'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing

Ethical Issues in Glaucoma Genomic Research: Perspectives and Preferences of Potential Research Participants in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria

Genomic research is challenged by many ethical issues, especially in low-resource locations. To determine the views and perspectives of research participants regarding these ethical challenges, two hundred and eight potential research participants were interviewed. Views regarding basic genetic knowledge, return of research results and incidental findings and secondary data use were elicited. Overall, 87.5% of participants were aware of genomic research. About 95.7% of participants had poor basic genetic knowledge, while 15.4% had an understanding of the concept of genetic research. Most participants (92.3% and 82.2% respectively) expressed preference for return of research results and incidental findings. One hundred and forty-nine participants (71.6%) expressed reservation regarding future unspecified use of their blood sample and medical information while 76.4% expressed concern regarding data sharing with other researchers. Optimal consideration should be given to participants' preferences in the design of genomic research protocols.

Use of Prenatal Exome Sequencing: Opinion Statement of the French Federation of Human Genetics Working Group

OBJECTIVE

Prenatal whole exome sequencing (pES) is increasingly prescribed for fetuses with ultrasound anomalies. Starting from the local French prenatal medicine practice, healthcare system and legal landscape, we aimed to address the broad medical and ethical issues raised by the use of pES for women and couples as well as for prenatal care providers.

METHOD

The French Federation of Human Genetics established a working group composed of clinicians and biologists from all over France to discuss pES challenges. A literature review was also performed.

RESULTS

We emphasize the importance of non-directive information that helps couples make a decision that is consistent with their personal values and ideas. We address the difficulty of obtaining informed consent that respects the couple's autonomy, despite the complexity of the information and regardless of their level of education and cultural background. We address whether variants of uncertain significance and unsolicited results should be reported. We emphasize the need for national harmonization of access to pES and the need for multidisciplinary meetings in complex situations. We point out that the specific French context of healthcare financing and the French law have a major influence on medical care organization and support for couples. The outcome of the working group is the development of 12 proposals.

CONCLUSION

This opinion statement, dedicated to prenatal care providers worldwide although linked to the French context, will provide food for thought and assist them in understanding the complexity and implications of pES.

Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute

Little is known about how people living with HIV should be engaged in the decision-making process for returning individual pharmacogenomic research results. This study explored the role people living with HIV want to play in making decisions about whether and how individual results of pharmacogenomic research should be presented to them. A convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted, comprising a survey of 221 research participants and five deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Most participants (122, 55.2%) preferred the collaborative role, 67 (30.3%) preferred the active role and 32 (14.5%) preferred the passive role. Factors that significantly influenced preference for an active role compared with a collaborative role were marital status (OR: 0.282, p = 0.013), research experience (OR: 4.37, p = 0.028), and religion (OR: 2.346, p = 0.041). The reasons proffered for the active role included prior experience with antiretroviral treatment and increased exposure to research activities. The reasons given for preferring the passive role included limited level of awareness about the interaction between patients' genes and drugs, trust in researchers to make the right decision, and fear of making decisions with harmful implications. Overall, findings from our study show that participants want to be engaged in the decision-making process. Research teams ought to provide adequate and simple information about the pharmacogenomic research and implications of the results to support participants' informed decisions.

Research participant perceptions of personal utility in disclosure of individual research results from genomic analysis

This article elaborates research participant perspectives on the communication of individual research results from genomic analyses. While most analyses focus on how to communicate results from the perspectives of clinicians or researchers, there is insufficient data on user perspectives and how this information may be used, valued, and interpreted by patients and their families. The concept of personal utility, which considers factors related to quality of life, including on how information may impact the person's future decisions, has been shown to be particularly relevant to understand research participant perspectives and to move beyond clinical and analytic utility factors such as mortality and morbidity. This article draws from qualitative research of research participants awaiting genomic results in the case of sudden cardiac death. Our results show perspectives of personal utility in communication of genomic results, including cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes. Cognitive outcomes include gain of information, improved knowledge of etiology and inheritance characteristics, and curiosity for what might be found. Behavioral outcomes include being able to plan life decisions, while affective outcomes include various coping strategies used. We will also discuss the value of knowing negative results and incidental findings from the research participant's perspective. This contribution gives suggestions on best practices to guide genome analysis returns, including incorporating participant wishes on individualized communication at the consent stage; developing relational autonomy approaches; and engaging them throughout the research trajectory.

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.

The CPT1A Arctic variant: perspectives of community members and providers in two Alaska tribal health settings

Newborn screening in Alaska includes screening for carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A (CPT1A) deficiency. The CPT1A Arctic variant is a variant highly prevalent among Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. In this study, we sought to elicit Alaska Native (AN) community member and AN-serving healthcare providers' knowledge and perspectives on the CPT1A Arctic variant. Focus groups with community members and healthcare providers were held in two regions of Alaska between October 2018 and January 2019. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring constructs. Knowledge and understanding about the CPT1A Arctic variant and its health impact varied, and participants were interested in learning more about it. Additional education for healthcare professionals was recommended to improve providers' ability to communicate with family caregivers about the Arctic variant. Engagement with AN community members identified opportunities to improve educational outreach via multiple modalities for providers and caregivers on the Arctic variant, which could help to increase culturally relevant guidance and avoid stigmatization, undue worry, and unnecessary intervention. Education and guidance on the care of infants and children homozygous for the CPT1A Arctic variant could improve care and reduce negative psychosocial effects.

Research Participants' Preferences for Individual Results of Pharmacogenomics Research: A Case of a Ugandan HIV Research Institute

Little is known about whether people living with HIV would like to receive their results from pharmacogenomics research. This study explored the factors influencing participants' preferences and the reasons for their desire to receive individual results from pharmacogenomics research. We employed a convergent parallel mixed methods study design comprising a survey of 225 research participants and 5 deliberative focus group discussions with 30 purposively selected research participants. Almost all (98%) participants wanted to receive individual pharmacogenomics research results. Reasons for the desire to receive results were reciprocity for valuable time and effort, preparing for future eventualities, and the right to information about their health. Overall, participants desire to receive feedback from pharmacogenomics research, particularly if results are well established and clinically actionable.

How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review

The benefits of genomic testing are primarily reported in rare disease, cancer diagnosis and disease management. However, as research into its application in common, more complex conditions grows, as well as the increased prevalence of carrier screening programs, the genomic naive public is more likely to be offered testing in future. To promote social acceptability and ethical application of this technology, it is essential that public perceptions of genomics are considered. Previous studies, however, have primarily focussed on the views of those with genetic conditions or those undergoing genetic testing. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate the genomic naive public's perceptions of clinical genomics and clinical genomic testing. Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched, with a total of 3460 articles identified. Data analysis was organised according to the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Sixteen full-text articles were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies used questionnaires to determine attitudes of the public toward clinical genomics (n = 12). Public perceptions were found to underpin technology (Domain 2), value proposition (Domain 3), the adopter system (Domain 4) and the wider context (Domain 6) of the NASSS framework, highlighting its importance when considering implementation of an innovative technology such as genomic testing. Our study shows public perceptions are diverse, and highlights the need for more studies on the views of underrepresented groups and the impact of cultural contexts on perceptions.

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.

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.

Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders are the most prevalent chronic medical conditions encountered in pediatric primary care. In addition to identifying appropriate descriptive diagnoses and guiding families to evidence-based treatments and supports, comprehensive care for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders includes a search for an underlying etiologic diagnosis, primarily through a genetic evaluation. Identification of an underlying genetic etiology can inform prognosis, clarify recurrence risk, shape clinical management, and direct patients and families to condition-specific resources and supports. Here we review the utility of genetic testing in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and describe the three major testing modalities and their yields - chromosomal microarray, exome sequencing (with/without copy number variant calling), and FMR1 CGG repeat analysis for fragile X syndrome. Given the diagnostic yield of genetic testing and the potential for clinical and personal utility, there is consensus that genetic testing should be offered to all patients with global developmental delay, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder. Despite this recommendation, data suggest that a minority of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability have undergone genetic testing. To address this gap in care, we describe a structured but flexible approach to facilitate integration of genetic testing into clinical practice across pediatric specialties and discuss future considerations for genetic testing in neurodevelopmental disorders to prepare pediatric providers to care for patients with such diagnoses today and tomorrow.

Genetic testing in dementia - utility and clinical strategies

Techniques for clinical genetic testing in dementia disorders have advanced rapidly but remain to be more widely implemented in practice. A positive genetic test offers a precise molecular diagnosis, can help members of an affected family to determine personal risk, provides a basis for reproductive choices and can offer options for clinical trials. The likelihood of identifying a specific genetic cause of dementia depends on the clinical condition, the age at onset and family history. Attempts to match phenotypes to single genes are mostly inadvisable owing to clinical overlap between the dementias, genetic heterogeneity, pleiotropy and concurrent mutations. Currently, the appropriate genetic test in most cases of dementia is a next-generation sequencing gene panel, though some conditions necessitate specific types of test such as repeat expansion testing. Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing are becoming financially feasible but raise or exacerbate complex issues such as variants of uncertain significance, secondary findings and the potential for re-analysis in light of new information. However, the capacity for data analysis and counselling is already restricting the provision of genetic testing. Patients and their relatives need to be given reliable information to enable them to make informed choices about tests, treatments and data sharing; the ability of patients with dementia to make decisions must be considered when providing this information.

"…This Has to Do With My Identity. And I Don't Want to Make it Totally Transparent." Identity Relevance in the Attitudes of Affected People and Laypersons to the Handling of High-Throughput Genomic Data

With the establishment of genome sequencing, the influence of genomic information on self-understanding and identity construction has become increasingly important. New sequencing methods far exceed previous genetic tests in terms of scope and quantity. Despite theoretical approaches, however, there are few empirical findings on the identity-relevant influence of genomic information. The present study examines genomic information's identity-relevant influences and considers whether developments in the field of genome sequencing may generate problems that are not yet addressed by existing identity concepts based on traditional genetic tests. The study is based on 10 partially standardized interviews with personally affected persons and four focus groups with medical laypersons as representatives of the public, which were evaluated on the basis of qualitative content analysis. As a result, this paper presents five thematic areas with identity-relevant references within subjective attitudes toward the handling of genomic information, and also derives two basic identity concepts. The results indicate that the lay discourse is still strongly based on older debates about genetic testing and that the view on the complexity of genomic information established in the scientific context has thus far no influence on the perspectives either of those affected or laypersons.

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.

Public interest in whole genome sequencing and information needs: an online survey study

Aim: To survey the general public about whole genome sequencing interest, including pharmacogenomic testing, and to identify information important for sequencing decisions. Patients & methods: An online survey of 901 members of the general public in an eastern Canadian province. Results: Interest in whole genome sequencing, including pharmacogenomic testing, was high with few differences among demographic variables. Issues identified as very important to sequencing decisions included familial implications of testing, whether treatment was available for conditions tested and knowing who could access genomic information. Most respondents would value support when interpreting sequencing results. Conclusion: Findings reveal the kind of information and support users of sequencing services would value and could inform the implementation of sequencing into care in ways that accord with public preferences and needs.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03597165.

Research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios.

RESULTS

All characteristics influenced research participants' willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented.

CONCLUSION

Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.

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.

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

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

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.

How do consent forms for diagnostic high-throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysis

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are increasingly being offered to patients in the clinical setting. Yet, the question of whether, and to what extent, unsolicited findings (UF) and/or secondary findings (SF) should be returned to patients remains open and little is known about how diagnostic consent forms address this issue. We systematically identified consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing online and used inductive content analysis to determine if and how they discuss reporting of UF and SF, and whether patients are given options regarding the return of these results. Fifty-four forms representing 38 laboratories/clinics were analyzed. A quarter of the forms did not mention UF or SF. Forms used a variety of terms to discuss UF and SF, sometimes using these interchangeably or incorrectly. Reporting policies for UF varied: 5 forms stated that UF will not be returned, 15 indicated UF may be returned, and 28 did not specify their policy. One-third indicated their laboratory returns SF. Addressing inconsistent terminology and providing sufficient information about UF/SF in consent forms will increase patient understanding and help ensure adequate informed consent.

Omics research ethics considerations

BACKGROUND

Pending revisions to the Common Rule include topics consistent with respect for persons, justice, and beneficence for research subjects in studies using omics technologies and are relevant to omics research.

PURPOSE

Synthesize trends in bioethics, precision health, and omics nursing science for novice and experienced nursing scholars from which to consider bioethics questions.

METHODS

Review topics addressed in the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) strategic plan, Common Rule pending revisions, and publications regarding human subjects protection policies.

DISCUSSION

Omics research involves decisions regarding understandable informed consent, broad consent, data sharing, trust, equal benefit, equal access, societal variables, privacy, data security, and return of findings to participants.

CONCLUSION

Principles of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence as articulated in the Belmont report and reflected in the American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics provide guidance for human subjects protection procedures to advance omics and nursing science.

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.

A comparison of Australian and French families affected by sarcoma: perceptions of genetics and incidental findings

AIM

To compare Australian and French perceptions of genetics and preferences regarding the return of incidental findings.

METHODS

Participants from the International Sarcoma Kindred Study received a survey at intake to cancer referral units. A total of 1442 Australian and 479 French individuals affected by sarcoma and their unaffected family members responded to four hypothetical scenarios depicting hereditary conditions of varying treatability and severity.

RESULTS

Australians' preference for the return of incidental findings was consistently higher than French for all scenarios. Country group differences were significant for two scenarios when individual characteristics were controlled through multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the need for guidelines that are sensitive to sociocultural context and promote autonomous decision-making.

Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance

Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes.

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

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

"I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings

Lowered costs of genomic sequencing facilitate analyzing large segments of genetic data. Ethical debate has focused on whether and what kind of incidental or secondary findings (SFs) to report, and how to obtain valid informed consent. However, people's support needs after receiving SFs have received less attention. We explored Finnish adults' perspectives on reporting genetic SFs. In this qualitative study which included four focus group discussions (N = 23) we used four vignette letters, each reporting a genetic SF predisposing to a different disease: familial hypercholesterolemia, long QT syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Transcribed focus group discussions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Major themes were immediate shock, dealing with worry and heightened risk, fear of being left alone to deal with SFs, disclosing to family, and identified support needs. Despite their willingness to receive SFs, participants were concerned about being left alone to deal with them. Empathetic expert support and timely access to preventive care were seen as essential to coping with shock and worry, and disclosing SFs to family. Discussion around SFs needs to concern not only which findings to report, but also how healthcare systems need to prepare for providing timely access to preventive care and support for individuals and families.

Prior opioid exposure influences parents' sharing of their children's CYP2D6 research results

AIM

To determine parents' use of their children's CYP2D6 research result. We hypothesized that perceived utility, likelihood of sharing and actual sharing of results would differ between parents with children previously exposed (cases) or unexposed (controls) to opioids.

METHODS

We returned results by phone (baseline). We surveyed parents about perceived utility and likelihood of sharing their child's research result at baseline, and actual sharing at 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Cases were more likely than controls to agree that they (p = 0.022) and the doctors (p = 0.041) could use the results to care for their child, to report higher likelihood of sharing (p = 0.042) and to actually share results with the child's doctor (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Prior opioid exposure influenced perceived clinical utility and sharing behaviors.

Factors Associated With End-of-Life Planning in Huntington Disease

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge of one's gene status for adult onset conditions provides opportunity to make advance end-of-life (EOL) plans. The purposes of these analyses were to (1) determine the prevalence of EOL plans, including advance directives (ADs) among persons across 3 stages of Huntington disease (HD) and (2) examine factors associated with having ADs in this sample.

METHODS

Data are from 503 participants in the HD Quality of Life study. Participants completed an online health-related quality-of-life survey that included questions regarding EOL planning and self-reported HD symptoms. Frequencies were calculated for EOL planning by the HD stage. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with having ADs.

RESULTS

A total of 38.2% of participants stated they had ADs and fewer than half had other EOL plans. Being older, increased HD stage, more years of education, lower anxiety, more swallowing symptoms, and higher meaning and purpose were associated with having ADs.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of ADs in our sample is comparable to the general US population, but surprisingly low, considering the severity and long disease course of HD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health-care providers should develop specific interventions early in the disease process to increase ADs in this population.

Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: Perspectives of laboratory personnel

While next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enormous potential to identify genetic causes of disease, the nature of the technology means that it can also identify additional information about the individual receiving sequencing that is unrelated to the original rationale for testing. Reporting these unsolicited findings (UF) to clinicians, and subsequently to patients, could lead to potentially lifesaving interventions. Most international guidelines provide limited specific recommendations as to whether these UF should be reported. Little research has been conducted exploring which of these variants are reported in practice. Twenty-six interviews were conducted with 27 laboratory personnel, representing 24 laboratories in Europe (12), Canada (five), and Australasia (Seven) to explore their reporting practices. There is considerable variation between laboratories in the reporting of UF. While some limit their reporting to findings that are relevant to the clinical question, others report UF to varying degrees. In addition, most laboratory personnel interviewed said that their laboratories do not actively search for secondary findings in disease-causing genes unrelated to the clinical question, such as those suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Our study highlights that laboratories are still grappling with decisions about which UF to report from NGS and are calling for more guidance.

Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice

The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.

Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review

Researchers and clinicians refer to outcomes of genomic testing that extend beyond clinical utility as 'personal utility'. No systematic delineation of personal utility exists, making it challenging to appreciate its scope. Identifying empirical elements of personal utility reported in the literature offers an inventory that can be subsequently ranked for its relative value by those who have undergone genomic testing. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature reporting non-health-related outcomes of genomic testing from 1 January 2003 to 5 August 2016. Inclusion criteria specified English language, date of publication, and presence of empirical evidence. Identified outcomes were iteratively coded into unique domains. The search returned 551 abstracts from which 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study populations and type of genomic testing varied. Coding resulted in 15 distinct elements of personal utility, organized into three domains related to personal outcomes: affective, cognitive, and behavioral; and one domain related to social outcomes. The domains of personal utility may inform pre-test counseling by helping patients anticipate potential value of test results beyond clinical utility. Identified elements may also inform investigations into the prevalence and importance of personal utility to future test users.

Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences

BACKGROUND

Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations.

METHODS

Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

PURPOSE

As whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) move into routine clinical practice, it is timely to review data that might inform the debate regarding secondary findings (SF) and the development of policies that maximize participant benefit.

METHODS

We systematically searched for qualitative and quantitative studies that explored stakeholder views on SF in WES/WGS. Framework analysis was undertaken to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles reporting the views of 11,566 stakeholders were included. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of returning "actionable" findings, but definitions of actionability varied. Stakeholder views on SF disclosure exist along a spectrum: potential WES/WGS recipients' views were largely influenced by a sense of rights, whereas views of genomics professionals were informed by a sense of professional responsibility. Experience with genetic illness and testing resulted in greater caution about SF, suggesting that truly informed decisions require an understanding of the implications and limitations of WES/WGS and possible findings.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that bidirectional interaction during consent might best facilitate informed decision making about SF and that dynamic forms of consent, allowing for changing preferences, should be considered. Research exploring views from wider perspectives and from recipients who have received SF is critical if evidence-based policies are to be achieved.Genet Med 19 3, 283-293.

Parents' Perspectives on Supporting Their Decision Making in Genome-Wide Sequencing

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore parents' perceptions of their decisional needs when considering genome-wide sequencing (GWS) for their child. This is a partial report and focuses on how parents prefer to receive education and information to support their decision making about GWS.

DESIGN

This study adopted an interpretive description qualitative methodological approach and used the concept of shared decision making and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

METHODS

Participants were parents who had already consented to GWS, and had children with undiagnosed conditions that were suspected to be genetic in origin. Fifteen parents participated in a focus group or individual interview. Transcriptions were analyzed concurrently with data collection, iteratively, and constantly compared to one another. Repeat interviews were conducted with five of the parents to confirm, challenge, or expand on the developing concepts.

FINDINGS

Participants felt that their decision to proceed with GWS for their child was an easy one. However, they expressed some unresolved decisional needs, including a lack of knowledge about certain topics that became relevant and important to them later and a need for more support and resources. Participants also had ongoing informational and psychosocial needs after the single clinical encounter where their decision making occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed unmet decisional needs, which may have influenced the quality of their decisions. The strategies that participants suggested may help create parent-tailored education, counseling, decision support, and informed consent processes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Health care professionals who offer GWS for children should assess parents' values, priorities, and informational needs and tailor information accordingly. There are opportunities for nurses to become involved in supporting families who are considering GWS for their child.

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

Human genome and exome sequencing are powerful research tools that can generate secondary findings beyond the scope of the research. Most secondary genomic findings are of low importance, but some (for a current estimate of 1%-3% of individuals) confer high risk of a serious disease that could be mitigated by timely medical intervention. The impact and scope of secondary findings in genome and exome sequencing will only increase in the future. There is considerable agreement that high-impact findings should be returned to participants, but many researchers performing genomic research studies do not have the background, skills, or resources to identify, verify, interpret, and return such variants. Here, we introduce a proposal for the formation of a secondary-genomic-findings service (SGFS) that would support researchers by enabling the return of clinically actionable sequencing results to research participants in a standardized manner. We describe a proposed structure for such a centralized service and evaluate the advantages and challenges of the approach. We suggest that such a service would be of greater benefit to all parties involved than present practice, which is highly variable. We encourage research centers to consider the adoption of a centralized SGFS.

Defining Ourselves: Personal Bioinformation as a Tool of Narrative Self-Conception

Where ethical or regulatory questions arise about an individual's interests in accessing bioinformation about herself (such as findings from screening or health research), the value of this information has traditionally been construed in terms of its clinical utility. It is increasingly argued, however, that the "personal utility" of findings should also be taken into account. This article characterizes one particular aspect of personal utility: that derived from the role of personal bioinformation in identity construction. The suggestion that some kinds of information are relevant to identity is not in itself new. However, the account outlined here seeks to advance the debate by proposing a conception of the relationship between bioinformation and identity that does not depend on essentialist assumptions and applies beyond the narrow genetic contexts in which identity is customarily invoked. The proposal is that the identity-value of personal bioinformation may be understood in terms of its instrumental role in the construction of our narrative identities, specifically that its value lies in helping us to develop self-narratives that support us in navigating our embodied existences. I argue that this narrative conception provides useful insights that are pertinent to the ethical governance of personal bioinformation. It illuminates a wider range of ethical considerations in relation to information access; it accounts for variations in the utility of different kinds of information; and it highlights that the context in which information is conveyed can be as important as whether it is disclosed at all. These arguments are illustrated using an example drawn from psychiatric neuroimaging research.

Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research

Whole genome and whole exome sequencing technologies are being increasingly used in research. However, they have the potential to identify incidental findings (IF), findings not related to the indication of the test, raising questions regarding researchers' responsibilities toward the return of this information to participants. In this study we discuss the ethical considerations related to the return of IF to research participants, emphasizing that the type of the study matters and describing the current practice standards. There are currently no legal obligations for researchers to return IF to participants, but some viewpoints consider that researchers might have an ethical one to return IF of clinical validity and clinical utility and that are actionable. The reality is that most IF are complex to interpret, especially since they were not the indication of the test. The clinical utility often depends on the participants' preferences, which can be challenging to conciliate and relies on participants' understanding. In summary, in the context of a lack of clear guidance, researchers need to have a clear plan for the disclosure or nondisclosure of IF from genomic research, balancing their research goals and resources with the participants' rights and their duty not to harm.

Attitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey

To investigate public attitudes towards receiving genetic information arising from a test on a relative, 955 University of Sheffield students and staff were surveyed using disease vignettes. Strength of attitude was measured on whether, in the event of relevant information being discovered, they, as an at-risk relative, would want to be informed, whether the at-risk relative's interest should override proband confidentiality, and, if they had been the proband, willingness to give up confidentiality to inform such relatives. Results indicated considerably more complexity to the decision-making than simple statistical risk. Desire for information only slightly increased with risk of disease manifestation [log odds 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) per percentage point increase in manifestation risk]. Condition preventability was the primary factor increasing desire [modifiable baseline, non-preventable log odds -1.74 (-2.04, -1.44); preventable 0.64 (0.34, 0.95)]. Disease seriousness also increased desire [serious baseline, non-serious log odds -0.89 (-1.19, -0.59); fatal 0.55 (0.25, 0.86)]. Individuals with lower education levels exhibited much greater desire to be informed [GCSE log odds 1.67 (0.64, 2.66)]. Age did not affect desire. Our findings suggest that attitudes were influenced more by disease characteristics than statistical risk. Respondents generally expressed strong attitudes demonstrating that this was not an issue which people felt ambivalent about. We provide estimates of the British population in favour/against disclosure for various disease scenarios.

Tumor profiling and the incidentalome: patient decisions and risks

In recent years, the field of oncology has witnessed rapid advancements in genetic sequencing simultaneously with steeply declining costs of sequencing technology. As a result, genomics-driven cancer medicine and the use of tumor profiling are quickly becoming mainstays of cancer therapy. Oncology patients can benefit from tumor profiling by allowing the selection of targeted therapies tailored to their disease. However, it is increasingly recognized that the process of determining a tumor DNA sequence may lead to incidental discovery of underlying germline mutations which can impact other aspects of a patient’s health, and that of their family. How to handle the ‘incidentalome’ has been the subject of recent public debate, yet patient education about the potential risks of tumor profiling remains sparse. Patient perspectives and clinical implications of the tumor incidentalome must be specifically addressed by the oncology community as tumor profiling expands to become a new standard of care.

Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice

This paper summarizes the current controversies surrounding the identification and disclosure of "incidental" or "secondary" findings from genomic sequencing and the implications for genetic counseling practice. The rapid expansion of clinical sequencing has influenced the ascertainment and return of incidental findings, while empiric data to inform best practices are still being generated. Using the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) research project as an example, we discuss the implications of different models of consent and their impact on patient decisions.

Research findings with clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Medical and health research may yield findings that are of direct clinical significance for project participants. The Council of Europe has stated that information on such findings shall be offered to participants, and that applications to research ethics committees shall include plans for managing such findings. The purpose of the study was to investigate how the management of such findings had been described in research projects that had been granted prior approval by a regional committee for medical and health research ethics (REK).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Research projects that were associated with Oslo University Hospital and had a start-up date in 2011 were identified in the database of the regional ethics committee. Copies of the application form submitted to the committee, project protocols, participant information/consent forms and letters of approval were reviewed with regard to information on the management of findings with possible clinical implications.

RESULTS

Of the 87 projects found in the database, 70 were included in the study. Of these, 57 studies involved direct interaction with humans, whereof 45 with intended use of biological material. In 21 studies, the management of findings with possible clinical implications was described in one or more documents. In all of these projects, the applicant him-/herself had referred to this topic in the initial application.

INTERPRETATION

The absence of written information on the management of research findings with possible clinical implications is not in conformity with the recommendations issued by the Council of Europe. By introducing a separate item for this in the form to be submitted to the regional ethics committee for application of prior approval, this issue could be made subject to better assessment.

Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing?

In ethical and regulatory discussions on new applications of genomic testing technologies, the notion of 'personal utility' has been mentioned repeatedly. It has been used to justify direct access to commercially offered genomic testing or feedback of individual research results to research or biobank participants. Sometimes research participants or consumers claim a right to genomic information with an appeal to personal utility. As of yet, no systematic account of the umbrella notion of personal utility has been given. This paper offers a definition of personal utility that places it in the middle of the spectrum between clinical utility and personal perceptions of utility, and that acknowledges its normative charge. The paper discusses two perspectives on personal utility, the healthcare perspective and the consumer perspective, and argues that these are too narrow and too wide, respectively. Instead, it proposes a normative definition of personal utility that postulates information and potential use as necessary conditions of utility. This definition entails that perceived utility does not equal personal utility, and that expert judgment may be necessary to help determine whether a genomic test can have personal utility for someone. Two examples of genomic tests are presented to illustrate the discrepancies between perceived utility and our proposed definition of personal utility. The paper concludes that while there is room for the notion of personal utility in the ethical evaluation and regulation of genomic tests, the justificatory role of personal utility is not unlimited. For in the absence of clinical validity and reasonable potential use of information, there is no personal utility.

Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings.

METHODS

We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model.

RESULTS

In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%).

INTERPRETATION

Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.