Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice

How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability

PURPOSE

To investigate patient reactions to and understanding of secondary genomic findings with limited to no medical actionability (LMA-SFs) from diagnostic genome sequencing.

METHODS

We analyzed LMA-SFs returned to 47 adults who elected to receive a broad set of these results from 6 categories. Findings indicated elevated risk (reportable/positive) or not (negative/normal). Most participants (N = 43) also completed surveys to report their distress, decision regret, expected health anxiety, and whether and how they perceived results as reassuring or troubling.

RESULTS

Most participants received some reportable LMA-SFs for common risk, pharmacogenetic, and carrier status variants. Fewer received reportable APOE haplotype or monogenetic condition variants. None received results indicating high risk for severe neurological disease. Overall, participants (76.7% female, 97.7% White) had low distress, decision regret, and expected health anxiety. None described negative/normal findings as troubling. However, their interpretations of reportable/positive results varied. Even within the same result type, some participants found them troubling, while others found them reassuring based on their perception of the results' utility.

CONCLUSION

Participants' short-term well-being was not reduced by receiving LMA-SFs. Their interpretations suggested varied personal utilities and the need for post-test resources to aid understanding of these types of results and their health significance.

Keeping up with recent developments in immunodeficiency

Inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) are a rapidly expanding group of monogenetic disorders affecting the immune system. Advancements in genetic testing and functional validation studies have accelerated the pace of IEI gene discovery and mechanism of disease, particularly in the past 5 years. To keep up with this rapid expansion, the International Union of Immunological Societies Expert Committee has periodically, since 1999, released updated IEI classifications with corresponding genotypic and phenotypic catalogues with its most recent update in 2022. Now, there are more than 485 monogenetic disorders of the immune system described among 10 main groups of classification. This article reviews recent clinical developments in IEI, including a closer look at some of the more recently described IEI disorders. In particular, we highlight a few disorders with the following clinical phenotypes of IEI: severe atopy, immunodeficiency with immune dysregulation, immune dysregulation with lymphoproliferation, autoinflammation, and innate phenotype. To aid the clinician, we also provide a diagnostic approach to use when there is suspicion of IEI and a discussion of management and treatment.

International policies guiding the selection, analysis, and clinical management of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A systematic review

Secondary findings (SFs) from genomic sequencing can have significant impacts on patient health, yet existing practices guiding their clinical investigation are inconsistent. We systematically reviewed existing SFs policies to identify variations and gaps in guidance. We cataloged and appraised international policies from academic databases (n = 5, inception-02/2022) and international human genetic societies (n = 64; inception-05/2022), across the continuum of SFs selection, analysis, and clinical management. We assessed quality using AGREE-II and interpreted results using qualitative description. Of the 63 SFs policies identified, most pertained to clinical management of SFs (98%; n = 62; primarily consent and disclosure), some guided SFs analysis (60%; n = 38), while fewer mentioned SFs selection (48%; n = 30). Overall, policies recommend (1) identifying clinically actionable, pathogenic variants with high positive predictive values for disease (selection), (2) bioinformatically filtering variants using evidence-informed gene lists (analysis), and (3) discussing with affected individuals the SFs identified, their penetrance, expressivity, medical implications, and management (clinical management). Best practices for SFs variant analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up (i.e., surveillance, treatment, etc.) were minimally described. Upon quality assessment, policies were highly rated for scope and clarity (median score, 69) but were limited by their rigor and applicability (median scores, 27 and 25). Our review represents a comprehensive international synthesis of policy guiding SFs across the continuum of selection, analysis, and clinical management. Our synthesis will help providers navigate critical decision points in SFs investigation, although significant work is needed to address gaps in SFs analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up processes and to support evidence-based practice.

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

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

Opportunistic genetic screening increases the diagnostic yield and is medically valuable for care of patients and their relatives with hereditary cancer

BACKGROUND

Multigene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (MGP-NGS) enables the detection of germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in genes beyond those associated with a certain cancer phenotype. Opportunistic genetic screening based on MGP-NGS in patients with suspicion of hereditary cancer reveals these incidental findings (IFs).

METHODS

MGP-NGS was performed in patients who fulfilled the clinical criteria to undergo genetic testing according to the Catalan Health Service guidelines. Variants were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines and the Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK guidelines.

RESULTS

IFs were identified in 10 (1.22%) of the 817 patients who underwent MGP-NGS. The mean age at cancer diagnosis was 49.4±9.5 years. Three IFs (30.0%) were detected in PMS2, two (20.0%) in ATM and TP53 and one (10.0%) in MSH6, NTHL1 and VHL. Seven (70.0%) IFs were single-nucleotide substitutions, two (20.0%) were deletions and one (10.0%) was a duplication. Three (30.0) IFs were located in intronic regions, three (30.3%) were nonsense, two (20.0%) were frameshift and two (20.0%) were missense variations. Six (60.0%) IFs were classified as PVs and four (40.0%) as LPVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunistic genetic screening increased the diagnostic yield by 1.22% in our cohort. Most of the identified IFs were present in clinically actionable genes (n=7; 70.0%), providing these families with an opportunity to join cancer early detection programmes, as well as secondary cancer prevention. IFs might facilitate the diagnosis of asymptomatic individuals and the early management of cancer once it develops.

Uncertain futures and unsolicited findings in pediatric genomic sequencing: guidelines for return of results in cases of developmental delay

BACKGROUND

Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children's situations.

DISCUSSION

In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents' and child's DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child's future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child's future developmental of autonomous capacities.

CONCLUSION

When combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD.

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.

Incidental finding at methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA): how to proceed?

Introduction: Since the advent of new generation sequencing, professionals are aware of the possibility of obtaining findings unrelated to the pathology under study. However, this possibility is usually forgotten in the case of studies aimed at a single gene or region. We report a case of a 16-month-old girl with clinical suspicion of Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS). Methods: Following the international SRS consensus, methylation alterations and copy number variations (CNVs) at 11p15 region and maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 7 were analysed and discarded by MS-MLPA. Results: Unexpectedly, the 11p15 region MS-MLPA showed a decrease in the signal of a copy number reference probe. Deletions affecting a single probe are inconclusive. So, we faced the ethical dilemma of whether it was appropriate to confirm this alteration with independent techniques and to offer a diagnostic possibility that was in no way related to clinical suspicion. Fortunately, in this particular case, the informed consent had not been specific to a particular pathology but to any disorder associated with growth failure. Performed alternative studies allowed the final diagnosis of 22q deletion syndrome. Conclusion: We demonstrate the importance of informing patients about the possibility of obtaining incidental findings in genetic techniques (not only in next generation sequencing) during pre-test genetic counselling consultations. In addition, we highlight the relevance of including in the informed consent the option of knowing these unexpected incidental findings as in some cases, this will help to elucidate the definitive diagnosis and provide the correct follow-up and treatment.

Genomic testing in neurology

Genomic testing has been available for neurological conditions for decades. However, in recent years, there has been a significant change in its availability, range and cost, as well as improvements in the technology and knowledge that underpin how the genome is interrogated. Neurologists can encounter a wide range of genetic conditions, and so their understanding of genomic testing is fundamental to modern clinical practice.

Reproductive options in mitochondrial disease

Mitochondrial diseases require customized approaches for reproductive counseling, addressing differences in recurrence risks and reproductive options. The majority of mitochondrial diseases is caused by mutations in nuclear genes and segregate in a Mendelian way. Prenatal diagnosis (PND) or preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) are available to prevent the birth of another severely affected child. In at least 15%-25% of cases, mitochondrial diseases are caused by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations, which can occur de novo (25%) or be maternally inherited. For de novo mtDNA mutations, the recurrence risk is low and PND can be offered for reassurance. For maternally inherited, heteroplasmic mtDNA mutations, the recurrence risk is often unpredictable, due to the mitochondrial bottleneck. PND for mtDNA mutations is technically possible, but often not applicable given limitations in predicting the phenotype. Another option for preventing the transmission of mtDNA diseases is PGT. Embryos with mutant load below the expression threshold are being transferred. Oocyte donation is another safe option to prevent the transmission of mtDNA disease to a future child for couples who reject PGT. Recently, mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) became available for clinical application as an alternative to prevent the transmission of heteroplasmic and homoplasmic mtDNA mutations.

Detection of copy number variants associated with late-onset conditions in ~16 200 pregnancies: parameters for disclosure and pregnancy outcome

BACKGROUND

Copy number variants (CNVs) associated with late-onset medical conditions are rare but important secondary findings in chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) performed during pregnancy. Here, we critically review the cases at two tertiary centres to assess the criteria which guide the disclosure of such findings and develop a disclosure decision tool (DDT) aimed at facilitating disclosure decision. Parental decisions on receiving CNVs associated with risks for late-onset conditions were also recorded.

METHODS

Prenatal CMAs in Hadassah and Shaare Zedek Medical Centers from November 2013 to October 2021 were reviewed for CNVs associated with late-onset conditions. The DDT proposed uses a five-parameter scoring system, which considers the severity, median age of onset, penetrance, understanding of genotype-phenotype correlation and actionability of the finding.

RESULTS

Out of 16 238 prenatal CMAs, 16 (0.1%) harboured CNVs associated with late-onset conditions, 15 of which were disclosed. Outcome information was available on 13 of the 16 pregnancies, all of which continued to delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our suggested DDT will help clinicians to quantitatively weigh the variables associated with CNVs of this type and arrive at a well thought out clinical decision regarding disclosure. Although the prevalence of late-onset conditions as a major finding in the prenatal setup is low, it is expected to rise with the increasing use of non-invasive CMA testing and whole exome and genome sequencing.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Public Attitude towards Biobanking: An Italian University Survey

Biobanks have established a critical role in biomedical research by collecting, preserving, organizing, and disseminating biospecimens and related health data, contributing to precision medicine development. Participation in biobanks is influenced by several factors, such as trust in institutions and scientists, knowledge about biobanking, and the consideration of benefit sharing. Understanding public attitudes, fears, and concerns toward biobanking is fundamental to designing targeted interventions to increase trust towards biobanks. The aim of our study was to investigate the level of knowledge and perception of biobanks in students and personnel of the University of Piemonte Orientale. An online questionnaire was designed and administered via e-mail. A total of 17,758 UPO personnel and students were invited to participate in the survey, and 1521 (9.3%) subjects completed the survey. The results showed that 65.0% of the participants were aware of the term "biobank" and knew what the activity of a biobank was, and 76.3% of subjects were willing to provide biospecimens to a research biobank, whereas 67.3% of the respondents were willing to contribute, in addition to biospecimens, their health and lifestyle data. Concerns were raised about the confidentiality of the information (25.6%) and the commercial use of the samples (25.0%). In conclusion, participants were aware of the role that biobanks play in research and were eager to participate for the sake of furthering scientific research. Still, several concerns need to be addressed regarding the confidentiality of the data along with the commercial use of the samples and associated data.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing: A call for action

The wider availability of genomic sequencing, notably gene panels, in cancer care allows for personalised medicine or the tailoring of clinical management to the genetic characteristics of tumours. While the primary aim of mainstream genomic sequencing of cancer patients is therapy-focussed, genomic testing may yield three types of results beyond the answer to the clinical question: suspected germline mutations, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and unsolicited findings pertaining to other conditions. Ideally, patients should be prepared beforehand for the clinical and psychosocial consequences of such findings, for themselves and for their family members, and be given the opportunity to autonomously decide whether or not to receive such unsolicited genomic information. When genomic tests are mainstreamed into cancer care, so should accompanying informed consent practices. This paper outlines what mainstream oncologists may learn from the ethical tradition of informed consent for genomic sequencing, as developed within clinical genetics. It argues that mainstream informed consent practices should focus on preparing patients for three types of unsolicited outcomes, briefly and effectively. Also, it argues that when the chance of unsolicited findings is very low, opt-out options need not be actively offered. The use of a layered approach - integrated in information systems - should render informed consent feasible for non-geneticist clinicians in mainstream settings. (Inter) national guidelines for mainstreaming informed consent for genomic sequencing must be developed.

Clinical management, ethics and informed consent related to multi-gene panel-based high throughput sequencing testing for platelet disorders: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH

Molecular diagnostics of inherited platelet disorders (IPD) has been revolutionized by the implementation of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) approaches. A conclusive diagnosis using HTS tests can be obtained quickly and cost-effectively in many, but not all patients. The expanding use of HTS tests has raised concerns regarding complex variant interpretation and the ethical implications of detecting unsolicited findings such as variants in IPD genes RUNX1, ETV6, and ANKRD26, which are associated with increased leukemic risk. This guidance document has been developed and written by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and clinicians, with expertise in hematology, clinical and molecular genetics, and bioethics, alongside a RUNX1 patient advocacy representative. We recommend that for clinical diagnostics, HTS for IPD should use a multigene panel of curated diagnostic-grade genes. Critically, we advise that an HTS test for clinical diagnostics should only be ordered by a clinical expert that is: (a) fully aware of the complexity of genotype-phenotype correlations for IPD; (b) able to discuss these complexities with a patient and family members before the test is initiated; and (c) able to interpret and appropriately communicate the results of a HTS diagnostic report, including the implication of variants of uncertain clinical significance. Each patient should know what an HTS test could mean for his or her clinical management before initiating a test. We hereby propose an exemplified informed consent document that includes information on these ethical concerns and can be used by the community for implementation of HTS of IPD in a clinical diagnostic setting. This paper does not include recommendations for HTS of IPD in a research setting.

Ethical values supporting the disclosure of incidental and secondary findings in clinical genomic testing: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings (IFs) and secondary findings (SFs), being results that are unrelated to the diagnostic question, are the subject of an important debate in the practice of clinical genomic medicine. Arguments for reporting these results or not doing so typically relate to the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and beneficence. However, these principles frequently conflict and are insufficient by themselves to come to a conclusion. This study investigates empirically how ethical principles are considered when actually reporting IFs or SFs and how value conflicts are weighed.

METHODS

A qualitative focus group study has been undertaken, including a multidisciplinary group of professionals from Belgian centres for medical genetics. The data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

All eight Belgian centres participated in this study. Ethical values were frequently referred to for disclosure policies on IFs and SFs. Participants invoked respect for patient autonomy to support the disclosure of IFs and opt-out options for IFs and SFs, non-maleficence for the professional delineation of reportable IFs and opt-out options for IFs and SFs and (the particular scope of) beneficence for the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs, the delineation of reportable IFs and a current decline of actively pursued SFs. Professional assumptions about patients' genetic literacy were an important factor in the weighing of values.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with the traditional bioethical discourse, the mandatory reporting of actionable IFs might be interpreted as a "technological, soft paternalism". Restricting patients' choices might be acceptable, but then its motives should be valid and its beneficent outcomes highly plausible. Hence, the presuppositions of technological, soft paternalism - patients' inability to make informed decisions, normative rationality, the efficacy of beneficent outcomes and the delineated spectrum of beneficence - should be approached critically. Moreover, distributive justice should be considered an important value in the delineation of the current scope of the ethical debate on IFs and SFs. This study of guiding values may stimulate the debate on the ethical grounds for a solid policy on IFs and SFs internationally.

Information Provided to Consumers about Direct-to-Consumer Nutrigenetic Testing

BACKGROUND

Nutrigenetic tests are often considered to be less serious compared to other health-related genetic tests, although they share similar ethical concerns. Nutrigenetic tests are mainly available through direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and increasing in popularity.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the contents of nutrigenetic DTC GT websites with respect to the adequacy of the information provided to support a well-informed decision of purchasing the tests.

METHODS

The websites of DTC GT companies selling nutrigenetic tests that could be ordered online without involving any healthcare professional, available in English, marketing tests in Europe, the USA, Australia, or Canada, and accessible from Finland were included in the study (n = 38). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses of the websites were carried out with the help of a codebook.

RESULTS

Of the 38 websites, 8 included a clearly identifiable and easy-to-find information section about genetics. The quality and contents of these sections were often insufficient and/or misleading. Fourteen websites had specific sections discussing the risks related to GT, and on 13 signed informed consent was requested for GT. Furthermore, only 2 of the companies offered any kind of pretest consultation and 13 offered mostly separately charged posttest consultation. The complex structure of the websites made it difficult to find all key information, with many important aspects buried in legal documents, which were challenging to comprehend even for a professional.

CONCLUSION

The structure of the websites and the amount and quality of the content therein do not support a well-informed decision.

Potential for diagnosis of infectious disease from the 100,000 Genomes Project Metagenomic Dataset: Recommendations for reporting results

The identification of microbiological infection is usually a diagnostic investigation, a complex process that is firstly initiated by clinical suspicion. With the emergence of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies, metagenomic analysis has unveiled the power to identify microbial DNA/RNA from a diverse range of clinical samples (1). Metagenomic analysis of whole human genomes at the clinical/research interface bypasses the steps of clinical scrutiny and targeted testing and has the potential to generate unexpected findings relating to infectious and sometimes transmissible disease. There is no doubt that microbial findings that may have a significant impact on a patient’s treatment and their close contacts should be reported to those with clinical responsibility for the sample-donating patient. There are no clear recommendations on how such findings that are incidental, or outside the original investigation, should be handled. Here we aim to provide an informed protocol for the management of incidental microbial findings as part of the 100,000 Genomes Project which may have broader application in this emerging field. As with any other clinical information, we aim to prioritise the reporting of data that are most likely to be of benefit to the patient and their close contacts. We also set out to minimize risks, costs and potential anxiety associated with the reporting of results that are unlikely to be of clinical significance. Our recommendations aim to support the practice of microbial metagenomics by providing a simplified pathway that can be applied to reporting the identification of potential pathogens from metagenomic datasets. Given that the ambition for UK sequenced human genomes over the next 5 years has been set to reach 5 million and the field of metagenomics is rapidly evolving, the guidance will be regularly reviewed and will likely adapt over time as experience develops.

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that ‘tick-box’ forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients’—and relatives’—interests.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines

Background

The use of Next Generation Sequencing such as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is a promising step towards a better understanding and treatment of neurological diseases. WGS can result into unexpected information (incidental findings, IFs), and information with uncertain clinical significance. In the context of a Genome Canada project on ‘Personalized Medicine in the Treatment of Epilepsy’, we intended to address these challenges surveying neurologists’ opinions about the type of results that should be returned, and their professional responsibility toward recontacting patients regarding new discovered mutations.

Methods

Potential participants were contacted through professional organizations or direct invitations.

Results

A total of 204 neurologists were recruited. Fifty nine percent indicated that to be conveyed, WGS results should have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment. Yet, 41% deemed appropriate to return results without clinical utility, when they could impact patients’ reproductive decisions, or on patients’ request. Current use of targeted genetic testing and age of patients influenced respondents’ answers. Respondents stated that analysis of genomics data resulting from WGS should be limited to the genes likely to be relevant for the patient’s specific medical condition (69%), so as to limit IFs. Respondents felt responsible to recontact patients and inform them about newly discovered mutations related to the medical condition that triggered the test (75%) for as long as they are following up on the patient (55%). Finally, 53.5% of the respondents felt responsible to recontact and inform patients of clinically significant, newly discovered IFs.

Conclusion

Our results show the importance of formulating professional guidelines sensitive to the various – and sometimes opposite – viewpoints that may prevail within a same community of practice, as well as flexible so as to be attuned to the characteristics of the neurological conditions that triggered a WGS.

Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate

Incidental or secondary findings (ISFs) in whole exome or whole genome sequencing have been widely debated in recent literature. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' recommendations on diagnostic ISFs have strongly catalyzed the discussion, resulting in worldwide reactions and a variety of international guidelines. This article will outline how propositions on levels of terminology, policy, and underlying values are still internationally criticized and adjusted. Unsolved questions regarding ISFs include a suitable terminology, adequate counseling or informed consent procedures, opt-out possibilities, reporting ISFs to (parents of) minors and values regarding professional duty, patient autonomy, and actionability. These questions will be characterized as intrinsically related and reciprocally maintained and hence, symptomatic, single-level reflections will be marked as ineffective. Instead, a level-integrative approach of the debate that explicitly acknowledges this interaction and considers a balance between internationally significant and case-specific solutions, will be advocated. Second, the inclusion of a patient perspective will be strongly encouraged to complement the professional preponderance in the current debate. The examination of lived patient experiences, a qualitative focus on the subjective meaning of ISFs, and a contextualization of meaning processes will be suggested as specific concretizations. This integrative and inclusive approach aims for a more comprehensive understanding of ISFs, a consideration of all relevant stakeholders' perspective and, ultimately, an effective health-care policy.

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.

Ethical Issues in Contemporary Clinical Genetics

As genetic sequencing capabilities become more powerful and costs decline, the reach of genomics is expanding beyond research laboratories to the wards, outpatient clinics, and, with the marketing of direct-to-consumer testing services, patients’ homes. Increasingly, patients receiving various diagnoses—from cancer to cardiomyopathy—can reasonably expect to have conversations with their providers about indications for genetic testing. In this dynamic context, a grasp of the ethical principles and history underlying clinical genetics will provide clinicians with the tools to guide their practice and help patients navigate complex medical-psychosocial terrain. This article provides an overview of the salient ethical concerns pertaining to clinical genetics. The subject is approached with an emphasis on clinical practice, but consideration is also given to research. The review is organized around the temporal and informational sequence of issues commonly arising during the course of pretesting, testing, and posttesting phases of patient care. Drawing from medical, legal, and historical perspectives, this review covers the following topics: (1) informed consent, (2) return of results, and (3) privacy and confidentiality, and intends to equip readers with an appropriate foundation to apply ethical principles to genetic testing paradigms with an understanding of the contextual landscape against which these situations occur.

Is it research or is it clinical? Revisiting an old frontier through the lens of next-generation sequencing technologies

As next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) are increasingly used in the clinic, one issue often pointed out in the literature is the fact that their implementation "blurs the line" between research and healthcare. Indeed, NGS data obtained through research study may have clinical significance, and patients may consent that their data is shared in international databases used in research. This blurred line may increase the risk of therapeutic misconception, or that of over-reporting incidental findings. The law has been used to impose a distinction between the two contexts, but this distinction may not always be as clear in the practice of clinical genomics. To illustrate this, we reviewed the legal frameworks in France and Quebec on the matter, and asked the opinion of stakeholders who use NGS to help cancer and rare disease patients in practice. We found that while there are clear legal distinctions between research and clinical care, bridges between the two contexts exist, and the law focuses on providing appropriate protections to persons, whether they are patients or research participants. The technology users we interviewed expressed that their use of NGS was designed to help patients, but harbored elements pertaining to research as well as care. We hence saw that NGS technologies are often used with a double objective, both individual care and the creation of collective knowledge. Our results highlight the importance of moving towards research-based care, where clinical information can be progressively enriched with evolutive research results. We also found that there can be a misalignment between scientific experts' views and legal norms of what constitutes research or care, which should be addressed. Our method allowed us to shed light on a grey zone at the edge between research and care, where the full benefits of NGS can be yielded. We believe that this and other evidence from the realities of clinical research practice can be used to design more stable and responsible personalized medicine policies.

Communicating complex genomic information: A counselling approach derived from research experience with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) share characteristics (impairments in socialization and communication, and repetitive interests and behaviour), but differ in their developmental course, pattern of symptoms, and cognitive and language abilities. The development of standardized phenotyping has revealed ASD to clinically be vastly heterogeneous, ranging from milder presentations to more severe forms associated with profound intellectual disability. Some 100 genes have now been implicated in the etiology of ASD, and advances in genome-wide testing continue to yield new data at an unprecedented rate. As the translation of this data is incorporated into clinical care, genetic professionals/counsellors, as well as other health care providers, will benefit from guidelines and tools to effectively communicate such genomic information. Here, we present a model to facilitate communication regarding the complexities of ASD, where clinical and genetic heterogeneity, as well as overlapping neurological conditions are inherent. We outline an approach for counselling families about their genomic results grounded in our direct experience from counselling families participating in an ASD research study, and supported by rationale from the literature.

"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.

Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories

BACKGROUND

Increasingly used for clinical purposes, genome and exome sequencing can generate clinically relevant information that is not directly related to the reason for testing (incidental or secondary findings). Debates about the ethical implications of secondary findings were sparked by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2013 policy statement, which recommended that laboratories report pathogenic alterations in 56 genes. Although wide variation in laboratories' secondary findings policies has been reported, little is known about its causes.

METHODS

We interviewed 18 laboratory directors and genetic counselors at 10 U.S. laboratories to investigate the motivations and interests shaping secondary findings reporting policies for clinical exome sequencing. Analysis of interview transcripts and laboratory documents was informed by sociological theories of standardization.

RESULTS

Laboratories varied widely in terms of the types of secondary findings reported, consent-form language, and choices offered to patients. In explaining their adaptation of the ACMG report, our participants weighed genetic information's clinical, moral, professional, and commercial value in an attempt to maximize benefits for patients and families, minimize the costs of sequencing and analysis, adhere to professional norms, attract customers, and contend with the uncertain clinical implications of much of the genetic information generated.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all laboratories in our study voluntarily adopted ACMG's recommendations, but their actual practices varied considerably and were informed by laboratory-specific judgments about clinical utility and patient benefit. Our findings offer a compelling example of standardization as a complex process that rarely leads simply to uniformity of practice. As laboratories take on a more prominent role in decisions about the return of genetic information, strategies are needed to inform patients, families, and clinicians about the differences between laboratories' practices and ensure that the consent process prompts a discussion of the value of additional genetic information for patients and their families.

Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these “family letters” to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients’ issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient’s and HCP’s duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 incidentally revealed in a biobank research study: experiences from re-contacting mutation carriers and relatives

Once an incidental finding (IF) is discovered in the course of genomic research, the researchers are faced with the question of whether or not that finding should be reported back to the study participant. A large number of hypothetical studies and policy documents on this issue have been published, but there are very few empirical studies to inform the bioethics debate. Within a biobank research study of somatic mutations in breast carcinomas, ten germline BRCA1/2 mutations were incidentally detected. After thorough discussions within a group of experts, the mutation carriers (n = 7) or relatives of deceased carriers (n = 3) were re-contacted and informed about the findings. Eight out of ten accepted to receive the information and underwent confirmatory testing. One year later, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with three of the study participants. All of them felt that BRCA mutations discovered in the course of research should be reported back to the individual study participants. In this paper, we report our step-by-step experiences of the re-contacting process. We hope that our detailed reporting will be helpful for other researchers and clinicians that are faced with similar situations. The results of our study lend empirical support to opinion that IFs that meet the three baseline criteria of analytic validity, clinical significance, and actionability should be reported back to the individual study participants.

Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach

BACKGROUND

This paper proposes a refocusing of consent for clinical genetic testing, moving away from an emphasis on autonomy and information provision, towards an emphasis on the virtues of healthcare professionals seeking consent, and the relationships they construct with their patients.

METHODS

We draw on focus groups with UK healthcare professionals working in the field of clinical genetics, as well as in-depth interviews with patients who have sought genetic testing in the UK's National Health Service (data collected 2013-2015). We explore two aspects of consent: first, how healthcare professionals consider the act of 'consenting' patients; and second how these professional accounts, along with the accounts of patients, deepen our understanding of the consent process.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that while healthcare professionals working in genetic medicine put much effort into ensuring patients' understanding about their impending genetic test, they acknowledge, and we show, that patients can still leave genetic consultations relatively uninformed. Moreover, we show how placing emphasis on the informational aspect of genetic testing is not always reflective of, or valuable to, patients' decision-making. Rather, decision-making is socially contextualised - also based on factors outside of information provision.

CONCLUSIONS

A more collaborative on-going consent process, grounded in virtue ethics and values of honesty, openness and trustworthiness, is proposed.

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

BACKGROUND

Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.

GROWING POINTS

SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.

Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations

BACKGROUND

The use of genome-wide (whole genome or exome) sequencing for population-based newborn screening presents an opportunity to detect and treat or prevent many more serious early-onset health conditions than is possible today.

METHODS

The Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health's Regulatory and Ethics Working Group reviewed current understanding and concerns regarding the use of genomic technologies for population-based newborn screening and developed, by consensus, eight recommendations for clinicians, clinical laboratory scientists, and policy makers.

RESULTS

Before genome-wide sequencing can be implemented in newborn screening programs, its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness must be demonstrated, and the ability to distinguish disease-causing and benign variants of all genes screened must be established. In addition, each jurisdiction needs to resolve ethical and policy issues regarding the disclosure of incidental or secondary findings to families and ownership, appropriate storage and sharing of genomic data.

CONCLUSION

The best interests of children should be the basis for all decisions regarding the implementation of genomic newborn screening.

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.

Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views

BACKGROUND

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) consists in the capture, sequencing and analysis of all exons in the human genome. Originally developed in the research context, this technology is now increasingly used clinically to inform patient care. The implementation of WES into healthcare poses significant organizational, regulatory, and ethical hurdles, which are widely discussed in the literature.

METHODS

In order to inform future policy decisions on the integration of WES into standard clinical practice, we performed a systematic literature review to identify the most important challenges directly reported by technology users.

RESULTS

Out of 2094 articles, we selected and analyzed 147 which reported a total of 23 different challenges linked to the production, analysis, reporting and sharing of patients' WES data. Interpretation of variants of unknown significance, incidental findings, and the cost and reimbursement of WES-based tests were the most reported challenges across all articles.

CONCLUSIONS

WES is already used in the clinical setting, and may soon be considered the standard of care for specific medical conditions. Yet, technology users are calling for certain standards and guidelines to be published before this technology replaces more focused approaches such as gene panels sequencing. In addition, a number of infrastructural adjustments will have to be made for clinics to store, process and analyze the amounts of data produced by WES.

Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences

Purpose

There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication, but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients.

Methods

Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe desired attributes of such a term, and then asked to formulate a best term to represent this concept.

Results

The term additional findings had the most first choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also described reasons why other terms were not optimal.

Conclusion

Additional findings was preferred as both more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing

The increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics makes imperative the development of guidelines and policies about how to handle secondary findings. For reasons both practical and ethical, the creation of these guidelines must take into consideration the informed opinions of the lay public. As part of a larger Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, we organized a deliberative democracy (DD) session that engaged 66 participants in dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing. Participants were educated about the scientific and ethical aspects of the disclosure of secondary findings by experts in medical genetics and bioethics, and then engaged in facilitated discussion of policy options for the disclosure of three types of secondary findings: 1) medically actionable results; 2) adult onset disorders found in children; and 3) carrier status. Participants' opinions were collected via surveys administered one month before, immediately following, and one month after the DD session. Post DD session, participants were significantly more willing to support policies that do not allow access to secondary findings related to adult onset conditions in children (Χ ² (2, N = 62) = 13.300, p = 0.001) or carrier status (Χ ² (2, N = 60) = 11.375, p = 0.003). After one month, the level of support for the policy denying access to secondary findings regarding adult-onset conditions remained significantly higher than the pre-DD level, although less than immediately post-DD (Χ ² (1, N = 60) = 2.465, p = 0.041). Our findings suggest that education and deliberation enhance public appreciation of the scientific and ethical complexities of genome sequencing.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.

CONCLUSIONS

Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine

In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions--for example, the way they affect day-to-day health--as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information--for example, the mutation in isolation--as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

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.

So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings

Incidental findings are the subject of intense ethical debate in medical genomic research. Every human genome contains a number of potentially disease-causing alterations that may be detected during comprehensive genetic analyses to investigate a specific condition. Yet available evidence shows that the frequency of incidental findings in research is much lower than expected. In this Opinion, we argue that the reason for the low level of incidental findings is that the filtering techniques and methods that are applied during the routine handling of genomic data remove these alterations. As incidental findings are systematically filtered out, it is now time to evaluate whether the ethical debate is focused on the right issues. We conclude that the key question is whether to deliberately target and search for disease-causing variations outside the indication that has originally led to the genetic analysis, for instance by using positive lists and algorithms.

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research

Purpose:

The extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients' relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Methods:

Our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs' responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Results:

Health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients' relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Conclusion:

We argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practice.

Genet Med18 4, 290–301.

Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing

Return of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical sequencing has become a hotly debated topic over the past year. Efforts are being made by several bodies to provide guidance at both national and international levels; however, no studies comparing attitudes of experts across different countries have been published so far. Our goal was to investigate attitudes towards return of IFs from clinical sequencing across UK, USA and Greek experts. Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with genetics and genomic experts with different backgrounds. Our study revealed more differences when experts were compared according to their professional background than their country. General principles guiding the decision-making and the feedback process were common across all experts but the details of integrating these tests might vary as different professionals reported different needs and attitudes.

Management of Incidental Findings in the Era of Next-generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies allow for the generation of whole exome or whole genome sequencing data, which can be used to identify novel genetic alterations associated with defined phenotypes or to expedite discovery of functional variants for improved patient care. Because this robust technology has the ability to identify all mutations within a genome, incidental findings (IF)- genetic alterations associated with conditions or diseases unrelated to the patient's present condition for which current tests are being performed- may have important clinical ramifications. The current debate among genetic scientists and clinicians focuses on the following questions: 1) should any IF be disclosed to patients, and 2) which IF should be disclosed - actionable mutations, variants of unknown significance, or all IF? Policies for disclosure of IF are being developed for when and how to convey these findings and whether adults, minors, or individuals unable to provide consent have the right to refuse receipt of IF. In this review, we detail current NGS technology platforms, discuss pressing issues regarding disclosure of IF, and how IF are currently being handled in prenatal, pediatric, and adult patients.