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

Development of a digital risk-prediction tool based on family health history for the general population: legal and ethical implications

Cardiovascular diseases, both inherited and familial, indicate a risk of early and preventable cardiovascular events for relatives of affected individuals. A digital risk-prediction tool that enables general population individuals to evaluate their cardiovascular risk based on family health history could be a responsible approach to facilitate early detection and improve public health, but development and use of such a tool is not without legal and ethical requirements. At the start of tool development, experts addressed potential legal and ethical implications. Especially European Union (EU) regulations could present potential obstacles for the tool's development, broader availability and general use. A first example is that the EU General Data Protection Regulation does not allow the tool to collect health data about relatives without their consent; the alternative is data anonymisation. This requirement has major consequences for the tool's usefulness and raises ethical concerns about who 'the owner' is of family data. A second example is related to the EU's Medical Device Regulation: if software generates health risks or provides medical advice, it requires a CE mark from a 'notified body', an extensive and costly procedure. In this article, we describe these implications in more detail and discuss possible solutions. To conclude, alongside national law, European law can impact on the development of digital tools that collect family health data to provide information on health risks. We recommend including experts in law and ethics in developmental stages of such tools which are likely to become more frequent in routine public care.

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

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

"Out of the blue": A qualitative study exploring the experiences of women and next of kin receiving unexpected results from BRA-STRAP research gene panel testing

In the genomic era, the availability of gene panel and whole genome/exome sequencing is rapidly increasing. Opportunities for providing former patients with new genetic information are also increasing over time and recontacting former patients with new information is likely to become more common. Breast cancer Refined Analysis of Sequence Tests-Risk And Penetrance (BRA-STRAP) is an Australian study of individuals who had previously undertaken BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing, with no pathogenic variants detected. Using a waiver of consent, stored DNA samples were retested using a breast/ovarian cancer gene panel and clinically significant results returned to the patient (or next of kin, if deceased). This qualitative study aimed to explore patient experiences, opinions, and expectations of recontacting in the Australian hereditary cancer setting. Participants were familial cancer clinic patients (or next of kin) who were notified of a new pathogenic variant identified via BRA-STRAP. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted approximately 6 weeks post-result. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty participants (all female; average age = 57; range 36-84) were interviewed. Twenty-five were probands, and five were next of kin. Most women reported initial shock upon being recontacted with unexpected news, after having obtained a sense of closure related to their initial genetic testing experiences and cancer diagnosis. For most, this initial distress was short-lived, followed by a process of readjustment, meaning-making and adaptation that was facilitated by perceived clinical and personal utility of the information. Women were overall satisfied with the waiver of consent approach and recontacting process. Results are in line with previous studies suggesting that patients have positive attitudes about recontacting. Women in this study valued new genetic information gained from retesting and were satisfied with the BRA-STRAP recontact model. Practice implications to facilitate readjustment and promote psychosocial adaptation were identified.

Returning individual research results to participants: Values, preferences, and expectations

Background/objective

Disclosing individual research results to participants is not standard practice. The return of individual research results to participants may increase recruitment, retention, and engagement in research. This study's objective was to explore the preferences, expectations, and experiences of research participants receiving individual research results.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a health literacy assessment, was used with participants enrolled in a cohort study. The interviews were analyzed to produce an understanding of current experiences. Using descriptive analyses, responses were compared to identify alignments and divergences among participants.

Results

Forty-three English-speaking and 16 Spanish-speaking participants enrolled. Ninety-eight percent of participants wanted to receive their individual research results. Seventy-five percent of participants reported they shared results with their healthcare providers. More participants aged 18-65 reported the need to follow up with their provider (70%) as compared to participants > 65 (20%). Two-thirds of participants reported a positive experience receiving their research results; however, 22% reported anxiety and worry. Most participants (69%) described the electronic medical record (EMR) as their preferred method for receiving their results. Yet only 50% of Spanish speakers preferred receiving research results through the EMR compared to 77% of English speakers. Participants with low health literacy preferred receiving study results in person or by phone.

Conclusion

Research participants value receiving their individual research results, and this may increase recruitment and retention within the research enterprise. While more research is needed, the lessons learned from this study lay the groundwork for developing best practices and policies around the return of individual research results.

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) remains a formidable global health challenge, with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. While advancements in pharmacology have led to improved outcomes for various cancers, PCa continues to exhibit significant health disparities, disproportionately affecting certain populations. This paper explores the intersection of pharmacology and anthropology in understanding the health disparities associated with PCa. By considering the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of PCa, pharmacologic anthropology provides a comprehensive framework to address these disparities and improve patient care.

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.

Comparison of factors influencing the willingness to donate biospecimens among guardians of children with cancer and adult cancer patients

Background

This study examined and compared the attitudes and willingness of guardians of children with cancer and adult cancer patients toward donating biospecimens and clinical data for cancer research.

Methods

We conducted a cross‐sectional study among guardians of children with cancer (Guardian group) from Shanghai Children's Medical Center and adult cancer patients (Adult group) from Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital between February 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. Participants’ demographic data, willingness, and motivations for biospecimen donation were collected and analyzed.

Results

Of 670 participants, 90.8% (318/350) in the Guardian group and 88.1% (282/320) in the Adult group completed the questionnaire. Most participants were willing to donate residual tissue samples (92.8% in the Guardian group vs. 79.4% in the Adult group, p^ψ = 0.032) and clinical data (94.0% vs. 72.3%, p^ψ < 0.001) for medical research. Logistic regression analysis indicated that only child status (odds ratio [OR] = 0.140, p = 0.02), history of blood donation (OR = 4.467, p = 0.019) in the Guardian group, education (OR = 0.387, p = 0.037), and history of blood donation (OR = 2.556, p = 0.016) in the Adult group were significantly associated with participants’ willingness to donate biospecimens. The primary motivation for donation was helping other patients with cancer (65.4% vs. 24.5%, p^ψ < 0.001). The major barriers to donation were the potential to cause physical discomfort (61.0% vs. 64.9%, p^ψ = 0.032).

Conclusions

Guardians of children with cancer were more willing to donate biospecimens than adult cancer patients in China. It is essential to promote awareness of biospecimens donation, especially in adult cancer patients.

"If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

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.

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.

Health data research on sudden cardiac arrest: perspectives of survivors and their next-of-kin

BACKGROUND

Consent for data research in acute and critical care is complex as patients become at least temporarily incapacitated or die. Existing guidelines and regulations in the European Union are of limited help and there is a lack of literature about the use of data from this vulnerable group. To aid the creation of a patient-centred framework for responsible data research in the acute setting, we explored views of patients and next-of-kin about the collection, storage, sharing and use of genetic and health-related data for observational research.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews (n = 19) with Dutch sudden cardiac arrest survivors who donated clinical and socio-economic data and genetic samples to research. We also interviewed their next-of-kin. Topics were informed by ethics literature and we used scenario-sketches to aid discussion of complex issues.

RESULTS

Sudden cardiac arrest survivors displayed limited awareness of their involvement in health data research and of the content of their given consent. We found that preferences regarding disclosure of clinically actionable genetic findings could change over time. When data collection and use were limited to the medical realm, patients trusted researchers to handle data responsibly without concern for privacy or other risks. There was no consensus as to whether deferred consent should be explicitly asked from survivors. If consent is asked, this would ideally be done a few months after the event when cognitive capacities have been regained. Views were divided about the need to obtain proxy consent for research with deceased patients' data. However, there was general support for the disclosure of potentially relevant post-mortem genetic findings to relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Sudden cardiac arrest patients' donation of data for research was grounded in trust in medicine overall, blurring the boundary between research and care. Our findings also highlight questions about the acceptability of a one-time consent and about responsibilities of patients, researchers and ethics committees. Finally, further normative investigation is needed regarding the (continued) use of participants' data after death, which is of particular importance in this setting. Our findings are thought to be of relevance for other acute and life-threatening illnesses as well.

Becoming and being a biobank donor: The role of relationships and ethics

Relational aspects, such as involvement of donor's relatives or friends in the decision-making on participation in a research biobank, providing relatives' health data to researchers, or sharing research findings with relatives should be considered when reflecting on ethical aspects of research biobanks. The aim of this paper is to explore what the role of donor's relatives and friends is in the process of becoming and being a biobank donor and which ethical issues arise in this context. We performed qualitative analysis of 40 qualitative semi-structured interviews with biobank donors and researchers. The results show that relatedness to relatives or other types of close relationships played a significant role in the donors' motivation to be involved in a biobank, risk-benefit assessment, and decisions on sharing information on research and its results. Interviewees mentioned ethical issues in the context of sharing relatives' health-related data for research purposes and returning research findings that may affect their relatives. We conclude that the question of what information on family members may be shared with a biobank by research participants without informed consent of those relatives, and when family members become research subjects, lacks a clear answer and detailed guidelines, especially in the context of the introduction of the European Union's (EU) General Data Protection Regulation. Researchers in Latvia and EU face ethical questions and dilemmas about returning research results and incidental findings to donors' relatives, and donors need more information on sharing research results with relatives in the informed consent process.

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.

Perspectives regarding privacy in clinical research among research professionals from the Arab region: an exploratory qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Protecting the privacy of research participants is widely recognized as one of the standard ethical requirements for clinical research. It is unknown, however, how research professionals regard concepts of privacy as well as the situations in the research setting that require privacy protections. The aim of this study was to explore the views of research professionals from Arab countries regarding concepts and scope of privacy that occur in clinical research.

METHODS

We adopted an exploratory qualitative approach by the use of focus group discussions. We recruited individuals involved in research from Egypt and Morocco. We analyzed focus group data via a constant comparison approach, which consisted of close reading of the transcribed interviews followed by coding and then determining themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Between August 2016 and July 2018, we conducted nine focus group discussions. Respondents discussed several privacy issues that occurred before the research began (e.g., recruitment practices); during research (e.g., data collection and physical exams), and after the research (e.g., secondary use of data and data sharing). Respondents revealed their perspectives of patients towards privacy in the clinical and research settings and mentioned that patients are more likely to permit access to their privacy in the clinical setting compared with research setting due to the existence of benefits and trust in clinical care. Respondents also recommended training regarding data protections for individuals involved in research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that research professionals discussed a range of privacy issues that are present during the different stages of research. We recommend 1) development of standards regarding privacy protections during recruitment efforts; 2) additional training for individuals involved in research regarding best practices with data security in secondary research; 3) a quantitative study involving investigators and REC members to determine their knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding privacy issues that occur in research; and 4) a quantitative study involving patients to elicit their views regarding their privacy concerns in research.

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.