Managing the ethical challenges of nextgeneration sequencing in genomic medicine

British Medical Bulletin

Volumn 111, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 17-30

  Clarke, Angus J ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consent; Foetal genome; Genetic testing; Genetic testing of children; Incidental findings; Next generation sequencing; Variants of uncertain significance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EXOME; FETUS; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; DNA SEQUENCE; ETHICS; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES;

ETHICS, MEDICAL; GENETIC TESTING; GENOMICS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INFORMED CONSENT; NEOPLASMS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 84908010472     PISSN: 00071420     EISSN: 14718391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldu017     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Clarke A. Population screening for genetic susceptibility to disease. BMJ 1995;311:35-8.
2. Burke W, Pinsky LE, Press NA. Categorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications. Am J Med Genet 2001;106:233-40.
3. PHG Foundation. Next steps in the sequence; the implications of whole genome sequencing for health in the UK, 2011.
4. Clarke A, Cooper DN. GWAS: heritability missing in action. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:859-61.
5. Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Pruss D, et al. A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. Am J Hum Genet 2007;81:873-83.
6. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Byrnes GB, et al. Genetic evidence and integration of various data sources for classifying uncertain variants into a single model. Hum Mutat 2008;29:1265-72.
7. Vos J, Stiggelbout AM, Oosterwijk J, et al. A counselee-oriented perspective on risk communication in genetic counseling: explaining the inaccuracy of the counselees' risk perception shortly after BRCA1/2 test result disclosure. Genet Med 2011;13:800-11.
8. Murray ML, Cerrato F, Bennett RL, et al. Follow-up of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of unknown significance: variant reclassification and surgical decisions. Genet Med 2011;13:998-1005.
9. Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Cooper GM, et al. A recurrent 16p12.1 microdeletion supports a two-hit model for severe developmental delay. Nat Genet 2010;42:203-9.
10. Girirajan S, Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, et al. Phenotypic heterogeneity of genomic disorders and rare copy-number variants. N Engl J Med2 2012;367:1321-31.
11. Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 2012;14:393-8.
12. Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A, et al. Reflections on the cost of ''low-cost'' whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol 2013;11:e1001699. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001699.
13. Chadwick R, Capps B, Chalmers D, et al. Imagined futures: capturing the benefits of genome sequencing for society. Human Genome Organisation 2013.
14. Sharp RR. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genet Med 2011;13:191-4.
15. Rehm HL. Disease-targeted sequencing: a cornerstone in the clinic. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:295-300.
16. Khoury MJ, Coates RJ, Evans JP. Evidence-based classification of recommendations on use of genomic tests in clinical practice: dealing with insufficient evidence. Genet in Med 2010;12:680-3.
17. Veenstra DL, Piper M, Haddow JE, et al. Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update. Genet Med 2013;15:14-24.
18. Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet 2010; 375:1525-35.
19. Tennessen JA, Bigham AW, O'Connor TD, et al. Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes. Science 2012;337:64-9.
20. Johnston JJ, Rubinstein WS, Facio FM, et al. Secondary variants in individuals undergoing exome sequencing: screening of 572 individuals identifies high-penetrance mutations in cancer-susceptibility genes. Am J Hum Genet 2012;91:97-108.
21. Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D, et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature 2013;486:353-60.
22. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 2013;339:1546-58.
23. Wevers MR, Ausems MG, Verhoef S, et al. Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer 2011;11:6.
24. Chowdhury S, Dent T, Pashayan N, et al. Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications. Genet Med 2013;15:423-32.
25. Yu JH, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, et al. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return mode. GenetMed 2013;15:684-90.
26. Bevan JL, Senn-Reeves JN, Inventor BR, et al. Critical social theory approach to disclosure of genomic incidental findings. Nurs Ethics 2012;19:819-28.
27. Biesecker LG. Incidental variants are critical for genomics. Am J Hum Genet 2013;92:648-51.
28. PHG Foundation. Managing incidental and pertinent findings from WGS in the 100,000 genome project. 2013.
29. Berg JS, Adams M, Nassar N, et al. An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet in Med 2013;15:36-44.
30. Goddard KA, Whitlock EP, Berg JS, et al. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet Med 2013;15:721-8.
31. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012;14:361-84.
32. Herlihy AS, Halliday J, McLachlan RI, et al. Assessing the risks and benefits of diagnosing genetic conditions with variable phenotypes through population screening: Klinefelter syndrome as an example. J Community Genet 2010;1:41-6.
33. Herlihy AS, McLachlan RI, Gillam L, et al. The psychosocial impact of Klinefelter syndrome and factors influencing quality of life. Genet Med 2011;13:632-42.
34. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. GenetMed 2013;7:565-74.
35. Ross LF, Rothstein MA, Clayton EW. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings,' patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA 2013;310:367-8.
36. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340:1049-50.
37. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). ACMG updates recommendation on "opt out" for genome sequencing return of results. Press release available at: www.acmg.net, 2014.
38. Clayton EW, McGuire AL. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med 2012;14:473-7.
39. Clayton EW, Haga S, Kuszler P, et al. Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med 2013;15:624-9.
40. Kingsmore SF. Incidental swimming with millstones. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:194ed10.
41. BSHG. Genetic testing of children. Report of a working party of the British Society for Human Genetics, 2010.
42. Borry P, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cornel MC, et al. Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: background considerations towards ESHG Recommendations. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17:711-9 (and recommendations on pp 720-1).
43. European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG). Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17:720-1.
44. American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics 2013;131:620-2.
45. Ross LF, Saal HM, David KL, et al., American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genet Med 2013;15:234-45.
46. Abdul-Karim R, Berkman BE, Wendler D, et al. Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research. Pediatrics 2013;131: 564-71.
47. Feinberg J. The child's right to an open future. In: Aiken W, La Fallette H (eds). 'Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority and State Power'. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, 1980,124-53.
48. Davis DS. Genetic Dilemmas. Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children's Futures. New York and London: Routledge, 2011.
49. Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden JJ. Nextgeneration sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future? Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:306.
50. Timmermans S, Buchbinder M. Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era. J Health Soc Behav 2010;51:408-23.
51. Parsons EP, Clarke AJ, Hood K, et al. Feasibility of a change in service delivery: the case of optional newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Community Genet 2000;3:17-23.
52. Parsons EP, Clarke AJ, Hood K, et al. Newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a psychosocial study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2002;86:F91-95.
53. Clarke A. What is at stake in the predictive genetic testing of children? Fam Cancer 2010;9:19-22.
54. Clarke AJ. Commentary on predictive genetic testing of minors: by Mand et al. J Med Ethics 2012;38:527-8.
55. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification. Bethesda, MD: American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, 2013.
56. Hendriks KSWH, Grosfeld FJM, van Tintelen JP, et al. Can parents adjust to the idea that their child is at risk of sudden death? Am J Med Genet 2005;138A: 107-12.
57. Geelen E, Van Hoyweghen I, Doevendans PA, et al. Constructing ''best interests'': Genetic testing of children in families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Med Genet Part A 2011;155:1930-8.
58. Xu B, Roos JL, Dexheimer P, et al. Exome sequencing supports a de novo mutational paradigm for schizophrenia. Nat Genet 2011;43:864-8.
59. Girard SL, Gauthier J, Noreau A, et al. Increased exonic de novo mutation rate in individuals with schizophrenia. Nat Genet 2011;43:860-3.
60. Gauthier J, Siddiqui TJ, Huashan P, et al. Truncating mutations in NRXN2 and NRXN1 in autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia. Hum Genet 2011;130: 563-73.
61. Gratten J, Visscher PM, Mowry BJ, et al. Interpreting the role of de novo protein-coding mutations in neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Genet 2013;45:234-8.
62. Owen MJ, O'Donovan MC, Thapar A, et al. Neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2011;198:173-5.
63. Hercher L, Bruenner G. Living with a child at risk for psychotic illness. Am J Med Genet 2008;146A: 2355-60.
64. Skotko BG. With new prenatal testing, will babies with Down syndrome disappear? Arch Dis Child 2009; 94:823-6.
65. Wright C. Cell-Free Fetal Nucleic Acids for Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis: Report of the UK ExpertWorking Group. PHG Foundation, 2009.
66. Holm S, Madsen S. Informed consent in medical research -a procedure stretched beyond breaking point? Chapter one. In: Corrigan O, McMillan J, Liddell K, Richards M, Weijer C (eds). The Limits of Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 11-24.
67. Marta J. A linguistic model of informed consent. J Med Philos 1996;21:41-60.
68. Barton E. Further contributions from the ethical turn in composition/rhetoric: analyzing ethics in interaction. College Composit Commun 2008;59:596-632.
69. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC, et al. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet A 2011;155A: 2916-24.