Precision medicine ethics: Selected issues and developments in next-generation sequencing, clinical oncology, and ethics

Current Opinion in Oncology

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 83-87

  Fiore, Robin N ^a   Goodman, Kenneth W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; next generation sequencing; precision medicine

Indexed keywords

CANCER GENETICS; CONFIDENTIALITY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DNA SEQUENCE; EXOME; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMED CONSENT; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL ETHICS; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; REVIEW; ETHICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ONCOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; UNITED STATES;

CONFIDENTIALITY; GENETIC TESTING; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PRECISION MEDICINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84951570610     PISSN: 10408746     EISSN: 1531703X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000247     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA 2015; 313:2119-2120.
2. Wilson BJ, Nicholls SG. The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2015; 8:9-20.
3. Liu Y, Wei X, Kong X, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing for clinical diagnosis of 561 Mendelian diseases. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0133636.
4. Veltman JA, Lupski JR. From genes to genomes in the clinic. Genome Med 2015; 7:78.
5. Hsu W, Markey MK, Wang MD. Biomedical imaging informatics in the era of precision medicine: progress, challenges, and opportunities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20:1010-1013.
6. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:793-795.
7. Coote JH, Joyner MJ. Is precision medicine the route to a healthy world Lancet 2015; 385:1617.
8. Rubin R. Precision medicine: the future or simply politics Jama 2015; 313:1089-1091.
9. Burke W, Brown Trinidad S, Press NA. Essential elements of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:193-197.
10. Khoury MJ, Evans JP. A public health perspective on a national precision medicine cohort: balancing long-term knowledge generation with early health benefit. JAMA 2015; 313:2117-2118.
11. Dzau VJ, Ginsburg GS, Van Nuys K, et al. Aligning incentives to fulfil the promise of personalised medicine. Lancet 2015; 385:2118-2119.
12. Ormond KE, Cho MK. Translating personalized medicine using new genetic technologies in clinical practice: the ethical issues. Per Med 2014; 11:211-222.
13. Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD, et al. ClinGen-the Clinical Genome Resource. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:2235-2242.
14. Mcgowan ML, Settersten RA Jr, Juengst ET, Fishman JR. Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:187-192.
15. Haga SB, Mills R, Pollak KI, et al. Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding. Genome Med 2014; 6:58.
16. Kaphingst KA, Stafford JD, Mcgowan LD, et al. Effects of racial and ethnic group and health literacy on responses to genomic risk information in a medically underserved population. Health Psychol 2015; 34:101-110.
17. Schmidlen TJ, Scheinfeldt L, Zhaoyang R, et al. Genetic knowledge among participants in the coriell personalized medicine collaborative. J Genet Couns 2015. [Epub ahead of print]
18. Stuckey H, Williams JL, Fan AL, et al. Enhancing genomic laboratory reports from the patients' view: a qualitative analysis. Am J Med Genet A 2015. [Epub ahead of print]
19. Hazin R, Brothers KB, Malin BA, et al. Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet Med 2013; 15:810-816.
20. Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Center Report 2014; 44:22-32.
21. Cambon-Thomsen A. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2014; 94:818-826.
22. Knoppers BM, Zawati MH, Senecal K. Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 2015; 16:553-559.
23. Weiner C. Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). Am J Epidemiol 2014; 180:562-564.
24. American College of Medical Genetics. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 2015; 17:68-69.
25. Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, et al. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014; 95:77-84.
26. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. December, http://bioethics.gov/node/3183.
27. Scheuner MT, Peredo J, Benkendorf J, et al. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med 2015; 17:27-35.
28. Green RC, Lupski JR, Biesecker LG. Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA 2013; 310:365-366.
29. Schuol S, Schickhardt C, Wiemann S, et al. So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings. Genome Med 2015; 7:83.
30. Regier DA, Peacock SJ, Pataky R, et al. Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ 2015; 187:E190-E197.
31. Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, et al. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 2014; 16:395-399.
32. Murphy Bollinger J, Bridges JF, Mohamed A, Kaufman D. Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: a conjoint analysis. Genet Med 2014; 16:932-939.
33. Mcgowan ML, Fishman JR, Settersten RA Jr, et al. Gatekeepers or intermediaries The role of clinicians in commercial genomic testing. PLoS One 2014; 9:e108484.
34. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. FDA permits marketing of first direct-to-consumer genetic carrier test for Bloom syndrome [Online]. Washington, DC: FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm435003.htm. [Accessed September 3, 2015 2015]
35. Green RC, Lautenbach D, Mcguire AL. GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:397-399.
36. 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.
37. Garrett SB, Dohan D, Koenig BA. Linking Broad Consent to Biobank Governance: Support From a Deliberative Public Engagement in California. Am J Bioeth 2015; 15:56-57.
38. Koenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent Hastings Cent Rep 2014; 44:33-34.
39. Wagner JK, Mozersky JT, Pyeritz RE. Use it or lose it 'as an alternative approach to protect genetic privacy in personalized medicine'. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:198-201.
40. Bayer R, Galea S. Public health in the precision-medicine era. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:499-501.
41. Fleck LM. Just caring: assessing the ethical and economic costs of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:202-206.
42. Joyner, M. J. 2015. 'Moonshot medicine' will let us down. The New York Times, January 29, 2015.