Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing

Applied and Translational Genomics

Volumn 4, Issue , 2015, Pages 38-43

  Clift, Kristin E ^a   Halverson, Colin M E ^a,b   Fiksdal, Alexander S ^a   Kumbamu, Ashok ^a   Sharp, Richard R ^a   McCormick, Jennifer B ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitude; Clinical genomics; ELSI; Incidental finding; Precision Medicine; Qualitative research; Return of results

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939978640     PISSN: 22120661     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) ACMG updates recommendation on "opt out" for genome sequencing return of results. ACMG News 2014.
2. Berg J.S., Khoury M.J., Evans J.P. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet. Med. 2011, 13(6):499-504.
3. Berg J.S., Amendola L.M., Eng C., Van Allen E., Gray S.W., Wagle N., Rehm H.L., DeChene E.T., Dulik M.C., Hisama F.M., Burke W., Spinner N.B., Garraway L., Green R.C., Plon S., Evans J.P., Jarvik G.P. 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(11):860-867.
4. Beskow L.M., Grady C., Iltis A.S., Sadler J.Z., Wilfond B.S. Points to consider. IRB 2009, 31(6):1-9.
5. Biesecker L.G. Incidental variants are critical for genomics. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 92:648-651.
6. Bollinger J.M., Green R.C., Kaufman D. Attitudes about regulation among direct-to-consumer genetic testing customers. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomark. 2013, 17(5):424-428.
7. Bradbury A., McCormick J., Robson M. A changing practice: the controversy over obligations to return incidental findings in genomic sequencing. ASCO Daily News: June 2, 2014 2014.
8. Bradbury A.R., Patrick-Miller L., Long J., Powers J., Stopfer J., Forman A., Rybak C., Mattie K., Brandt A., Chambers R., Chung W.K., Churpek J., Daly M.B., Digiovanni L., Farengo-Clark D., Fetzer D., Ganschow P., Grana G., Gulden C., Hall M., Kohler L., Maxwell K., Merrill S., Montgomery S., Mueller R., Nielsen S., Olopade O., Rainey K., Seelaus C., Nathanson K.L., Domchek S.M. Development of a tiered and binned genetic counseling model for informed consent in the era of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility. Genet. Med. 2014, 10.1038/gim.2014.134.
9. Britten N. Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 1995, 311(6999):251-253. 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251.
10. Bunnik E.M., Janssens A.C., Schermer M.H. Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing?. J. Med. Ethics 2014, 10.1136/medethics-2013-101887.
11. Clarke A.J. Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine. Br. Med. Bull. 2014, 111(1):17-30.
12. Corbin J., Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research 2008, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
13. 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(1):11-18.
14. Fabsitz R.R., McGuire A., Sharp R.R., Puggal M., Beskow L.M., Biesecker L.G., Bookman E., Burke W., Burchard E.G., Church G., Clayton E.W., Eckfeldt J.H., Fernandez C.V., Fisher R., Fullerton S.M., Gabriel S., Gachupin F., James C., Jarvik G.P., Kittles R., Leib J.R., O'Donnell C., O'Rourke P.P., Rodriguez L.L., Schully S.D., Shuldiner A.R., Sze R.K., Thakuria J.V., Wolf S.M., Burke G.L. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants updated guidelines from a national heart, lung, and blood institute working group. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2010, 3(6):574-580.
15. Facio F.M., Eidem H., Fisher T., Brooks S., Linn A., Kaphingst K.A., Biesecker L.G., Biesecker B.B. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 21(3):261-265.
16. Fernandez C.V., Bouffet E., Malkin D., Jabado N., O'Connell C., Avard D., Knoppers B.M., Ferguson M., Boycott K.M., Sorensen P.H., Ac Orr, Robitaille J.M., McMaster C.R. Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet. Med. 2014, 16:633-640.
17. Fullerton S.M., Wolf W.A., Brothers K.B., Clayton E.W., Crawford D.C., Denny J.C., Greenland P., Koenig B.A., Leppig K.A., Lindor N.M., McCarty C.A., McGuire A.L., McPeek Hinz E.R., Mirei D.B., Ramos E.M., Ritchie M.D., Smith M.E., Waudby C.J., Burke W., Jarvik G.P. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network. Genet. Med. 2012, 14(4):424-431.
18. Goddard K.A.B., Whitlock E.P., Berg J.S., Williams M.S., Webber E.M., Webster J.A., Lin J.S., Schrader K.A., Campos-Outcalt D., Offit K., Feigelson H.S., Hollombe C. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet. Med. 2013, 15(9):721-728.
19. Green R.C., Berg J.S., Grody W.W., Kalia S.S., Korf B.R., Martin C.L., McGuire A.L., Nussbaum R.L., O'Daniel J.M., Ormond K.E., Rehm H.L., Watson M.S., Williams M.S., Biesecker L.G. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 2013, 15(7):565-574.
20. Green R.C., Lupski J.R., Biesecker L.G. Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA 2013, 310(4):365-366.
21. Harris A., Kelly S.E., Wyatt S. Counseling customers: emerging roles for genetic counselors in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. J. Genet. Couns. 2013, 22(2):277-288.
22. Jamal Seema M., Yu Joon-Ho, Chong Jessica X., Dent Karin M., Conta Jessie H., Tabor Holly K., Bamshad Michael J. Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2013, 0(5). 10.1002/ajmg.a.35942.
23. Jarvik G.P., Amendola L.M., Berg J.S., Brothers K., Clayton E.W., Chung W., Evans B.J., Evans J.P., Fullerton S.M., Gallego C.J., Garrison N.A., Gray S.W., Holm I.A., Kullo I.J., Lehmann L.S., McCarty C., Prows C.A., Rehm H.L., Sharp R.R., Salama J., Sanderson S., Van Driest S., Williams M.S., Wolf S.M., Wolf W.A., Burke W. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, 94(6):818-826.
24. Kaufman D.J., Bollinger J.M., Dvoskin R.L., Scott J.A. Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J. Genet. Couns. 2012, 21(3):413-422.
25. Lazaridis K.N., McAllister T.M., Babovic-Vuksanovic D., Beck S.A., Borad M.J., Bryce A.H., Chanan-Khan A.A., Ferber M.J., Fonseca R., Johnson K.J., Klee E.W., Lindor N.M., McCormick J.B., McWilliams R.R., Parker A.S., Riegert-Johnson D.L., Rohrer Vitek C.R., Schahl K.A., Schultz C., Stewart K., Then G.C., Wieben E.D., Farrugia G. Implementing individualized medicine into the medical practice. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2014, 166:15-23.
26. Lindor N.M., Johnson K.J., McCormick J.B., Klee E.W., Ferber M.J., Farrugia G. Preserving personal autonomy in a genomic testing era. Genet. Med. 2013, 15(5):408-409.
27. McCormick J.B., Sharp R.R., Farrugia G., Lindor N.M., Babovic-Vuksanovic D., Borad M.J., Bryce A.H., Caselli R.J., Ferber M.J., Johnson K.J., Lazaridis K.N., McWilliams R.R., Murray J.A., Parker A.S., Schahl K.A., Wieben E.D. Genomic medicine and incidental findings: balancing actionability and patient autonomy. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2014, 89(6):718-721.
28. McGowan M.L., Glinka A., Highland J., Asaad G., Sharp R.R. Genetics patients' perspectives on clinical genomic testing. Pers. Med. 2013, 10(4):339-347.
29. McGuire A.L., Joffe S., Koenig B.A., Biesecker B.B., McCullough L.B., Blumenthal-Barby J.S., Caulfield T., Terry S.F., Green R.C. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science 2013, 340:1047-1048.
30. O'Daniel J., Haga S.B. Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14:346-355.
31. Ormond K.E., Wheeler M.T., Hudgins L., Klein T.E., Butte A.J., Altman R.B., Ashley E.A., Greely H.T. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010, 375(9727):1749-1751.
32. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts 2013.
33. Rigter T., Henneman L., Kristoffersson U., Hall A., Yntema H.G., Borry P., Tönnies H., Waisfisz Q., Elting M.W., Dondorp W.J., Cornel M.C. Reflecting on earlier experiences with unsolicited findings: points to consider for next-generation sequencing and informed consent in diagnostics. Hum. Mutat. 2013, 34(10):1322-1328.
34. Rigter T., van Aart C., Elting M.W., Waisfisz Q., Cornel M.C., Henneman L. Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clin. Genet. 2013, 85:417-422.
35. Ross L.F., Rothstein M.A., Clayton E. Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: 'incidental findings', patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA 2013, 310:367-368.
36. Sapp J.c., Dong D., Stark C., Ivey L.e., Hooker G., Biesecker L.g., Biesecker B.b. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin. Genet. 2014, 85(2):120-126. 10.1111/cge.12254.
37. Shalowitz D.I., Miller F.G. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 2008, 5:e91.
38. Graves K.D., Sinicrope P.S., McCormick J.B., Zhou Y., Vadaparampil S.T., Lindor N.M. Public Perceptions of Disease Severity but not Actionability Correlate with Interest in Receiving Genomic Results 2015, Nonalignment with Current Trends in Practice Public Health Genomics, (in press). 3rd ed.
39. Stacey D., Légaré F., Col N.F., Bennett C.L., Barry M.J., Eden K.B., Holmes-Rovner M., Llewellyn-Thomas H., Lyddiatt A., Thomson R., Trevena L., Wu J.H.C. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD001431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
40. Townsend A., Adam S., Birch P.H., Lohn Z., Rousseau F., Friedman J.M. '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, 158A(10):2519-2525.
41. Wolf S.M., Annas G.J., Elias S. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 2013, 340(6136):1049-1050.
42. Yu J.H., Harrell T.M., Jamal S.M., Tabor H.K., Bamshad M.J. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, 95:77-84.