Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 378-384

  Kaphingst, K A ^a,b   Ivanovich, J ^c   Biesecker, B B ^d   Dresser, R ^e   Seo, J ^c   Dressler, L G ^f   Goodfellow, P J ^g   Goodman, M S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

^f Mission Health   (United States)

^g THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Genome sequencing; Incidental findings; Patient preferences; Return of results

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMBIVALENCE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENOME; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; HUMAN GENOME; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; MIDDLE AGED; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84958103884     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12597     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Mardis ER. The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics. Trends Genet 2008: 24 (3): 133-141.
2. Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2014: 370: 2418-2425.
3. Guttmacher AE, McGuire AL, Ponder B, Stefansson K. Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat Rev Genet 2010: 11: 161-165.
4. Pasche B, Absher D. Whole-genome sequencing: a step closer to personalized medicine. JAMA 2011: 305 (15): 1596-1597.
5. Roberts JS, Shalowitz DI, Christensen KD et al. Returning individual research results: development of a cancer genetics education and risk communication protocol. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010: 5 (3): 17-30.
6. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013: 15 (7): 565-574.
7. 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: 1-9.
8. Fullerton SM, Wolf WA, Brothers KB et al. 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.
9. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al. 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: 574-580.
10. Burke W, Matheny Antommaria AH, Bennett R et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!. Genet Med 2013: 15 (11): 854-859.
11. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification. Genet Med 2013: 15 (8): 664-666.
12. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM. Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard. Genet Med 2013: 15 (9): 751-752.
13. ACMG. ACMG updates recommendation on "opt-out" for genome sequencing return of results [press release]. Bethesda, MD: American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, April 1, 2014.
14. O'Daniel J, Haga SB. Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results. Public Health Genomics 2011: 14: 346-355.
15. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008: 8 (11): 36-43.
16. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008: 10 (11): 831-839.
17. Bergner AL, Bollinger J, Raraigh KS et al. Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings. Am J Med Genet A 2014: 164A: 2745-2752.
18. Wright MF, Lewis KL, Fisher TC et al. Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genet Med 2014: 16 (6): 442-447.
19. Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature 2012: 486: 353-360.
20. Bonadona V, Sinilnikova O, Chopin S et al. Contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline-mutations to the incidence of breast cancer in young women: results from a prospective population-based study in France. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2005: 43 (4): 404-413.
21. Malone K, Daling J, Neal C et al. Frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in a population-based sample of young breast carcinoma cases. Cancer 2000: 88 (6): 1393-1402.
22. Palma M, Domchek S, Stopfer J et al. The relative contribution of point mutations and genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in high-risk breast cancer families. Cancer Res 2008: 68 (17): 7006-7014.
23. Assi HA, Khoury KE, Dbouk H, Khalil LE, Mouhieddine TH, El Saghir NS. Epidemiology and prognosis of breast cancer in young women. J Thorac Dis 2013: 5 (S1): S2-S8.
24. Hsieh H, Shannon S. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005: 15 (9): 1277-1288.
25. Levenseller BL, Soucier DJ, Miller VA, Harris D, Conway L, Bernhardt BA. Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent. J Genet Couns 2014: 23: 552-565.
26. 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: 16 (8): 633-640.
27. Bui ET, Anderson NK, Kassem L, McMahon FJ. Do participants in genome sequencing studies of psychiatric disorders wish to be informed of their results? A survey study. PLoS One 2014: 9 (7): e101111.
28. Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KDF. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 2014: 16 (5): 395-399.
29. Yu J-H, Crouch J, Jamal SM, Bamshad MJ, Tabor HK. Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and genome sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2014: 164A (9): 2153-2160.
30. 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: 539-551.
31. Brandt DS, Shinkunas L, Hillis SL et al. A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs. J Genet Couns 2013: 22: 544-553.
32. Grove ME, Wolpert MN, Cho MK, Lee SS-J, Ormond KE. Views of genetics health professionals on the return of genomic results. J Genet Couns 2014: 23: 531-538.
33. 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 (6): 499-504.
34. Abdul-Karim R, Berkman BE, Wendler D et al. Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research. Pediatrics 2013: 131: 564-571.
35. Lohn Z, Adam S, Birch P, Townsend A, Friedman J. Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2013: 161A: 542-549.
36. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012: 14 (4): 405-410.
37. 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: 158A: 2519-2525.
38. Green RC, Lupski JR, Biesecker LG. Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA 2013: 310 (4): 365-366.
39. Simon C, Shinkunas LA, Brandt D, Williams JK. Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance. J Med Ethics 2012: 38: 417-422.
40. Yu J-H, Crouch J, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2013: 161A: 1064-1072.
41. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW. Communicating genetic information and genetic risk: an emerging role for health educators. Public Health Genomics 2011: 14 (4-5): 279-289.