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

Assessing the Psychosocial Impacts of Whole-Genome Sequencing Outcomes on Orofacial Cleft Caregivers in Nigeria: A Mixed-Methods Study

ObjectiveTo investigate the behavioral outcomes of children with clefts and the psychosocial impact and mental health experiences of their caregivers regarding unintended outcomes of genomic sequencing, that is, secondary genetic findings (SFs).DesignConvergent parallel mixed methods.SettingThe cleft and immunization clinics at the Lagos University Teaching, Hospital, Nigeria.ParticipantsIn total, 127 cases and 158 control caregiver child dyads (quantitative) and 22 caregivers of children with clefts (qualitative).Main Outcome MeasuresStandardized questionnaires were used to assess caregiver-reported mental health, quality of life (QoL), and their children's behavioral difficulties. In 2 focus groups, participants shared their perspectives on genomic testing outcomes, including SFs, mental health, and expectations in the context of clefts.ResultsCompared to the control group, caregivers of children with clefts reported poorer mental health, lower QoL and more behavioral difficulties in their children. Also, they believed that introducing genomic testing outcomes, including SFs, may exacerbate existing burdens. Following qualitative data analyses, 5 themes emerged-genetics knowledge/awareness, stressors, cognitive appraisals, coping/support strategies, and negative impact/positive gains. Both qualitative and quantitative results showed that caring for children with clefts required significant financial resources placing substantial stress on caregivers.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the importance of addressing caregivers' psychosocial needs and the need for proactive measures to prepare for the return of genomic sequencing outcomes to patients and research participants, particularly in resource-limited settings like Africa, where such support may be lacking.

Parents' experiences with sequencing of all known pediatric cancer predisposition genes in children with cancer

PURPOSE

Germline DNA sequencing is increasingly used within pediatric oncology, yet parental experiences remain underexplored.

METHODS

Parents of children undergoing cancer predisposition gene panel sequencing (143 genes) were surveyed before and after disclosure of results. Questionnaires assessed knowledge, expectations, worries, satisfaction, and regret. Next to descriptives, linear mixed models and generalized mixed models were utilized to explore factors associated with knowledge and worries.

RESULTS

Out of 325 eligible families, 310 parents (176 mothers and 128 fathers of 188 families) completed all after-consent questionnaires, whereas 260 parents (150 mothers and 110 fathers of 181 families) completed all after disclosure questionnaires. Most parents hoped their participation would benefit others, although individual hopes were also common. Sequencing-related worries were common, particularly concerning whether their child would get cancer again, cancer risks for family members and psychosocial implications of testing. Parental satisfaction after disclosure was high and regret scores were low. Lower education was associated with lower knowledge levels, whereas foreign-born parents were at increased risk of experiencing worries.

CONCLUSION

Germline sequencing of children with cancer is generally well received by their parents. However, careful genetic counseling is essential to ensure that parents are adequately informed and supported throughout the process.

Research participants' perspectives regarding the feedback of secondary findings-A cohort from the DDD-Africa study, South Africa

Genomic researchers face an ethical dilemma regarding feedback of individual results generated from genomic studies. In the African setting, genomic research is still not widely implemented and, coupled with this, the limited African-specific guidelines on how to feedback on individual research findings. A qualitative study was performed to assess participants' expectations and preferences regarding the feedback of secondary findings from genomic research. Participants were parents of children with a developmental disorder, enrolled in the Deciphering Developmental Disorders in Africa (DDD-Africa) research project, and were purposefully selected. Three deliberative focus group discussions were conducted with 14 participants. Each deliberative focus group consisted of two separate audio-recorded interviews and presented different case scenarios for different types of secondary findings that could be theoretically detected during genomic research. We aimed to explore participants' preferences for the extent, nature, timing, and methods for receiving individual study results, specifically pertaining to secondary findings. Thematic content analysis was done, with a deductive approach to coding. Four themes emerged which included participants' perception of readiness to receive secondary findings, queries raised around who has access to research findings and feedback of findings consent, responsibilities of the researcher, and reasons for not wanting/wanting secondary findings. Overall, participants expressed that they want to receive feedback on secondary findings irrespective of disease severity and treatment availability. Lifestyle changes, early prevention or treatment, impact on future generations, and preparedness were strong motivations for wanting feedback on results. Participants felt that when the research involved minors, it was the parents' right to receive results on behalf of their children. This study provides new insights into participants' preferences around feedback on genomic research results and could serve as an important basis for creating guidelines and recommendations for feedback on genomic results in the African context.

A framework for the evaluation and reporting of incidental findings in clinical genomic testing

Currently, there are no widely accepted recommendations in the genomics field guiding the return of incidental findings (IFs), defined here as unexpected results that are unrelated to the indication for testing. Consequently, reporting policies for IFs among laboratories offering genomic testing are variable and may lack transparency. Herein we describe a framework developed to guide the evaluation and return of IFs encountered in probands undergoing clinical genome sequencing (cGS). The framework prioritizes clinical significance and actionability of IFs and follows a stepwise approach with stopping points at which IFs may be recommended for return or not. Over 18 months, implementation of the framework in a clinical laboratory facilitated the return of actionable IFs in 37 of 720 (5.1%) individuals referred for cGS, which is reduced to 3.1% if glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is excluded. This framework can serve as a model to standardize reporting of IFs identified during genomic testing.

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Parents' expectations, preferences, and recall of germline findings in a childhood cancer precision medicine trial

BACKGROUND

Germline genome sequencing in childhood cancer precision medicine trials may reveal pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes in more than 10% of children. These findings can have implications for diagnosis, treatment, and the child's and family's future cancer risk. Understanding parents' perspectives of germline genome sequencing is critical to successful clinical implementation.

METHODS

A total of 182 parents of 144 children (<18 years of age) with poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in the Precision Medicine for Children with Cancer trial completed a questionnaire at enrollment and after the return of their child's results, including clinically relevant germline findings (received by 13% of parents). Parents' expectations of germline genome sequencing, return of results preferences, and recall of results received were assessed. Forty-five parents (of 43 children) were interviewed in depth.

RESULTS

At trial enrollment, most parents (63%) believed it was at least "somewhat likely" that their child would receive a clinically relevant germline finding. Almost all expressed a preference to receive a broad range of germline genomic findings, including variants of uncertain significance (88%). Some (29%) inaccurately recalled receiving a clinically relevant germline finding. Qualitatively, parents expressed confusion and uncertainty after the return of their child's genome sequencing results by their child's clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

Many parents of children with poor-prognosis childhood cancer enrolled in a precision medicine trial expect their child may have an underlying cancer predisposition syndrome. They wish to receive a wide scope of information from germline genome sequencing but may feel confused by the reporting of trial results.

Return of non-ACMG recommended incidental genetic findings to pediatric patients: considerations and opportunities from experiences in genomic sequencing

BACKGROUND

The uptake of exome/genome sequencing has introduced unexpected testing results (incidental findings) that have become a major challenge for both testing laboratories and providers. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has outlined guidelines for laboratory management of clinically actionable secondary findings, debate remains as to whether incidental findings should be returned to patients, especially those representing pediatric populations.

METHODS

The Sequencing Analysis and Diagnostic Yield working group in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium has collected a cohort of pediatric patients found to harbor a genomic sequencing-identified non-ACMG-recommended incidental finding. The incidental variants were not thought to be associated with the indication for testing and were disclosed to patients and families.

RESULTS

In total, 23 "non-ACMG-recommended incidental findings were identified in 21 pediatric patients included in the study. These findings span four different research studies/laboratories and demonstrate differences in incidental finding return rate across study sites. We summarize specific cases to highlight core considerations that surround identification and return of incidental findings (uncertainty of disease onset, disease severity, age of onset, clinical actionability, and personal utility), and suggest that interpretation of incidental findings in pediatric patients can be difficult given evolving phenotypes. Furthermore, return of incidental findings can benefit patients and providers, but do present challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

While there may be considerable benefit to return of incidental genetic findings, these findings can be burdensome to providers and present risk to patients. It is important that laboratories conducting genomic testing establish internal guidelines in anticipation of detection. Moreover, cross-laboratory guidelines may aid in reducing the potential for policy heterogeneity across laboratories as it relates to incidental finding detection and return. However, future discussion is required to determine whether cohesive guidelines or policy statements are warranted.

Parents' understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review

Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) are increasingly being used in pediatric contexts. We summarize evidence regarding the actual and perceived understanding of GS/ES of parents of a child offered testing for diagnosis and/or management of a symptomatic health condition. We searched four databases (2008-2021) and identified 1264 unique articles, of which 16 met inclusion criteria. We synthesized data from qualitative and quantitative studies and organized results using Ayuso et al. (2013)'s framework of key elements of information for informed consent to GS/ES. Many of the parents represented had prior experience with genetic testing and accessed a form of genetic counseling. Parents' understanding was varied across the domains evaluated. Parents demonstrated understanding of the various potential direct clinical benefits to their child undergoing GS/ES, including in relation to other genetic tests. We found parents had mixed understanding of the nature of potential secondary findings, and of issues related to data privacy, confidentiality, and usage of sequencing results beyond their child's clinical care. Genetic counseling consultations improved understanding. Our synthesis indicates that ES/GS can be challenging for families to understand and underscores the importance of equipping healthcare professionals to explore parents' understanding of ES/GS and the implications of testing for their child.

Parental Preferences about Policy Options Regarding Disclosure of Incidental Genetic Findings in Newborn Screening: Using Videos and the Internet to Educate and Obtain Input

Our objective was to develop and test a new approach to obtaining parental policy guidance about disclosure of incidental findings of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF), including heterozygote carrier status and the conditions known as CFTR-related metabolic syndrome (CRMS) and/or cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis, CFSPID. The participants were parents of infants up to 6 months old recruited from maternity hospitals/clinics, parent education classes and stores selling baby products. Data were collected using an anonymous, one-time Internet-based survey. The survey introduced two scenarios using novel, animated videos. Parents were asked to rank three potential disclosure policies-Fully Informed, Parents Decide, and Withholding Information. Regarding disclosure of information about Mild X (analogous to CRMS/CFSPID), 57% of respondents ranked Parents Decide as their top choice, while another 41% ranked the Fully Informed policy first. Similarly, when considering disclosure of information about Disease X (CF) carrier status, 50% and 43% gave top rankings to the Fully Informed and Parents Decide policies, respectively. Less than 8% ranked the Withholding Information policy first in either scenario. Data from value comparisons suggested that parents believed knowing everything was very important even if they became distressed. Likewise, parents preferred autonomy even if they became distressed. However, when there might not be enough time to learn everything, parents showed a slight preference for deferring decision-making. Because most parents strongly preferred the policies of full disclosure or making the decision, rather than the withholding option for NBS results, these results can inform disclosure policies in NBS programs, especially as next-generation sequencing increases incidental findings.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

Adolescent and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing to inform cancer care

Next-generation sequencing offers opportunities for targeted cancer therapies and may identify pathogenic germline variants. Adolescents' perception of testing is not well understood. We surveyed 16 adolescents and 59 parents regarding motivations, attitudes, and knowledge related to paired tumor/germline sequencing. Participants generally had a good objective understanding of germline genetics and cancer risk, with parents scoring higher than adolescents. Nearly all participants were motivated by a desire to help other patients and to treat their child/themselves. Most adolescents reported involvement in the decision to enroll in the study. Study findings suggest important similarities and differences between parent and adolescent views.

Exome/Genome-Wide Testing in Newborn Screening: A Proportionate Path Forward

Population-based newborn screening (NBS) is among the most effective public health programs ever launched, improving health outcomes for newborns who screen positive worldwide through early detection and clinical intervention for genetic disorders discovered in the earliest hours of life. Key to the success of newborn screening programs has been near universal accessibility and participation. Interest has been building to expand newborn screening programs to also include many rare genetic diseases that can now be identified by exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS). Significant declines in sequencing costs as well as improvements to sequencing technologies have enabled researchers to elucidate novel gene-disease associations that motivate possible expansion of newborn screening programs. In this paper we consider recommendations from professional genetic societies in Europe and North America in light of scientific advances in ES/GS and our current understanding of the limitations of ES/GS approaches in the NBS context. We invoke the principle of proportionality-that benefits clearly outweigh associated risks-and the human right to benefit from science to argue that rigorous evidence is still needed for ES/GS that demonstrates clinical utility, accurate genomic variant interpretation, cost effectiveness and universal accessibility of testing and necessary follow-up care and treatment. Confirmatory or second-tier testing using ES/GS may be appropriate as an adjunct to conventional newborn screening in some circumstances. Such cases could serve as important testbeds from which to gather data on relevant programmatic barriers and facilitators to wider ES/GS implementation.

Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) are routinely offered the option to receive secondary findings (SF). However, little is known about the views of individuals from underrepresented minority pediatric or prenatal populations regarding SF.

METHODS

We explored the preferences for receiving hypothetical categories of SF (H-SF) and reasons for accepting or declining actual SF through surveying (n = 149) and/or interviewing (n = 47) 190 families undergoing pediatric or prenatal ES.

RESULTS

Underrepresented minorities made up 75% of the probands. In total, 150 families (79%) accepted SF as part of their child/fetus's ES. Most families (63%) wanted all categories of H-SF. Those who declined SF as part of ES were less likely to want H-SF across all categories. Interview findings indicate that some families did not recall their SF decision. Preparing for the future was a major motivator for accepting SF, and concerns about privacy, discrimination, and psychological effect drove decliners.

CONCLUSION

A notable subset of families (37%) did not want at least 1 category of H-SF, suggesting more hesitancy about receiving all available results than previously reported. The lack of recollection of SF decisions suggests a need for alternative communication approaches. Results highlight the importance of the inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research.

Experiences of adolescents and their parents after receiving adolescents' genomic screening results

There has been considerable debate over whether adolescents should have the opportunity to learn genetic information about adult-onset disease risk and carrier status without a clinical indication. Adolescents face increasing opportunities to learn more about such genetic risks through the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and research opportunities. However, little is known about the perspectives of adolescents who have received genomic screening results. We conducted separate qualitative interviews with 15 adolescents and their parents who enrolled in a research protocol where they decided which genomic screening results to receive for the adolescent for up to 32 conditions informed by 84 genes. The goal of these interviews was to explore the impact of adolescents learning genomic results without a clinical indication for screening. Of the participating dyads, four received positive results for a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant for an autosomal dominant (AD) condition, five received carrier results for a heterozygous P/LP variant for an autosomal recessive (AR) condition, and six received negative results. An interpretive descriptive qualitative approach was used. Interview transcripts were coded using a guide developed by the study team based on themes that emerged from the interviews. Degree of recall and description of results, actionability, and emotional responses differed according to the types of results received. However, all participants were satisfied with their decision to learn results, and most did not report any lasting psychological harms. Participants adapted to genomic information about themselves, even after learning about unexpected increased risk for future health problems. Our findings support the position that, whenever possible, perspectives and wishes of adolescents should be strongly considered and respected in the decision-making process regarding genetic testing.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

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

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

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.

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.

Should we respect parents' views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?

Genomic sequencing (GS) is now well embedded in clinical practice. However, guidelines issued by professional bodies disagree about whether unsolicited findings (UF)-i.e., disease-causing changes found in the DNA unrelated to the reason for testing-should be reported if they are identified inadvertently during data analysis. This extends to a lack of clarity regarding parents' ability to decide about receiving UF for their children. To address this, I use an ethical framework, the Zone of Parental Discretion (ZPD), to consider which UF parents should be allowed to choose (not) to receive and examine how well this assessment aligns with existing professional recommendations. Assessment of guidelines shows recommendations ranging from leaving the decision to the discretion of laboratories through to mandatory reporting for UF for childhood onset, treatable/preventable conditions. The ZPD suggests that parents' decisions should be respected, even where there is no expected benefit, provided that there is not sufficient evidence of serious harm. Using this lens, parents should be able to choose whether or not to know UF for adult-onset conditions in their children, but only insofar as there is insufficient evidence that this knowledge will cause harm or benefit. In contrast, parents should not be allowed to refuse receiving UF for childhood-onset medically actionable conditions. The ZPD is a helpful tool for assessing where it is appropriate to offer parents the choice of receiving UF for their children. This has implications for refinement of policy and laboratory reporting practices, development of consent forms, and genetic counselling practice.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

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

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

Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia).

METHODS/DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact.

RESULTS

We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.

Attitudes towards genetic testing and information: does parenthood shape the views?

This study examines how parents of pediatric patients might differ in their views and attitudes towards genetic technology and information when compared to adult patients. There is surprisingly little evidence on how parents compare to other parts of population in their attitudes. Previous empirical studies often relate health-related preferences and attitudes to factors such as age, education, and income instead of parental status, thus evading comparison of parents to others as health-related decision makers. Findings related to the parental status can be useful when implementing genetic technology in clinical practice. We conducted a survey of views on genetic technology and information for groups of adult neurology patients (n = 68) and parents of pediatric neurology patients (n = 31) to shed some light on this issue. In addition to our own survey instrument, we conducted other surveys to gain insight on psychosocial factors that might affect these attitudes. The results suggest that parents are more concerned about their children's genetic risk factors when compared to the attitudes of adult patients about their own risk. For both groups, negative emotional state was associated with more concerns towards genetic information. Our study provides insights on how parental views might affect the acceptance of genetic technology and information.

Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network

PURPOSE

Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium.

METHODS

Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices.

RESULTS

Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes.

CONCLUSION

Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations

The lack of data on perspectives of racial and ethnic minority populations regarding family disclosure of individual research results (IRR) hinders the development of return of IRR policies and practices that are meaningful and culturally appropriate in diverse populations. This research aims to uncover preferences regarding family disclosure of IRR and identify factors that may shape the preferences in three minority populations. Nine focus groups with 68 adult African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were willing to share IRR with relatives who elected to know and preferred a participant-driven (vs. researcher-driven) decision-making process. Privacy of personal information was deemed important, as were anticipated familial benefits from genetic information, except when improper use of the information was suspected. Factors influencing family disclosure decisions included the family's biological and emotional closeness, and participants' perceived mental preparedness of the relative. Family disclosure of IRR among racial and ethnic minority individuals is a complex decision-making process wherein issues of individual privacy are entangled with family dynamic and familial benefit considerations. These data suggest that policies surrounding family disclosure of IRR should carefully consider participant preferences and adopt a participant-driven approach.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents

BACKGROUND

Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate.

METHODS

Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group.

DISCUSSION

These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Ethical Issues in Newborn Sequencing Research: The Case Study of BabySeq

The BabySeq Project is a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and aimed at exploring the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of both healthy newborns and newborns who are sick. Infants were randomly assigned to receive standard of care or standard of care plus sequencing. The protocol and consent specified that only childhood-onset conditions would be returned. When 1 child was found to carry a BRCA2 mutation despite a negative family history, the research team experienced moral distress about nondisclosure and sought institutional review board permission to disclose. The protocol was then modified to require participants to agree to receive results for adult-onset-only conditions as a precondition to study enrollment. The BabySeq team asserted that their new protocol was in the child's best interest because having one's parents alive and well provides both an individual child benefit and a "family benefit." We begin with a short description of BabySeq and the controversy regarding predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. We then examine the ethical problems with (1) the revised BabySeq protocol and (2) the concept of family benefit as a justification for the return of adult-onset-only conditions. We reject family benefit as a moral reason to expand genomic sequencing of children beyond conditions that present in childhood. We also argue that researchers should design their pediatric studies to avoid, when possible, identifying adult-onset-only genetic variants and that parents should not be offered the return of this information if discovered unless relevant for the child's current or imminent health.

Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic tests offer increased opportunity for diagnosis, but their outputs are often uncertain and complex; results may need to be revised and/or may not be relevant until some future time. We discuss the challenges that this presents for consent and autonomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Popular discourse around genomic testing tends to be strongly deterministic and optimistic, yet many findings from genomic tests are uncertain or unclear. Clinical conversations need to anticipate and potentially challenge unrealistic expectations of what a genomic test can deliver in order to enhance autonomy and ensure that consent to genomic testing is valid.

SUMMARY

We conclude that 'fully informed' consent is often not possible in the context of genomic testing, but that an open-ended approach is appropriate. We consider that such broad consent can only work if located within systems or organisations that are trustworthy and that have measures in place to ensure that such open-ended agreements are not abused. We suggest that a relational concept of autonomy has benefits in encouraging focus on the networks and relationships that allow decision making to flourish.

Giving adolescents a voice: the types of genetic information adolescents choose to learn and why

PURPOSE

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics supports parents' opting in or out of secondary analysis of 59 genes when their child has clinical exome/genome sequencing. We explored the reasons adolescents choose to learn certain types of results and the reasons they want to involve or not involve parents in decision-making.

METHODS

Adolescents recruited without clinical indication were offered independent, followed by joint choices with a parent to learn genomic results. After making independent choices, adolescent/parent dyads were interviewed to explore the reasons for their choices. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The constant comparative method was used to analyze 64 purposefully selected transcripts that included 31 from adolescents who excluded some or all potential results.

RESULTS

Three major themes informed adolescents' choices: (1) actionability of information, (2) knowledge seeking, and (3) psychological impact. Of adolescents who independently excluded some conditions (n=31), 58% changed their initial choices during the joint interview due to parental influence or improved understanding. Nearly all adolescents (98%) wanted to be involved in the decision-making process, and 53% wanted to make choices independently.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings contribute empirical evidence to support the refinement of professional guidelines for adolescents' engagement and preferences in genetic testing decisions.

Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine

Advances in genetic technology are having a major impact in the clinic, and mean that many perceptions of the role and scope of genetic testing are having to change. Genomic testing brings with it a greater opportunity for diagnosis, or predictions of future diagnoses, but also an increased chance of uncertain or unexpected findings, many of which may have impacts for multiple members of a person's family. In the past, genetic testing was rarely able to provide rapid results, but the increasing speed and availability of genomic testing is changing this, meaning that genomic information is increasingly influencing decisions around patient care in the acute inpatient setting. The landscape of treatment options for genetic conditions is shifting, which has evolving implications for clinical discussions around previously untreatable disorders. Furthermore, the point of access to testing is changing with increasing provision direct to the consumer outside the formal healthcare setting. This review outlines the ways in which genetic medicine is developing in light of technological advances.

Exome sequencing in clinical settings: preferences and experiences of parents of children with rare diseases (SEQUAPRE study)

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized diagnostic procedures in medical genetics, particularly for developmental diseases. The variety and complexity of the information produced has raised issues regarding its use in a clinical setting. Of particular interest are patients' expectations regarding the information disclosed, the accompaniment provided, and the value patients place on these. To explore these issues in parents of children with developmental disorders and no diagnosis with known etiology, a multidisciplinary group of researchers from social and behavioral sciences and patient organizations conducted a mixed-methodology study (quantitative and qualitative) in two centers of expertise for rare diseases in France. The quantitative study aimed to determine the preferences of 513 parents regarding the disclosure of ES results. It showed that parents wished to have exhaustive information, including variants of unknown significance possibly linked to their child's disorder and secondary findings. This desire for information could be a strategy to maximize the chances of obtaining a diagnosis. The qualitative study aimed to understand the expectations and reactions of 57 parents interviewed just after the return of ES results. In-depth analysis showed that parents had ambivalent feelings about the findings whatever the results returned. The contrasting results from these studies raise questions about the value of the information provided and parents' high expectations regarding the results. The nature of parental expectations has emerged as an important topic in efforts to optimize accompaniment and support for families during the informed decision-making process and after disclosure of the results in an overall context of uncertainty.

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

BACKGROUND

Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature

With the development of next generation sequencing, beyond identifying the cause of manifestations that justified prescription of the test, other information with potential interest for patients and their families, defined as secondary findings (SF), can be provided once patients have given informed consent, in particular when therapeutic and preventive options are available. The disclosure of such findings has caused much debate. The aim of this work was to summarize all opinion-based studies focusing on SF, so as to shed light on the concerns that this question generate. A review of the literature was performed, focusing on all PubMed articles reporting qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies that interviewed healthcare providers, participants, or society regarding this subject. The methodology was carefully analysed, in particular whether or not studies made the distinction between actionable and non-actionable SF, in a clinical or research context. From 2010 to 2016, 39 articles were compiled. A total of 14,868 people were interviewed (1259 participants, 6104 healthcare providers, 7505 representatives of society). When actionable and non-actionable SF were distinguished (20 articles), 92% of respondents were keen to have results regarding actionable SF (participants: 88%, healthcare providers: 86%, society: 97%), against 70% (participants: 83%, healthcare providers: 62%, society: 73%) for non-actionable SF. These percentages were slightly lower in the specific situation of children probands. For respondents, the notion of the «patient's choice» is crucial. For healthcare providers, the importance of defining policies for SF among diagnostic lab, learning societies and/or countries is outlined, in particular regarding the content and extension of the list of actionable genes to propose, the modalities of information, and the access to information about adult-onset diseases in minors. However, the existing literature should be taken with caution, since most articles lack a clear definition of SF and actionability, and referred to hypothetical scenarios with limited information to respondents. Studies conducted by multidisciplinary teams involving patients with access to results are sadly lacking, in particular in the medium term after the results have been given. Such studies would feed the debate and make it possible to measure the impact of such findings and their benefit-risk ratio.

Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study

The impact of returning secondary results from exome sequencing (ES) on patients/participants is important to understand as ES is increasingly utilized in clinical care and research. Participants were recruited from studies using ES and were separated into two arms: 107 who had ES and were offered the choice to learn secondary results (ES group) and 85 who had not yet had ES (No ES group). Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 1 and 12 months, following results disclosure (ES group) or enrollment (No ES group). While the majority (65%) elected to learn all results following pre-test counseling, it was reduced from the 76% who indicated a desire for all results at baseline. Thirty-seven percent received results associated with an increased personal disease risk. There were no differences in changes in any of the psychological and social measures from baseline to post-results disclosure between the ES and No ES groups. Receiving a wide range of secondary findings appeared to have little measurable impact on most participants. The experience of learning secondary results may be related to participants' previous experiences with genetics, as well as the genetic counseling provided. Future research with a more diverse, genetically naïve group, as well as scalable methods of delivery, is needed.

Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences

Opportunities to participate in genomic sequencing studies, as well as recommendations to screen for variants in 59 medically actionable genes anytime clinical genomic sequencing is performed, indicate adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about learning secondary findings from genome sequencing. However, how adolescents want to be involved in such decisions is unknown. We conducted five focus groups with adolescents (2) and parents (3) to learn their decisional preferences about return of genomic research results to adolescents. Discussions about decisional preferences centered around three themes: feelings about receiving genomic risk information, adolescent involvement and capacity to participate in decision-making, and recommendations for parental versus collaborative decision-making. We address the contested space between parental duties to act in their children's best interests when choosing which results to return and adolescents' desires to make autonomous decisions. A collaborative decision-making approach is recommended for obtaining consent from adolescents and their parents for genome sequencing research.

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.

Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing of children in research raises complex ethical issues. This study aims to gain more knowledge on the attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research and towards the disclosure of pertinent and incidental findings to the parents and the child.

METHODS

Qualitative data were collected from interviews with a wide range of informants: experts engaged in genomic research, clinical geneticists, persons with mental disorders, relatives, and blood donors. Quantitative data were collected from a cross-sectional web-based survey among 1227 parents and 1406 non-parents who were potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research.

RESULTS

Participants generally expressed positive views on children's participation in genomic research. The informants in the qualitative interviews highlighted the age of the child as a critical aspect when disclosing genetic information. Other important aspects were the child's right to an autonomous choice, the emotional burden of knowing imposed on both the child and the parents, and the possibility of receiving beneficial clinical information regarding the future health of the child. Nevertheless, there was no consensus whether the parent or the child should receive the findings. A majority of survey stakeholders agreed that children should be able to participate in genomic research. The majority agreed that both pertinent and incidental findings should be returned to the parents and to the child when of legal age. Having children does not affect the stakeholder's attitudes towards the inclusion of children as research subjects in genomic research.

CONCLUSION

Our findings illustrate that both the child's right to autonomy and the parents' interest to be informed are important factors that are found valuable by the participants. In future guidelines governing children as subjects in genomic research, it would thus be essential to incorporate the child's right to an open future, including the right to receive information on adult-onset genetic disorders.

APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data

BACKGROUND

There is a growing support for the stance that patients and research participants should have better and easier access to their raw (uninterpreted) genomic sequence data in both clinical and research contexts.

MAIN BODY

We review legal frameworks and literature on the benefits, risks, and practical barriers of providing individuals access to their data. We also survey genomic sequencing initiatives that provide or plan to provide individual access. Many patients and research participants expect to be able to access their health and genomic data. Individuals have a legal right to access their genomic data in some countries and contexts. Moreover, increasing numbers of participatory research projects, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and now major national sequencing initiatives grant individuals access to their genomic sequence data upon request.

CONCLUSION

Drawing on current practice and regulatory analysis, we outline legal, ethical, and practical guidance for genomic sequencing initiatives seeking to offer interested patients and participants access to their raw genomic data.

Participant-Partners in Genetic Research: An Exome Study with Families of Children with Unexplained Medical Conditions

BACKGROUND

Unlike aggregate research on groups of participants with a particular disorder, genomic research on discrete families' rare conditions could result in data of use to families, their healthcare, as well as generating knowledge on the human genome.

OBJECTIVE

In a study of families seeking to rule in/out genetic causes for their children's medical conditions via exome sequencing, we solicited their views on the importance of genomic information. Our aim was to learn the interests of parents in seeking genomic research data and to gauge their responsiveness and engagement with the research team.

METHODS

At enrollment, we offered participants options in the consent form for receiving potentially clinically relevant research results. We also offered an option of being a "partner" versus a "traditional" participant; partners could be re-contacted for research and study activities. We invited adult partners to complete a pre-exome survey, attend annual family forums, and participate in other inter-family interaction opportunities.

RESULTS

Of the 385 adults enrolled, 79% opted for "partnership" with the research team. Nearly all (99.2%) participants opted to receive research results pertaining to their children's primary conditions. A majority indicated the desire to receive additional clinically relevant outside the scope of their children's conditions (92.7%) and an interest in non-clinically relevant genetic information (82.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants chose partnership, including its rights and potential burdens; however, active engagement in study activities remained the exception. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of participants-both partners and traditional-expected to receive all genetic information resulting from the research study.

Return and Disclosure of Research Results: Parental Attitudes and Needs Over Time in Pediatric Oncology

OBJECTIVES

To explore parental attitudes regarding the return and disclosure of research findings in pediatric cancer trials over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Two surveys were set up to evaluate the stability of parental attitudes. One survey was carried out among 581 parents whose child was diagnosed recently (response rate, 53.5%). A second, population-based survey was set up with a time interval of 4 years between first cancer diagnosis and survey in which 1465 parents were included (response rate, 55.1%).

RESULTS

Almost all surveyed parents stated a parental right to receive aggregate research results. Fifty-five percent of the parents who recently participated in trials and 62% of those asked after a multiyear time interval thought that disclosure of individual findings is in any case necessary (P = .0034). The respondents wanted to restrict the duty to disclose study results to the child according to their notion of the child's well-being, composed of child's maturity, impairment of the parent-child relationship, and the quality of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes of parents regarding the return of research findings change over time. Shortly after diagnosis, parents are mainly interested in aggregate findings. Interest in individual findings appeared to increase as more time elapsed between cancer diagnosis and survey.

Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results

Concerns about the ethical and social implications of genetics persist as more applications of genetic and genomic technology have become available. Pediatric testing for genetic influences on response to opioids like codeine is one area of application. We interviewed parents of children enrolled in a mixed-methods study following the communication of actual or hypothetical results for CYP2D6, which impacts opioid response. Forty-one parents of children naive to opioids and 42 parents of children previously exposed to opioids participated in qualitative interviews. Findings did not differ by the child's opioid exposure or by actual versus hypothetical results. Parents' responses centered on the experience of the parent(s) and the potential impact of that information on the parent, rather than the result's impact on the child. Parents also emphasized that the results did not impact their perceptions of the child, reaffirming that the child was still "normal" regardless of test result. When asked about the impact of receiving secondary results, parents' responses emphasized how the results would impact their ability to advocate for the child or impact their state of mind. While the answers reflect parents' role as surrogate decision maker for their child, they also reinforced concerns that health care decisions might be influenced by secondary parental concerns as much as by the best interests of the child. Emphasis on the child's "normality" challenges concerns about the impact of genetic essentialism, but further research is required to see whether the type of testing done or the way results were communicated shaped this response.

Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm?

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the consequences of returning whole genome sequencing (WGS) results in paediatrics and facilitate its evidence-based clinical implementation, we studied parents' experiences with WGS and their preferences for the return of adult-onset secondary variants (SVs)-medically actionable genomic variants unrelated to their child's current medical condition that predict adult-onset disease.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with parents whose children were undergoing WGS as part of the SickKids Genome Clinic, a research project that studies the impact of clinical WGS on patients, families, and the healthcare system. Interviews probed parents' experience with and motivation for WGS as well as their preferences related to SVs. Interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Of 83 invited, 23 parents from 18 families participated. These parents supported WGS as a diagnostic test, perceiving clear intrinsic and instrumental value. However, many parents were ambivalent about receiving SVs, conveying a sense of self-imposed obligation to take on the 'weight' of knowing their child's SVs, however unpleasant. Some parents chose to learn about adult-onset SVs for their child but not for themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite general enthusiasm for WGS as a diagnostic test, many parents felt a duty to learn adult-onset SVs. Analogous to 'inflicted insight', we call this phenomenon 'inflicted ought'. Importantly, not all parents of children undergoing WGS view the best interests of their child in relational terms, thereby challenging an underlying justification for current ACMG guidelines for reporting incidental secondary findings from whole exome and WGS.