Living laboratory: Whole-genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 311-318

  Angrist, M ^a   Jamal, L ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Governance; Human subjects; Personalized medicine; Research participation; Whole exome sequencing; Whole genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; GENETIC PROCEDURES; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH DISPARITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; THERAPEUTIC MISCONCEPTION; WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING; ETHICS; GENETICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; HUMAN GENOME; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

GENETICS, MEDICAL; GENOME, HUMAN; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84925247999     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12461     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Greenleaf WJ, Sidow A. The future of sequencing: convergence of intelligent design and market Darwinism. Genome Biol 2014: 15: 303.
2. Vassy JL, Lautenbach DM, McLaughlin HM et al. The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine. Trials 2014: 15: 85.
3. Manolio TA, Green ED. Leading the way to genomic medicine. Am J Med Genet C: Semin Med Genet 2014: 166: 1-7.
4. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med 2013: 369: 1502-1511.
5. Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2014: 370: 2418-2425.
6. Dewey FE, Grove ME, Pan C et al. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA Association 2014: 311: 1035-1045.
7. Frank M, Prenzler A, Eils R, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. Genome sequencing: a systematic review of health economic evidence. Heal Econ Rev 2013: 3: 29.
8. Burke W, Laberge AM, Press N. Debating clinical utility. Public Health Genom 2010: 13: 215-223.
9. 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: 719-723.
10. Evans BJ. Minimizing liability risks under the ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013: 15: 915-920.
11. Clayton EW, Haga S, Kuszler P, Bane E, Shutske K, Burke W. Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med 2013: 15: 624-629.
12. Mohamed S, Syed BA. Commercial prospects for genomic sequencing technologies. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013: 12: 341-342.
13. Lautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, Green RC. Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013: 14: 491-513.
14. Herper M. Pfizer enters market for ultra-rare disease drugs - with a price cut. Forbes Magazine, 5/1/2012, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/05/01/pfizer-enters-market-for-super-expensive-ultra-rare-disease-drugs-with-a-price-cut/. Accessed on April 6, 2014.
15. Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 2012: 14: 451-457.
16. Dresser R. When science offers salvation: patient advocacy & research ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001.
17. Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM, Fernandez CV et al. Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases. J Med Ethics 2013: published online first.
18. Abelson J, Bombard Y, Gauvin FP, Simeonov D, Boesveld S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013: 29: 282-289.
19. Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin D et al. Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet Med 2014: advance online publication.
20. Gray SW, Martins Y, Feuerman LZ, et al. Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Genet Med 2014: advance online publication.
21. Meyer MN. Regulating the production of knowledge: research risk-benefit analysis and the heterogeneity problem. Admin L Rev 2013: 65: 237-299.
22. Yu JH, Crouch J, Jamal SM, Bamshad MJ, Tabor HK. Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. Am J Med Genet Part A 2014: advance online publication.
23. Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. The Hastings Center report 2013: Spec No: S16-27.
24. (US) IoM, (US) NAoE. Engineering a learning healthcare system: a look at the future: Workshop Summary. 2011.
25. Ginsburg G. Medical genomics: gather and use genetic data in health care. Nature 2014: 508: 451-453.
26. Beauchamp TL, Saghai Y. The historical foundations of the research-practice distinction in bioethics. Theor Med Bioeth 2012: 33: 45-56.
27. United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD. Washington, 1978.
28. Rolnick J. Aggregate health data in the United States: steps toward a public good. Health Informatics J 2013: 19: 137-151.
29. Hogan D. Incorporating analytics into EMRs. Pushes for quality care are inspiring a deeper delving into analytics. Health Manag Technol 2013: 34: 15.
30. Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. The Hastings Center report 2013: Spec No: S4-S15.
31. Feng BJ, Tavtigian SV, Southey MC, Goldgar DE. Design considerations for massively parallel sequencing studies of complex human disease. PLoS One 2011: 6: e23221.
32. Burke W, Evans BJ, Jarvik GP. Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet C: Semin Med Genet 2014: 166: 105-111.
33. PCORI Patient and Family Engagement Rubric. From http://www.pcori.org/assets/2014/02/PCORI-Patient-and-Family-Engagement-Rubric.pdf. Accessed on June 2, 2014.
34. Grody WW, Thompson BH, Hudgins L. Whole-exome/genome sequencing and genomics. Pediatrics 2013: 132: S211-S215.
35. Jacob HJ. Genetic diagnosis through whole-exome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2014: 370: 1069.
36. Boycott KM, Dyment DA, Sawyer SL, Vanstone MR, Beaulieu CL. Identification of genes for childhood heritable diseases. Annu Rev Med 2014: 65: 19-31.
37. Ramos EM, Din-Lovinescu C, Berg JS et al. Characterizing genetic variants for clinical action. Am J Med Genet C: Semin Med Genet 2014: 166: 93-104.
38. Cragun D, Radford C, Dolinsky JS, Caldwell M, Chao E, Pal T. Panel-based testing for inherited colorectal cancer: a descriptive study of clinical testing performed by a US laboratory. Clin Genet 2014. doi: 10.1111/cge.12359
39. Rainville IR, Rana HQ. Next-generation sequencing for inherited breast cancer risk: counseling through the complexity. Curr Oncol Rep 2014: 16: 371.
40. Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E. Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol 2013: 24 (Suppl 8): viii69-viii74.
41. van der Tol L, Smid BE, Poorthuis BJ et al. A systematic review on screening for Fabry disease: prevalence of individuals with genetic variants of unknown significance. J Med Genet 2014: 51: 1-9.
42. Pugh TJ, Kelly MA, Gowrisankar S et al. The landscape of genetic variation in dilated cardiomyopathy as surveyed by clinical DNA sequencing. Genet Med 2014: doi:10.1038/gim.2013.204.
43. Kapplinger JD, Landstrom AP, Bos JM, Salisbury BA, Callis TE, Ackerman MJ. Distinguishing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-associated mutations from background genetic noise. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2014: 7: 347-361.
44. Ridge PG, Miller C, Bayrak-Toydemir P et al. Cystic fibrosis testing in a referral laboratory: results and lessons from a six-year period. J Clin Bioinforma 2013: 3: 3.
45. Duzkale H, Shen J, McLaughlin H et al. A systematic approach to assessing the clinical significance of genetic variants. Clin Genet 2013: 84: 453-463.
46. Cooper DN, Krawczak M, Polychronakos C, Tyler-Smith C, Kehrer-Sawatzki H. Where genotype is not predictive of phenotype: towards an understanding of the molecular basis of reduced penetrance in human inherited disease. Hum Genet 2013: 132: 1077-1130.
47. Kim HL, Schuster SC. Poor man's 1000 genome project: recent human population expansion confounds the detection of disease alleles in 7, 098 complete mitochondrial genomes. Front Genet 2013: 4: 13.
48. Xue Y, Chen Y, Ayub Q et al. Deleterious- and disease-allele prevalence in healthy individuals: insights from current predictions, mutation databases, and population-scale resequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2012: 91: 1022-1032.
49. MacArthur DG, Tyler-Smith C. Loss-of-function variants in the genomes of healthy humans. Hum Mol Genet 2010: 19: R125-R130.
50. Knecht C, Krawczak M. Molecular genetic epidemiology of human diseases: from patterns to predictions. Hum Genet 2014: 133: 425-430.
51. Capriotti E, Altman RB, Bromberg Y. Collective judgment predicts disease-associated single nucleotide variants. BMC Genomics 2013: 14 (Suppl 3): S2.
52. Bendl J, Stourac J, Salanda O et al. PredictSNP: robust and accurate consensus classifier for prediction of disease-related mutations. PLoS Comput Biol 2014: 10: e1003440.
53. MacArthur DG, Manolio TA, Dimmock DP et al. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 2014: 508: 469-476.
54. Johnston JJ, Biesecker LG. Databases of genomic variation and phenotypes: existing resources and future needs. Hum Mol Genet 2013: 22: R27-R31.
55. Cook-Deegan R, Conley JM, Evans JP, Vorhaus D. The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets? Eur J Hum Genet 2013: 21: 585-588.
56. Brownstein CA, Beggs AH, Homer N et al. An international effort towards developing standards for best practices in analysis, interpretation and reporting of clinical genome sequencing results in the CLARITY Challenge. Genome Biol 2014: 15: R53.
57. Lambertson K, Terry SF. Free the Data. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2014: 18: 1-2.
58. United States. 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. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues: Washington, DC, 2013.
59. Strand N. Now available: set of primers for practitioners on management of incidental and secondary findings. blogBioethicsgov 2014.
60. Dresser R. Public preferences and the challenge to genetic research policy. J Law Biosci 2014: 1: 52-67.
61. Mathews DJ, Jamal L. Revisiting respect for persons in genomic research. Genes 2014: 5: 1-12.
62. Dal-Re R, Katsanis N, Katsanis S, Parker LS, Ayuso C. Managing incidental genomic findings in clinical trials: fulfillment of the principle of justice. PLoS Med 2014: 11: e1001584.
63. Angrist M. Of Helices, HIPAA, Hairballs...and Humans. In: Boesky A, ed. The story within: personal essays on genetics and identity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013: 87-98.
64. Angrist M. You never call, you never write: why return of "omic" results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. Per Med 2011: 8: 651-657.
65. Peay HL, Tibben A, Fisher T, Brenna E, Biesecker BB. Expectations and experiences of investigators and parents involved in a clinical trial for Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy. Clin Trials 2014: 11: 77-85.
66. Might M, Wilsey M. The shifting model in clinical diagnostics: how next-generation sequencing and families are altering the way rare diseases are discovered, studied, and treated. Genet Med 2014: doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.23.
67. Levenson D. Patients and families generally welcome secondary genomic findings: support for return of incidental findings may encourage shift toward predictive genetic testing. Am J Med Genet Part A 2014: 164A: ix-x.
68. Kyriakydes S. The view and role of breast cancer advocacy. Cancer Treat Res 2009: 151: 451-459.
69. Burke W, Matheny Antommaria AH, Bennett R et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!. Genet Med 2013: 15: 854-859.
70. Clayton EW, McCullough LB, Biesecker LG et al. Addressing the ethical challenges in genetic testing and sequencing of children. Am J Bioeth 2014: 14: 3-9.
71. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014: 94:818-826.
72. Knox S. Health economic decision making in Europe--a new priority for Breast cancer advocacy. Breast 2009: 18: 71-72.
73. Tarczy-Hornoch P, Amendola L, Aronson SJ et al. A survey of informatics approaches to whole-exome and whole-genome clinical reporting in the electronic health record. Genet Med 2013: 15: 824-832.
74. Wolff MS, Barlow J. Breast cancer environment centers and advocacy. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 119: A200-A201 author reply A201-202.
75. Berg JS, Amendola LM, Eng C et al. Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Genet Med 2013: 15: 860-867.
76. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982: 5: 319-329.
77. Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB 2003: 25: 11-16.
78. Jansen LA. Two concepts of therapeutic optimism. J Med Ethics 2011: 37: 563-566.
79. Kim SY, De Vries R, Parnami S et al. Are therapeutic motivation and having one's own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception? J Med Ethics 2014: doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101987.
80. Wendler DS. Time to stop worrying about the therapeutic misconception. J Clin Ethics 2012: 23: 272-287.
81. Yanos PT, Ziedonis DM. The patient-oriented clinician-researcher: advantages and challenges of being a double agent. Psychiatr Serv 2006: 57: 249-253.
82. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Fyer A et al. Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings. Genet Med 2013: 15: 888-895.
83. Ramoni RB, McGuire AL, Robinson JO, Morley DS, Plon SE, Joffe S. Experiences and attitudes of genome investigators regarding return of individual genetic test results. Genet Med 2013: 15: 882-887.
84. Henderson GE. Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 2011: 342: 267-272.
85. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med 2014: 370: 766-768.
86. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2014: doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.71.
87. Kuehn BM. Groups experiment with digital tools for patient consent. JAMA 2013: 310: 678-680.
88. Grosse SD, Kalman L, Khoury MJ. Evaluation of the validity and utility of genetic testing for rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010: 686: 115-131.
89. Parkinson DR, McCormack RT, Keating SM et al. Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014: 20: 1428-1444.
90. Steenhuysen J. As sequencing moves into clinical use, insurers balk. Reuters 2014.
91. de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BW et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med 2012: 367: 1921-1929.
92. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010: 26: 79-85.
93. Edwards MA, Hazelrigg S, Naunheim KS. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial: summary and update. Thorac Surg Clin 2009: 19: 169-185.
94. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Shields AF, Coleman RE. Impact of 18F-fluoride PET in patients with known prostate cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med 2014: 55: 574-581.
95. Levin L, Goeree R, Levine M et al. Coverage with evidence development: the Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011: 27: 159-168.
96. Drummond M. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for drug reimbursement decisions: what has been achieved? J Health Polit Policy Law 2013: 38: 1081-1102.
97. Foster NL, Mottola K, Hoffman JM. Coverage with evidence development: what to consider. JAMA Neurol 2014: 71: 399-400.
98. Yong JH, Beca J, Hoch JS. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. PharmacoEconomics 2013: 31: 229-236.
99. Bishop D, Lexchin J. Politics and its intersection with coverage with evidence development: a qualitative analysis from expert interviews. BMC Health Serv Res 2013: 13: 88.
100. (US) IoM. Genome-based diagnostics: clarifying pathways to clinical use. Workshop Summary. 2012.
101. Need AC, Goldstein DB. Next generation disparities in human genomics: concerns and remedies. Trends Genet 2009: 25: 489-494.
102. Adoga MP, Fatumo SA, Agwale SM. H3Africa: a tipping point for a revolution in bioinformatics, genomics and health research in Africa. Source Code Biol Med 2014: 9: 10.
103. Hall MJ, Olopade OI. Disparities in genetic testing: thinking outside the BRCA box. J Clin Oncol 2006: 24: 2197-2203.
104. Haffty BG, Silber A, Matloff E, Chung J, Lannin D. Racial differences in the incidence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a cohort of early onset breast cancer patients: African American compared to white women. J Med Genet 2006: 43: 133-137.
105. Oluwagbemiga LA, Oluwole A, Kayode AA. Seventeen years after BRCA1: what is the BRCA mutation status of the breast cancer patients in Africa? - a systematic review. SpringerPlus 2012: 1: 83.
106. Suther S, Kiros GE. Barriers to the use of genetic testing: a study of racial and ethnic disparities. Genet Med 2009: 11: 655-662.
107. Hensley Alford S, McBride CM, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group. Public Health Genom 2011: 14: 85-93.
108. Lantos JD. Learning the right lessons from the SUPPORT study controversy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014: 99: F4-F5.
109. Barello S, Graffigna G, Vegni E. Patient engagement as an emerging challenge for healthcare services: mapping the literature. Nurs Res Pract 2012: 2012: 905934.
110. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Abelson J. The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes. Soc Sci Med 2012: 74: 1843-1850.
111. Daudelin G, Lehoux P, Abelson J, Denis JL. The integration of citizens into a science/policy network in genetics: governance arrangements and asymmetry in expertise. Health Expect 2011: 14: 261-271.
112. Knoppers BM, Harris JR, Budin-Ljosne I, Dove ES. A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing. Hum Genet 2014: 133: 895-903.
113. Hayden EC. Data barriers limit genetic diagnosis. Nature 2013: 494: 156-157.
114. Bernstein R. Shifting ground for big data researchers. Cell 2014: 157: 283-284.
115. Erlich Y, Narayanan A. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nature Rev Genet 2014: 15: 409-421.
116. Joly Y, Dove ES, Knoppers BM, Bobrow M, Chalmers D. Data sharing in the post-genomic world: the experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO). PLoS Comput Biol 2012: 8: e1002549.
117. Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res 2014: 42: D980-D985.
118. Al-Ubaydli M. Patients must have control of their medical records. BMJ 2012: 345: e5575.