Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice

Journal of Medical Genetics

Volumn 51, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 715-723

  Shkedi Rafid, Shiri ^a,b   Dheensa, Sandi ^b   Crawford, Gillian ^a,b   Fenwick, Angela ^b   Lucassen, Anneke ^a,b  

^a Wessex Clinical Genetic Service   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOME ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INTELLECTUAL IMPAIRMENT; PATHOGENICITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE; VALIDITY; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENETICS; GENOMICS;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS;

EID: 84924992117     PISSN: 00222593     EISSN: 14686244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2014-102435     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Lucassen A, Houlston RS. The challenges of genome analysis in the health care setting. Genes 2014;5:576-85.
2. Dorschner MO, Amendola LM, Turner EH, Robertson PD, Shirts BH, Gallego CJ, Bennett RL, Jones KL, Tokita MJ, Bennett JT, Kim JH, Rosenthal EA, Kim DS, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grand Opportunity Exome Sequencing ProjectTabor HK, Bamshad MJ, Motulsky AG, Scott CR, Pritchard CC, Walsh T, Burke W, Raskind WH, Byers P, Hisama FM, Nickerson DA, Jarvik GP. Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes. Am J Hum Genet 2013;93:631-40.
3. Lawrence L, Sincan M, Markello T, Adams DR, Gill F, Godfrey R, Golas G, Groden C, Landis D, Nehrebecky M, Park G, Soldatos A, Tifft C, Toro C, Wahl C, Wolfe L, Gahl WA, Boerkoel CF. The implications of familial incidental findings from exome sequencing: the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program experience. Genet Med. Published Online First: 1 May 2014. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.29
4. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG, Bainbridge MN, Willis A, Ward PA, Braxton A, Beuten J, Xia F, Niu Z, Hardison M, Person R, Bekheirnia MR, Leduc MS, Kirby A, Pham P, Scull J, Wang M, Ding Y, Plon SE, Lupski JR, Beaudet AL, Gibbs RA, Eng CM. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1502-11.
5. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Anticipate and communicate. Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts 2013. http://bioethics.gov/ sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
6. Need AC, Shashi V, Hitomi Y, Schoch K, Shianna KV, McDonald MT, Meisler MH, Goldstein DB. Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions. J Med Genet 2012;49:353-61.
7. Rigter T, van Aart C, Elting M, Waisfisz Q, Cornel MC, Henneman L. Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clinical Genet 2013;85:417-22.
8. Worthey EA, Mayer AN, Syverson GD, Helbling D, Bonacci BB, Decker B, Serpe JM, Dasu T, Tschannen MR, Veith RL, Basehore MJ, Broeckel U, Tomita-Mitchell A, Arca MJ, Casper JT, Margolis DA, Bick DP, Hessner MJ, Routes JM, Verbsky JW, Jacob HJ, Dimmock DP. Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genet Med 2011;13:255-62.
9. Lohn Z, Adam S, Birch P, Friedman JM. Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. J Genetic Couns 2014;23:463-73.
10. van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F, Hodgson SV, Howard HC, Cambon-Thomsen A, Knoppers BM, Meijers-Heijboer H, Scheffer H, Tranebjaerg L, Dondorp W, de Wert GM, ESHG Public and Professional Policy Committee. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:S1-5.
11. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Secondary variants-in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Euro J Hum Genet 2013;21:1331-4.
12. Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A. A more fitting term in the incidental findings debate: one term does not fit all situations. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:957.
13. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, McGuire AL, Nussbaum RL, O'Daniel JM, Ormond KE, Rehm HL, Watson MS, Williams MS, Biesecker LG; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-74.
14. Parens E, Appelbaum P, Chung W. Incidental findings in the era of whole genome sequencing? Hastings Cent Rep 2013;43:16-19.
15. Parker LS. The future of incidental findings: should they be viewed as benefits? J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:341-51.
16. Srebniak MI, Diderich KE, Govaerts LC, Joosten M, Riedijk S, Galjaard RJ, Van Opstal D. Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:856-8.
17. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Peeters H, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. The communication of secondary variants: interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing. Clin Genet 2014;86:207-16.
18. Mayer AN, Dimmock DP, Arca MJ, Bick DP, Verbsky JW, Worthey EA, Jacob HJ, Margolis DA. A timely arrival for genomic medicine. Genet Med 2011;13:195-6.
19. Wright CF, Middleton A, Burton H, Cunningham F, Humphries SE, Hurst J, Birney E, Firth HV. Policy challenges of clinical genome sequencing. BMJ 2013;347:f6845.
20. de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Macville MV, de Die-Smulders CE, van Lith JM, de Wert GM. Microarrays as a diagnostic tool in prenatal screening strategies: ethical reflection. Hum Genet 2014;133:163-72.
21. Burke W. Genetic tests: clinical validity and clinical utility. Cur Protoc Hum Genet 2014;81:9.15.1-8.
22. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 2006;8:448-50.
23. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med 2009;11:570-4.
24. Krier JB, Green RC. Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing. Curr Protoc Hum Genet 2013. Chapter 9:Unit9.23.
25. Abdul-Karim R, Berkman BE, Wendler D, Rid A, Khan J, Badgett T, Hull SC. Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research. Pediatrics 2013;131:564-71.
26. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, Brothers K, Clayton EW, Chung W, Evans BJ, Evans JP, Fullerton SM, Gallego CJ, Garrison NA, Gray SW, Holm IA, Kullo IJ, Lehmann LS, McCarty C, Prows CA, Rehm HL, Sharp RR, Salama J, Sanderson S, Van Driest SL, Williams MS, Wolf SM, Wolf WA, eMERGE Act-ROR Committee and CERC Committee; CSER Act-ROR Working GroupBurke W. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94:818-26.
27. Lewis A, James P. An incidental finding of a large genomic deletion of BRCA1 on a molecular karyotype for a 5-year-old child. Hereditary Caner Clin Pract 2012;10: A73.
28. Committee on Bioethics, Committee on Genetics, and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Social,Ethical and Legal Issues Committee. Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics 2013;131:620-2.
29. The genetic testing of children, a report by the British Society of Human Genetics 2010. http://www.bsgm.org.uk/media/678741/gtoc_booklet_final_new.pdf (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
30. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification. Released on 22 March 2013. https://www. acmg.net/docs/Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_genomics_A_Clarification.pdf (accessed 22 Aug 2014).
31. Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77-84.
32. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 2013;340:1049-50.
33. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Respecting patient autonomy in clinical genomics: new recommendations on incidental findings go astray. Science 2013;340:1049.
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Chung W. Return of secondary genomic findings vs patient autonomy: implications for medical care. JAMA 2013;310:369-70.
35. Lucassen A, Widdershoven G, Metselaar S, Fenwick A, Parker M. Genetic Testing of children: the need for a family perspective. Am J Bioeth 2014;14:26-8.
36. Rosenfeld JA, Coe BP, Eichler EE, Cuckle H, Shaffer LG. Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations. Genet Med 2012;15:478-81.
37. Hennekam RC, Biesecker LG. Next-generation sequencing demands next-generation phenotyping. Hum Mutat 2012;33:884-6.
38. Bell CJ, Dinwiddie DL, Miller NA, Hateley SL, Ganusova EE, Mudge J, Langley RJ, Zhang L, Lee CC, Schilkey FD, Sheth V, Woodward JE, Peckham HE, Schroth GP, Kim RW, Kingsmore SF. Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:65rad4.
39. O'Rawe J, Jiang T, Sun G, Wu Y, Wang W, Hu J, Bodily P, Tian L, Hakonarson H, Johnson WE, Wei Z, Wang K, Lyon GJ. Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing. Genome Med 2013;5:28.
40. Holtzman NA. ACMG recommendations on incidental findings are flawed scientifically and ethically. Genet Med 2013;15:750-1.
41. Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Eng J Med 2014;370:2418-25.
42. Crawford G, Foulds N, Fenwick A, Hallowell N, Lucassen A. Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med 2013;15:896-9.
43. Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, Johnson VA, Shah LL, Simon CM, Williams JK. 'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet 2013;84:11-18.
44. Hitch K, Joseph G, Guiltinan J, Kianmahd J, Youngblom J, Blanco A. Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. J Genet Couns 2014;23:539-51.
45. Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C, Ivey L, Hooker G, Biesecker L, Biesecker B. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet 2014;85:120-6.
46. Bunnik EM, Janssens AC, Schermer MH. Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing? J Med Ethics 2014. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101887.
47. Holm IA, Savage SK, Green RC, Juengst E, McGuire A, Kornetsky S, Brewster SJ, Joffe S, Taylor P. Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board. Genet Med 2014;16:547-52.
48. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM. "I want to know what's in Pandora's box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158:2519-25.
49. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013;50:393-400.
50. Egglestone C, Morris A, O'Brien A. Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns 2013;22:565-75.
51. Fernandez CV, Strahlendorf C, Avard D, Knoppers BM, O'Connell C, Bouffet E, Malkin D, Jabado N, Boycott K, Sorensen PH. Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting. Genet Med 2013;15:558-64.
52. Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KD. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;16: 395-9.
53. Reiff M, Ross K, Mulchandani S, Propert KJ, Pyeritz RE, Spinner NB, Bernhardt BA. Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. Clin Genet 2013;83:23-30.
54. Downing NR, Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Simon CM. Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ Couns 2013;90:133-8.
55. Appelbaum PS, Waldman CR, Fyer A, Klitzman R, Parens E, Martinez J, Price WN II, Chung WK. Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research. Genet Med 2013;16:367-73.
56. Clayton EW, Haga S, Kuszler P, Bane E, Shutske K, Burke W. Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med 2013;15:624-9.
57. European Society of Human Genetics conference 2014. PL3-Joint Session EMPAG / ASHG What IF...(incidental findings). http://client.cntv.at/eshg2014/?play=54 (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
58. McGuire AL, Knoppers BM, Zawati MH, Clayton EW. Can I be sued for that? Liability risk and the disclosure of clinically significant genetic research findings. Genome Res 2014;24:719-23.
59. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Vermeesch J, Dierickx K. Why genomics shouldn't get too personal: in favor of filters: Re: invited comment by Holly K. Tabor et al. in American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A Volume 155. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:2641-2.
60. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, Fletcher JG, Georgieff MK, Hammerschmidt D, Hudson K, Illes J, Kapur V, Keane MA, Koenig BA, Leroy BS, McFarland EG, Paradise J, Parker LS, Terry SF, Van Ness B, Wilfond BS. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-48.
61. McGuire AL, Lupski JR. Personal genome research: what should the participant be told? Trends Genet 2010;26:199-201.
62. Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Trans Med 2010;2:38cm20.
63. Evans JP, Rothschild BB. Return of results: not that complicated? Genet Med 2012;14:358-60.
64. Robson S, Chitty L, Crolla J, Graham R, Ambler G, Wellesley D, Fisher J, Morris S. Evaluation of Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation in Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Anomalies. 2013. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 55468/PRO-10-60-03.pdf (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
65. Middleton A, Parker M, Wright CF, Bragin E, Hurles ME; DDD Study. Empirical research on the ethics of genomic research. Am J Med Genet A 2013;161:2099-101.
66. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am J Bioeth 2013;13:32-42.
67. Ross KM, Reiff M. A perspective from clinical providers and patients: researchers' duty to actively look for genetic incidental findings. Am J Bioeth 2013;13:56-8.
68. Biesecker LG. The Nirvana fallacy and the return of results. Am J Bioeth 2013;13:43-4.
69. Clayton EW, McGuire AL. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med 2012;14:473-7.
70. Price WN. Legal implications of an ethical duty to search for genetic incidental findings. Am J Bioeth 2013;13:48-9.
71. Ulrich M. The duty to rescue in genomic research. Am J Bioeth 2013;13:50-1.
72. Bollinger JM, Bridges JF, Mohamed A, Kaufman D. Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis. Genet Med. Published Online First: 22 May 2014. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.50
73. Middleton A, Parker M, Wright C, Firth H, Bragin E, Hurles M; On behalf of the DDD Study. International views on sharing incidental findings from whole genome research (abstract). European Society of Human Genetics Conference 2014. http://www.ashg. org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130120280.htm (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
74. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:248-55.
75. Halverson CM, Ross LF. Incidental findings of therapeutic misconception in biobank-based research. Genet Med 2012;14:611-15.
76. Knoppers BM, Deschênes M, Zawati MH, Tassé AM. Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:245-7.
77. Zawati MH, Knoppers BM. International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012;14:484-9.
78. Pinxten W, Howard HC. Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2014;28:269-79.
79. Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, Lucassen A, Parker M. Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: theoretical justifications and practical strategies. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2010-17.
80. European Society of Human Genetics. Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:1271.
81. Cherkas LF, Harris JM, Levinson E, Spector TD, Prainsack B. A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e13473.
82. Skirton H, Jackson L, Goldsmith L, O'Connor A. Are health professionals ready for direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic testing? Per Med 2013;10:673-82.
83. 23andme. Status of our health-related genetic reports. https://www.23andme.com/ health/ (accessed 22 Aug 2014).
84. (ACMG) ACoMGaG. ACMG Updates Recommendation on "Opt Out" for Genome Sequencing Return of Results. 2014. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ acmg-updates-recommendation-on-opt-out-for-genome-sequencing-return-ofresults- 253369641.html (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
85. Middleton A, Patch C, Wiggins J, Barnes K, Crawford G, Benjamin C, Bruce A. Position statement on opportunistic genomic screening from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (UK and Ireland). Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:955-6.
86. PHG Foundation. Managing incidental and pertinent findings from WGS in the 100,000 Genomes Project. 2013. http://www.phgfoundation.org/file/13772/ (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
87. The Royal College of Pathologists Australia (RCPA) 2014. Implementation of Massively Parallel Sequencing in Diagnostic Medical Genetic Testing. http://www. rcpa.edu.au/Library/College-Policies/Guidelines/Implementation-of- Massively-Parallel-Sequencing (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
88. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011;13:499-504.
89. Knoppers BM, Avard D, Sénécal K, Zawati MH; P3G International Paediatrics Platform Members. Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:3-5.
90. Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ. Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:332-40.
91. MacHaalany J, Yam Y, Ruddy TD, Abraham A, Chen L, Beanlands RS, Chow BJ. Potential clinical and economic consequences of noncardiac incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1533-41.
92. Hodgson J, Gaff C. Enhancing family communication about genetics: ethical and professional dilemmas. J Genet Couns 2013;22:16-21.
93. McClellan KA, Kleiderman E, Black L, Bouchard K, Dorval M, Simard J, Knoppers BM, Avard D. Exploring resources for intrafamilial communication of cancer genetic risk: we still need to talk. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21: 903-10.
94. Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM, Fernandez CV, Boycott KM, Ouellette G, Wong-Rieger D, Adam S, Richer J, Avard D. Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases. J Med Ethics 2014;40:691-6.
95. Ayuso C, Millán JM, Mancheño M, Dal-Ré R. Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:1054-9.
96. Pyeritz RE. The coming explosion in genetic testing-is there a duty to recontact. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1367-9.
97. Driessnack M, Daack-Hirsch S, Downing N, Hanish A, Shah LL, Alasagheirin M, Simon CM, Williams JK. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an "ethically important moment" in pediatric research and practice. J Community Genet 2013;4:435-44.
98. Yu J-H, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genet Med 2013;15:684-90.
99. 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.
100. Ahn JW, Bint S, Irving MD, Kyle PM, Akolekar R, Mohammed SN, Ogilvie CM. A new direction for prenatal chromosome microarray testing: software-targeting for detection of clinically significant chromosome imbalance without equivocal findings. Peer J 2014;2:e354.
101. Green RC, Lupski JR, Biesecker LG. Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA 2013;310:365-6.
102. Brown SD. Professional norms regarding how radiologists handle incidental findings. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10:253-7.
103. Netzer C, Klein C, Kohlhase J, Kubisch C. New challenges for informed consent through whole genome array testing. J Med Genet 2009;46:495-6.
104. Beaudet AL. Ethical issues raised by common copy number variants and single nucleotide polymorphisms of certain and uncertain significance in general medical practice. Genome Med 2010;2:42.
105. Dondorp W, Sikkema-Raddatz B, de Die-Smulders C, de Wert G. Arrays in postnatal and prenatal diagnosis: an exploration of the ethics of consent. Hum Mutat 2012;33:916-22.