and duties of care towards others. This paper reports on qualitative work exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives participating in genomic testing, and suggests that their engagements with this immortality are shaped by: the contrast between the simplicity of sample provision and information gathered; understandings of heritability; and notions of genomic data as a collective resource. We discuss the implications this holds for practice and argue that the immortality of genomic data must take a more prominent position in patient and healthcare professional interactions.

Scar Management and Dyschromia: A Summary Report from the 2021 American Burn Association State of the Science Meeting

Burn scars, and in particular, hypertrophic scars, are a challenging yet common outcome for survivors of burn injuries. In 2021, the American Burn Association brought together experts in burn care and research to discuss critical topics related to burns, including burn scars, at its State of the Science conference. Clinicians and researchers with burn scar expertise, as well as burn patients, industry representatives, and other interested stakeholders met to discuss issues related to burn scars and discuss priorities for future burn scar research. The various preventative strategies and treatment modalities currently utilized for burn scars were discussed, including relatively noninvasive therapies such as massage, compression, and silicone sheeting, as well as medical interventions such as corticosteroid injection and laser therapies. A common theme that emerged is that the efficacy of current therapies for specific patient populations is not clear, and further research is needed to improve upon these treatments and develop more effective strategies to suppress scar formation. This will necessitate quantitative analyses of outcomes and would benefit from creation of scar biobanks and shared data resources. In addition, outcomes of importance to patients, such as scar dyschromia, must be given greater attention by clinicians and researchers to improve overall quality of life in burn survivors. Herein we summarize the main topics of discussion from this meeting and offer recommendations for areas where further research and development are needed.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

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

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

Identification and Assessment of Risks in Biobanking: The Case of the Cancer Institute of Bari

Simple Summary

Risk assessment is one of the requirements for all activities involving the management of human biological samples within the framework of the new ISO 20387:2018. Although some theoretical approaches are available for preparing risk assessments in general, there is no evidence in the literature of examples of listed insurable risks for cancer biobanks. To fill this gap and to provide an overview of the survey performed in our cancer Biobank, we have assessed potential exposures to insurable risks. After an analysis of the Biobank structure and focusing on natural catastrophe risks, we produced a summary map of risk scenarios. In addition to implementing security awareness, this also lays the foundation for transferring the residual risk arising from Biobank activities to the insurance market.

Abstract

Although research biobanks are among the most promising tools to fight disease and improve public health, there are a range of risks biobanks may face that mainly need to be assessed in an attempt to be relieved. We conducted a strategic insurance review of an institutional cancer biobank with the aim of both identifying the insurable risks of our own Biobank and gathering useful evidence of primary exposure to insurable risks. In this practical scenario, risks have been outlined and categorized into inherent and residual risks, along with their possible impact on biobank maintenance. Results at the Biobank of the Cancer Institute of Bari showed evidence of potentially significant and intrinsic risk due to highly relevant threats, along with already implemented improvements that significantly reduce risks to a range of relative acceptability.

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Informed consent, genomic research and mental health: A integrative review

BACKGROUND

Research on genomics has increased while the biobank activities are becoming more common in different countries. In the mental health field, the questions concerning the potential participants' vulnerability as well as capacity to give the informed consent can cause reluctancy in recruiting persons with mental health problems, although the knowledge and understanding of mental health problems has remarkable changed, and practice is guided with inclusive approaches, such as recovery approach.

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe the current knowledge of informed consent practices in the context of genomic research on mental health from the nurses' viewpoint.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted with search from seven international databases. Data consist 14 publications which were analyzed with thematic analysis.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical requirements were respected in every phase of the research process.

FINDINGS

Most of the papers were published in USA and between 2000-2010. Eight reports were categorized as discussion papers, four qualitative studies and one quantitative study. The thematic analysis provided information on five themes: complexity with the capacity to consent, mixed emotions towards participation, factors influencing the decision to participate, nurses' informed consent process competence and variations between consent procedures.

DISCUSSION

In the informed consent practices, there are various aspects which may affect both the willingness to participate in the study and the informed consent process itself. Implications for practice, education, research, and policies are discussed.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more updated international research on the topic in the context of different international and national guidelines, legislation, and directives. This study provided a viewpoint to the more collaborative research activities with people with lived experiences also in this field of research following the ideas of recovery approach.

Communicating and Using Dementia Risk Evidence

Advances in biomarkers, genetics, and other data used as dementia risk evidence (DRE) are increasingly informing clinical diagnosis and management. The purpose of this Mini-Forum is to provide a solutions-based discussion of the ethical and legal gaps and practical questions about how to use and communicate these data. Investigators often use DRE in research. When participants ask for their personal results, investigators have concerns. Will data that was intended to study groups be valid for individuals? Will sharing data cause distress? Debates around sharing DRE became heated when blood-based amyloid tests and amyloid reducing drugs appeared poised to enable clinicians easily to identify people with elevated brain amyloid and reduce it with a drug. Such an approach would transform the traditional role of DRE from investigational to foundational; however, then the high costs, uncertain clinical benefits and risks of the therapy led to an urgent need for education to support clinical decision making. Further complicating DRE use are direct to consumer genetic testing and increasingly available biomarker testing. Withholding DRE becomes less feasible and public education around responsible use and understanding become vital. A critical answer to these legal and ethical issues is supporting education that clearly delineates known risks, benefits, and gaps in knowledge, and communication to promote understanding among researchers, clinicians, patients, and all stakeholders. This paper provides an overview and identifies general concepts and resource documents that support more informed discussions for individuals and interdisciplinary groups.

A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways

Background

Whether and how to disclose genomic findings obtained in the course of genomic clinical practice and medical research has been a controversial global bioethical issue over the past two decades. Although several recommendations and judgment tools for the disclosure of genomic findings have been proposed, none are sufficiently systematic or inclusive or even consistent with each other. In order to approach the disclosure/non-disclosure practice in an ethical manner, optimal and easy-to-use tools for supporting the judgment of physicians/researchers in genomic medicine are necessary.

Methods

The bioethics literature on this topic was analyzed to parse and deconstruct the somewhat overlapping and therefore ill-defined key concepts of genomic findings, such as incidental, primary, secondary, and other findings. Based on the deconstruction and conceptual analyses of these findings, we then defined key parameters from which to identify the strength of duty to disclose (SDD) for a genomic finding. These analyses were then applied to develop a framework with the SDD matrix and systematic decision-making pathways for the disclosure of genomic findings.

Results

The following six major parameters (axes), along with sub-axes, were identified: Axis 1 (settings and institutions where findings emerge); Axis 2 (presence or absence of intention and anticipatability in discovery); Axis 3 (maximal actionability at the time of discovery); Axis 4 (net medical importance); Axis 5 (expertise of treating physician/researcher); and Axis 6 (preferences of individual patients/research subjects for disclosure). For Axes 1 to 4, a colored SDD matrix for genomic findings was developed in which levels of obligation for disclosing a finding can be categorized. For Axes 5 and 6, systematic decision-making pathways were developed via the SDD matrix.

Conclusion

We analyzed the SDD of genomic findings and developed subsequent systematic decision-making pathways of whether and how to disclose genomic findings to patients/research subjects and their relatives in an ethical manner. Our comprehensive framework may help physicians and researchers in genomic medicine make consistent ethical judgments regarding the disclosure of genomic findings.

Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance

Biobanks act as the custodians for the access to and  responsible use of human biological samples and related data that have been generously donated by individuals to serve the public interest and scientific advances in the health research realm. Risk assessment has become a daily practice for biobanks and has been discussed from different perspectives. This paper aims to provide a literature review on risk assessment in order to put together a comprehensive typology of diverse risks biobanks could potentially face. Methodologically set as a typology, the conceptual approach used in this paper is based on the interdisciplinary analysis of scientific literature, the relevant ethical and legal instruments and practices in biobanking to identify how risks are assessed, considered and mitigated. Through an interdisciplinary mapping exercise, we have produced a typology of potential risks in biobanking, taking into consideration the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as institutional actors and publics, including participants and representative organizations. With this approach, we have identified the following risk types: economic, infrastructural, institutional, research community risks and participant's risks. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity of an adaptive risk governance as an integral part of good governance in biobanking. In this regard, it contributes to sustainability in biobanking by assisting in the design of relevant risk management practices, where they are not already in place or require an update. The typology is intended to be useful from the early stages of establishing such a complex and multileveled biomedical infrastructure as well as to provide a catalogue of risks for improving the risk management practices already in place.

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

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

The Exposome Approach in Allergies and Lung Diseases: Is It Time to Define a Preconception Exposome?

Emerging research suggests environmental exposures before conception may adversely affect allergies and lung diseases in future generations. Most studies are limited as they have focused on single exposures, not considering that these diseases have a multifactorial origin in which environmental and lifestyle factors are likely to interact. Traditional exposure assessment methods fail to capture the interactions among environmental exposures and their impact on fundamental biological processes, as well as individual and temporal factors. A valid estimation of exposure preconception is difficult since the human reproductive cycle spans decades and the access to germ cells is limited. The exposome is defined as the cumulative measure of external exposures on an organism (external exposome), and the associated biological responses (endogenous exposome) throughout the lifespan, from conception and onwards. An exposome approach implies a targeted or agnostic analysis of the concurrent and temporal multiple exposures, and may, together with recent technological advances, improve the assessment of the environmental contributors to health and disease. This review describes the current knowledge on preconception environmental exposures as related to respiratory health outcomes in offspring. We discuss the usefulness and feasibility of using an exposome approach in this research, advocating for the preconception exposure window to become included in the exposome concept.

Applying Genetic and Genomic Tools to Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review

Introduction

The bioethics literature reflects significant interest in and concern with the use of genetic and genomic information in various settings. Because psychiatric treatment and research raises unique ethical, legal, and social issues, we conducted a scoping review of the biomedical, bioethics, and psychology literature regarding the application of genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (as listed in the DSM-5) and two associated behaviors or symptoms to provide a more detailed overview of the state of the field.

Objectives

The primary objective was to examine the available bioethics, biomedical, and psychology literature on applying genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (other than neurodevelopmental disorders) and two behaviors or symptoms sometimes associated with them (aggression or violence and suicidality) to identify the disorders to which these tools have been applied, the contexts in or purposes for which they have been applied, the ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with those uses, and proposed recommendations for mitigating those concerns.

Methods

We used Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarize, and report results (2005). We relied on Levac et al. to inform our application of the framework (2010). The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist informed our reporting (2018). We searched three electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and PsycInfo (EbscoHost) for peer-reviewed journal articles in English to identify relevant literature. One author screened the initial results and additional screening was done in consultation with other authors. A data extraction form using DSM-5 diagnostic categories (excluding neurodevelopmental disorders) was developed and two authors independently each reviewed approximately half of the articles. Inter-rater reliability was ensured by double-coding approximately 10% of the papers. An additional author independently coded 10% of the articles to audit the data.

Results

In 365 coded publications, we identified 15 DSM-5 diagnostic categories in addition to the two pre-selected behaviors or symptoms (aggression or violence and suicidality) to which genetic or genomic tools have been applied. We identified 11 settings in or purposes for which these tools were applied. Twenty-two types of ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with the application of genetic or genomic tools to these disorders or behaviors/symptoms were identified along with 13 practices or policies that could mitigate these concerns.

Conclusion

Genetic and genomic tools have been applied to a wide range of psychiatric disorders. These raise a range of ethical, legal, and social concerns. Additional research is warranted to better understand the concerns and effective ways to address them. Advancing the literature to identify relevant ethical, legal, or social concerns and solutions to those problems likely requires greater attention to specific applications of genetic or genomic tools to particular psychiatric disorders and associated behaviors/symptoms as well as broad stakeholder engagement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10730-021-09465-5.

The impact of reporting magnetic resonance imaging incidental findings in the Canadian alliance for healthy hearts and minds cohort

BACKGROUND

In the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, heart, and abdomen, that generated incidental findings (IFs). The approach to managing these unexpected results remain a complex issue. Our objectives were to describe the CAHHM policy for the management of IFs, to understand the impact of disclosing IFs to healthy research participants, and to reflect on the ethical obligations of researchers in future MRI studies.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2019, 8252 participants (mean age 58 ± 9 years, 54% women) were recruited with a follow-up questionnaire administered to 909 participants (40% response rate) at 1-year. The CAHHM policy followed a restricted approach, whereby routine feedback on IFs was not provided. Only IFs of severe structural abnormalities were reported.

RESULTS

Severe structural abnormalities occurred in 8.3% (95% confidence interval 7.7-8.9%) of participants, with the highest proportions found in the brain (4.2%) and abdomen (3.1%). The majority of participants (97%) informed of an IF reported no change in quality of life, with 3% of participants reporting that the knowledge of an IF negatively impacted their quality of life. Furthermore, 50% reported increased stress in learning about an IF, and in 95%, the discovery of an IF did not adversely impact his/her life insurance policy. Most participants (90%) would enrol in the study again and perceived the MRI scan to be beneficial, regardless of whether they were informed of IFs. While the implications of a restricted approach to IF management was perceived to be mostly positive, a degree of diagnostic misconception was present amongst participants, indicating the importance of a more thorough consent process to support participant autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The management of IFs from research MRI scans remain a challenging issue, as participants may experience stress and a reduced quality of life when IFs are disclosed. The restricted approach to IF management in CAHHM demonstrated a fair fulfillment of the overarching ethical principles of respect for autonomy, concern for wellbeing, and justice. The approach outlined in the CAHHM policy may serve as a framework for future research studies. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02220582 .

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

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

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

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

To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research

Background

Clinical genomic professionals are increasingly facing decisions about returning incidental findings (IFs) from genetic research. Although previous studies have shown that research participants are interested in receiving IFs, yet there has been an argument about the extent of researcher obligation to return IFs. We aimed in this study to explore the perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of a sample (n = 113) of clinical genomic professionals using a convenient sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to explore their attitudes toward disclosure of IFs, their perception of the duties to return IFs and identifying the barriers for disclosure of IFs. A descriptive analysis was employed to describe participants' responses.

Results

Sixty-five (57.5%) respondents had faced IFs in their practice and 31 (27.4%) were not comfortable in discussing IFs with their research subjects. Less than one-third of the respondents reported the availability of guidelines governing IFs. The majority 84 (80%) and 69 (62.7%) of the study participants indicated they would return the IFs if the risk of disease threat ≥ 50% and 6–49%, respectively and 36 (31.9%) reported they have no obligation to return IFs.

Conclusion

Clinical genomics professionals have positive attitudes and perceptions toward the returning IFs from genomic research, yet some revealed no duty to do so. Detailed guidelines must be established to provide insights into how genomics professionals should be handled IFs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00670-y.

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

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

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

METHODS

In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance).

RESULTS

In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

Biorepositories and Databanks for the Development of Novel Biomarkers for Genitourinary Cancer Prevention and Management

CONTEXT

Translational research in uro-oncology depends on the availability of high-quality biospecimens and associated data to advance precision medicine and improve clinical outcomes. Procurement, storage, and annotation of these specimens represent critical steps towards this end.

OBJECTIVE

To review best-practice experiences gained via the McCain GU BioBank, a repository of more than 750 000 biospecimens obtained from more than 16 000 patients attending clinics at the University Health Network in Toronto, Canada.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The review summarizes our experiences at a large single-institution genitourinary oncology biorepository.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Key findings are placed in the context of emerging trends in genitourinary oncology, with a focus on integration of molecular profiling and clinical data with traditional biorepository management. Proposed approaches provide high-quality biospecimens with comprehensive and reliable clinical data that can fuel innovation and discovery in research.

CONCLUSIONS

Biorepositories are vital for improving clinical outcomes and advancing personalized medicine. High-quality biospecimens and their associated clinical data are crucial for validation of biomarkers in oncology. Efforts to procure, store, and annotate clinical specimens represent critical steps in translational research. Elements such as biobank size, biospecimen types, disease cohorts, predetermined collection protocols, broad informed consent, sample handling and storage protocols, and available infrastructure directly influence the effectiveness and capacity of a biobank.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Biorepositories, or biobanks, are facilities that store biospecimens such as blood, urine, or tissue (usually collected from humans) for use in research. Biobanks have become an important resource in medical research, as they provide high-quality specimens to support different types of contemporary research such as genomics, biomarker discovery, and personalized medicine. Clinical management and treatment of genitourinary cancers, such as prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers, are particularly suited for biomarker research. The provision of biospecimens and their associated clinical data have become crucial for validation of biomarkers in these cancers.

Genetic Contribution to Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Recent studies show that the prevalence of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (also known as mutations) in DNA repair genes in metastatic prostate cancer is higher than previously recognized and higher than in unaffected men. Specific gene dysfunction is important in prostate cancer initiation and/or evolution to metastases. This article reviews key literature on individual genes, recognizing BRCA2 as the gene most commonly altered in the metastatic setting. This article discusses the importance of representative and diverse inclusion, and efforts to advance management for at-risk carrier populations to maximize clinical benefit.

Content and Method of Information for Participants in Clinical Studies With Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs)

Research with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) involves specific ethical challenges, which should be addressed in the informed consent process. Up to now, little concern has been paid to the practice of information in iPSC-clinical studies. In order to fill this research gap, we have searched the documentation of the Research Ethics Committee at Ulm University from the years 2007 to 2019. In our previous research, we have identified 11 items for evaluation of the process of information in iPSC research. We used these items to analyze content and form of information provided for participants in the iPSC studies conducted at Ulm University and Ulm University Hospital in Germany. All analyzed studies provide general information regarding the study's aim, method, and collection of donor's personal data and specimen. The information for participants in these studies adheres to general guidelines for research involving human subjects; however, in several areas fails to take into account the specific nature of research with iPSCs. The majority of analyzed studies fail to provide information about possible individual consequences connected with genetic research, such as the possibility of re-identification of the donor or incidental findings acquired during research. Missing is also information about the possibility of future studies involving reproductive research or transplantation of cells and organs. The donor information process in all analyzed studies is conducted in form of the information sheet and oral information. The results of our research show that the process of informed consent in iPSC research should be updated as new developments emerge in this area. However, comprehension of information should not be jeopardized through information overload. Effective communication of essential information requires improved information methods tailored to the needs of participants, such as video animations, interactive consent modules or social media instruments.

Actionable secondary findings in arrhythmogenic right ventricle cardiomyopathy genes: impact and challenge of genetic counseling

Background

Comprehensive genetic analysis yields in a higher diagnostic rate but also in a higher number of secondary findings (SF). American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a list of 59 actionable genes for which disease causing sequence variants are recommended to be reported as SF including 27 genes linked to inherited cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as arrhythmia syndromes, cardiomyopathies and vascular and connective tissue disorders. One of the selected conditions represented in the actionable gene list is the arrhythmogenic right ventricle cardiomyopathy (ARVC), an inherited heart muscle disease with a particularly high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Since clinical symptoms are frequently absent before SCD, a genetic finding is a promising option for early diagnosis and possible intervention. However, the variant interpretation and the decision to return a SF is still challenging.

Methods

To determine the frequency of medically actionable SF linked to CVD we analyzed data of 6,605 individuals who underwent high throughput sequencing for noncardiac diagnostic requests. In particular, we critically assessed and classified the variants in the ARVC genes: DSC2, DSG2, DSP, PKP2 and TMEM43 and compared our findings with the population-based genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) and ARVC-afflicted individuals listed in ClinVar and ARVC database.

Results

1% (69/6,605) of tested individuals carried pathogenic SF in one of the 27 genes linked to CVD, of them 13 individuals (0.2%) carried a pathogenic SF in a ARVC gene. Overall, 582 rare variants were identified in all five ARVC genes, 96% of the variants were missense variants and 4% putative LoF variants (pLoF): frameshift, start/stop-gain/loss, splice-site. Finally, we selected 13 of the 24 pLoF variants as pathogenic SF by careful data interpretation.

Conclusions

Since SF in actionable ARVC genes can allow early detection and prevention of disease and SCD, detected variant must undergo rigorous clinical and laboratory evaluation before it can be described as pathogenic and returned to patients. Returning a SF to a patient should be interdisciplinary, it needs genetic counselling and clinicians experienced in inherited heart disease.

Navigating the Intersection between Genomic Research and Clinical Practice

The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges.See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention.

Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge

PURPOSE

Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines.

METHODS

A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge.

RESULTS

Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.

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

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

Reporting Genetic Findings to Individual Research Participants: Guidelines From the Swiss Personalized Health Network

In 2017 the Swiss federal government established the Swiss Personalized Health Network (SPHN), a nationally coordinated data infrastructure for genetic research. The SPHN advisory group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was tasked with the creation of a recommendation to ensure ethically responsible reporting of genetic research findings to research participants in SPHN-funded studies. Following consultations with expert stakeholders, including geneticists, pediatricians, sociologists, university hospitals directors, patient representatives, consumer protection associations, and insurers, the ELSI advisory group issued its recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants" in May 2020. In this paper we outline the development of this recommendation and the provisions it contains. In particular, we discuss some of its key features, namely: (1) that participation in SPHN-funded studies as a research subject is conditional to accepting that medically relevant genetic research findings will be reported; (2) that a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) should be created to support researchers' decision-making processes about reporting individual genetic research findings; (3) that such Multidisciplinary Expert Panel will make case-by-case decisions about whether to allow reporting of genetic findings, instead of relying on a pre-defined list of medically relevant variants; (4) that research participants shall be informed of the need to disclose genetic mutations when applying for private insurance, which may influence individual decisions about participation in research. By providing an account of the procedural background and considerations leading to the SPHN recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants," we seek to promote a better understanding of the proposed guidance, as well as to contribute to the global dialog on the reporting of genetic research findings.

Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: the story so far

Dynamic consent (DC) was originally developed in response to challenges to the informed consent process presented by participants agreeing to ‘future research’ in biobanking. In the past 12 years, it has been trialled in a number of different projects, and examined as a new approach for consent and to support patient engagement over time. There have been significant societal shifts during this time, namely in our reliance on digital tools and the use of social media, as well as a greater appreciation of the integral role of patients in biomedical research. This paper reflects on the development of DC to understand its importance in an age where digital health is becoming the norm and patients require greater oversight and control of how their data may be used in a range of settings. As well as looking back, it looks forwards to consider how DC could be further utilised to enhance the patient experience and address some of the inequalities caused by the digital divide in society.

Return of Results in Population Studies: How Do Participants Perceive Them?

As a cornerstone of public health, epidemiology has lately undergone substantial changes enabled by, among other factors, the use of biobank infrastructures. In biobank-related research, the return of results to participants constitutes an important and complex ethical question. In this study, we qualitatively investigated how individuals perceive the results returned following their participation in cohort studies with biobanks. In our semi-structured interviews with 31 participants of two such German studies, we observed that some participants overestimate the nature of the personal information they will receive from the study. Although this misestimation does not seem to jeopardize the validity of the consent provided at recruitment, it may still represent a threat for participants’ trust in research and thus their long-term commitment, crucial for such studies. We argue that such misestimation may have ethical consequences on the principles guiding the reflection on the return of results in biobank research, i.e. autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and reciprocity. We suggest that shifting from the idea of directly benefiting participants through the return of research results could help focusing on benefiting society as a whole, thereby increasing research trustworthiness of population-based studies using biobanks.

Uncertainty in Genomics Impacts Precision Medicine

As exacting as genetic and genomic testing have become, health professionals continue to encounter uncertainty in their applications to medical practice. As examining the human genome at more refined levels increases, so is the likelihood of encountering uncertainty about the meaning of the information. The history of this concept informs how we might confront and deal with uncertainty, and what the future might hold. Precision medicine holds great promise for establishing more accurate diagnoses, directing specific therapy to patients who will most benefit from it, and avoiding treatments in patients who are most likely to suffer adverse consequences, or at best not benefit. But its application depends importantly on the proper interpretation of a person's genotype.

Returning Results of Stored Biological Samples and Biobanks: Perspectives of Saudi Arabian Biomedical Researchers

Scientific medical research involving human samples often leads to improved diagnosis, the discovery of treatment modalities, or the identification of possible risk factors for many diseases. Some findings, including incidental findings, may be important to donors, and some may require intervention. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of health care professionals in their use of stored biological samples for biomedical research regarding the concept of the research results and the challenges of informing donors regarding the results. This qualitative study involved 19 medical researchers doing research with stored biological samples and biobanks. The data were gathered during face-to-face interviews in English using a semistructured interview technique. The participants provided rich and illuminating experiences, framed in the following themes: the professional duty of researchers to return the research results and the right of donors to know; factors affecting informing donors of results (e.g., severity of disease; impact of the provided information; reliability of the research results; and donor approval); challenges to physically returning the results; and the nature of the informed consent, as well as the elements required in the informed consent documentation. Although the majority of researchers agree on the importance of returning research results, some have contradictory views such as that returning research results is not the researcher's responsibility. The study results also support the view that a number of elements should be included in the informed consent, such as the intention of informing the donors of the results as well as the benefits and risks.

Assessing the Intention to Provide Human Genetic Resources: An Explanatory Model

BACKGROUND

Human genetic resources are an important material component for life science research and have strategic significance for medical science and technological innovation. In this study, we employ frameworks from social psychology and the science of human behavior to study human genetic resource providers.

AIMS

We used structural equation techniques to explain factors affecting the intention to provide human genetic resources and the mechanisms for providing such resources.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey with respondents from ethnic minorities (n = 912). Our model integrates key variables informed by the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the theory of benefit and risk assessment (BRA), as well as variables that represent the policy and political system.

RESULTS

Our results show that the factors affecting the intention to provide human genetic resources, ranked from highly influential to less influential, are perceived benefits, privacy risk, attitudes toward providing human genetic resources, perceived behavioral efficacy, psychological risk, subjective norms, and physical risk. The variables informed by the TPB all have a significant positive effect on the intention to provide human genetic resources. With the exception of physical risk, the variables informed by the theory of BRA have a significant effect on the intention to provide human genetic resources. Respondents with different health conditions have significantly different levels of physical risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study provide insights into how to improve people's intention to provide human genetic resources. We also proposed ways to protect such resources globally.

Pilot Study of Return of Genetic Results to Patients in Adult Nephrology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Actionable genetic findings have implications for care of patients with kidney disease, and genetic testing is an emerging tool in nephrology practice. However, there are scarce data regarding best practices for return of results and clinical application of actionable genetic findings for kidney patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We developed a return of results workflow in collaborations with clinicians for the retrospective recontact of adult nephrology patients who had been recruited into a biobank research study for exome sequencing and were identified to have medically actionable genetic findings.

RESULTS

Using this workflow, we attempted to recontact a diverse pilot cohort of 104 nephrology research participants with actionable genetic findings, encompassing 34 different monogenic etiologies of nephropathy and five single-gene disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as medically actionable secondary findings. We successfully recontacted 64 (62%) participants and returned results to 41 (39%) individuals. In each case, the genetic diagnosis had meaningful implications for the patients' nephrology care. Through implementation efforts and qualitative interviews with providers, we identified over 20 key challenges associated with returning results to study participants, and found that physician knowledge gaps in genomics was a recurrent theme. We iteratively addressed these challenges to yield an optimized workflow, which included standardized consultation notes with tailored management recommendations, monthly educational conferences on core topics in genomics, and a curated list of expert clinicians for patients requiring extranephrologic referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing the infrastructure to support return of genetic results in nephrology was resource-intensive, but presented potential opportunities for improving patient care.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_04_16_12481019.mp3.

Return of Individual Research Results: A Guide for Biomedical Researchers Utilizing Human Biospecimens

The recent movement toward returning individual research results to study subjects/participants generates ethical and legal challenges for laboratories performing research on human biospecimens. The concept of an individual's interest in knowing the results of testing on their tissue is pitted against individual and systemic risks and an established legal framework regulating the performance of laboratory testing for medical care purposes. This article discusses the rationale for returning individual research results to subjects, the potential risks associated with returning these results, and the legal framework in the United States that governs testing of identifiable human biospecimens. On the basis of these considerations, this article provides recommendations for investigators to consider when planning and executing human biospecimen research, with the objective of appropriately balancing the interests of research subjects, the need for ensuring integrity of the research process, and compliance with US laws and regulations.

Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics

Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.

Personalized Medicine and the Power of Electronic Health Records

Personalized medicine has largely been enabled by the integration of genomic and other data with electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States and elsewhere. Increased EHR adoption across various clinical settings and the establishment of EHR-linked population-based biobanks provide unprecedented opportunities for the types of translational and implementation research that drive personalized medicine. We review advances in the digitization of health information and the proliferation of genomic research in health systems and provide insights into emerging paths for the widespread implementation of personalized medicine.

Do patients and research subjects have a right to receive their genomic raw data? An ethical and legal analysis

Background

As Next Generation Sequencing technologies are increasingly implemented in biomedical research and (translational) care, the number of study participants and patients who ask for release of their genomic raw data is set to increase. This raises the question whether research participants and patients have a legal and moral right to receive their genomic raw data and, if so, how this right should be implemented into practice.

Methods

In a first step we clarify some central concepts such as “raw data”; in a second step we sketch the international legal framework. The third step provides an extensive ethical analysis which comprehends two parts: an evaluation of whether there is a prima facie moral right to receive one’s raw data, and a contextualization and discussion of the right in light of potentially conflicting interests and rights of the data subject herself and third parties; in a last fourth step we emphasize the main practical consequences of the ethical analyses and propose recommendations for the release of raw data.

Results

In several legislations like the new European General Data Protection Regulation, patients do in principle have the right to receive their raw data. However, the procedural implementation of this right and whether it involves genetic counselling is at the discretion of the Member States. Even more questions remain with respect to the research context. The ethical analysis suggests that patients and research subjects have a moral right to receive their genomic raw data and addresses aspects which are also of relevance for the legal discussion such as the costs of release of raw data and its impact on academic freedom.

Conclusion

Taking into account the specific nature and implications of genomic raw data and the contexts of research and health care, several concerns and potentially conflicting interests of the data subjects themselves and involved researchers, physicians, biomedical institutions and relatives arise. Instead of using them to argue in favor of restrictions of the data subjects’ legal and moral right to genomic raw data, the concerns should be addressed through provision of information and other measures. To this end, we propose relevant recommendations.

A proposal on the first Japanese practical guidance for the return of individual genomic results in research settings

Large-scale, low-cost genome analysis has become possible with next-generation sequencing technology, which is currently used in research and clinical practice. Many attempts of returning individual genomic results have commenced not only in clinical practice, but also in research settings of several countries. In Japan, the government guidelines include a section on the disclosure of genetic information regarding genome analysis in research. However, no practical guidance for the return of individual genomic results in research settings (ROGRR) currently exists. We propose practical guidance regarding ROGRR in Japan based on extensive research, including a literature review of related previous studies, an examination of the relevant legislation in Japan, and interviews with stakeholders. The guidance we developed consists of "Points to consider" and "Issues for further discussion and consideration." The "Points to consider" were divided into five parts, from preliminary review before discussion of policy, to the actual return and follow-up process, in the order of the assumed ROGRR process. It is anticipated that a situation will arise where numerous research projects will consider ROGRR carefully and realistically in the future, and in the process of drafting such practical guidance, various issues requiring continuous discussion will emerge. The necessities of continuous discussion concerning ROGRR in Japan's context is increasing, particularly in terms of the ethical, legal, and social implications. We believe such discussions and considerations may contribute to creating a new system that will increase availability of personalized medicine and prevention using genetic information, allowing them to become useful to the broader population.

Research use of electronic health records: patients' perspectives on contact by researchers

Objective

The use of electronic health records (EHRs) for research has the potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease, yet contact with patients based on results of EHR phenotyping has received little attention. Researchers will almost certainly discover discrepancies in EHRs that call for resolution and, in some cases, raise the ethical dilemma of whether to contact patients about a potentially undiagnosed or untreated health concern. The objective of this study was to explore patients' attitudes and opinions about potential contact by researchers who have had access to their EHRs.

Materials and methods

We conducted 15 focus groups in four diverse counties in the southeastern United States. We designed vignettes to describe different situations in which researchers conducting a hypothetical study might have reason to consider contact with patients.

Results

Many patients believed it was important for researchers to take action if they discovered information suggesting a current serious health concern. Relaying the information through patients' physicians was considered the most appropriate course of action. Across vignettes, there were significant differences between urban and rural sites.

Discussion and conclusions

Researchers may increasingly encounter situations involving contact with patients following EHR phenotyping. They should carefully consider the possibility of such contact when planning their studies, including the time and expertise needed to adjudicate potentially serious discrepancies. Our focus group results are one source of input for the development of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND

Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.