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

Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback.

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.

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions.

A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings

Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients’ interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients’ needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient’s lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient’s family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information’s family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients’ lived illness experiences and family context.

Stakeholder views on opportunistic genomic screening in the Netherlands: a qualitative study

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such 'opportunistic genomic screening' (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected 'secondary findings' be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical 'screening' framework, rather than as a form of 'good patient care'. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a 'fiduciary duty' to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient's informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.

Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings

The present study represents an initial step in understanding diverse academic perspectives on the disclosure of secondary findings (SFs) from genetic research conducted in Africa. Using an online survey completed by 674 university students and academic staff in South Africa, we elicited attitudes towards the return of SFs. Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to classify sub-groups of participants according to their overall attitudes to returning SFs. We did not find substantial differences in attitudes towards the return of findings between staff and students. Overall, respondents were in favour of the return of SFs in genetics research, depending on the type. The majority of survey respondents (80%) indicated that research participants should be given the option of deciding whether to have genetic SFs returned. LCA revealed that the largest group (53%) comprised individuals with more favourable attitudes to the return of SFs in genetics research. Those with less favourable attitudes comprised only 4% of the sample. This study provides important insights that may, together with further empirical evidence, inform the development of research guidelines and policy to assist healthcare professionals and researchers.

Evaluating the resource implications of different service delivery models for offering additional genomic findings

PURPOSE

To evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.

METHODS

Data from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.

RESULTS

For the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375-US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794-US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41-51%.

CONCLUSION

Resources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.

Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing

Background

While integrating genomic sequencing into clinical care carries clear medical benefits, it also raises difficult ethical questions. Compared to traditional sequencing technologies, genomic sequencing and analysis is more likely to identify unsolicited findings (UF) and variants that cannot be classified as benign or disease-causing (variants of uncertain significance; VUS). UF and VUS pose new challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) who are obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing from patients.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 GHPs across Europe, Australia and Canada to identify some of these challenges.

Results

Our results show that GHPs find it difficult to prepare patients to receive results because a vast amount of information is required to fully inform patients about VUS and UF. GHPs also struggle to engage patients – many of whom may be focused on ending their ‘diagnostic odyssey’ – in the informed consent process in a meaningful way. Thus, some questioned how ‘informed’ patients actually are when they agree to undergo clinical genomic sequencing.

Conclusions

These findings suggest a tension remains between sufficient information provision at the risk of overwhelming the patient and imparting less information at the risk of uninformed decision-making. We suggest that a shift away from ‘fully informed consent’ toward an approach aimed at realizing, as far as possible, the underlying goals that informed consent is meant to promote.

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

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

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.

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.

Genetic counselling in the era of genomic medicine

BACKGROUND

Genomic technology can now deliver cost effective, targeted diagnosis and treatment for patients. Genetic counselling is a communication process empowering patients and families to make autonomous decisions and effectively use new genetic information. The skills of genetic counselling and expertise of genetic counsellors are integral to the effective implementation of genomic medicine.

SOURCES OF DATA

Original papers, reviews, guidelines, policy papers and web-resources.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

An international consensus on the definition of genetic counselling. Genetic counselling is necessary for implementation of genomic medicine.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Models of genetic counselling.

GROWING POINTS

Genomic medicine is a growing and strategic priority for many health care systems. Genetic counselling is part of this.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

An evidence base is necessary, incorporating implementation and outcome research, to enable health care systems, practitioners, patients and families to maximize the utility (medically and psychologically) of the new genomic possibilities.

Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03244202; Pre-results.