Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: Clinical daily practice reconsidered

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 24, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 1496-1500

  Bijlsma, Rhodé M ^a   Bredenoord, Annelien L ^a   Gadellaa Hooijdonk, Christa G ^a   Lolkema, Martijn Pj ^b   Sleijfer, Stefan ^b   Voest, Emile E ^c   Ausems, Margreet Gem ^a   Steeghs, Neeltje ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MC CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^c NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CANCER CENTER; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SCREENING; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA SEQUENCE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FEMALE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEOPLASM; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOMATIC MUTATION; SYSTEMIC THERAPY; THERAPEUTIC MISCONCEPTION; TUMOR BIOPSY; AGED; ETHICS; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETICS; GERMLINE MUTATION; INFORMED CONSENT; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GERM-LINE MUTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PRECISION MEDICINE;

EID: 84963541069     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.27     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Melford HC: Diagnostic exome sequencing: are we there yet? N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1951-1953.
2. Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, van Delden JJM: Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 2011; 32: 861-867.
3. ACMG Board of Directors: ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 2015; 17: 68-69.
4. McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK: Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 2008; 9: 152-156.
5. Kaye J, Boddington P, De Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K: Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 18: 398-403.
6. El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P et al: Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21: 580-584.
7. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS: The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 2002; 40: V55-V63.
8. Bredenoord AL, Bijlsma RM, van Delden JJM: Always allow an opt out. Am J Bioethics 2015; 15: 28-29.
9. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJM: Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011; 27: 41-47.
10. Williams H, Spencer K, Snaders C et al: Dynamic consent: a possible solution to improve patient confidence and trust in how electronic patient records are used in medical research. JMIR Med Inform 2015; 3: e3.
11. Machini K, Douglas J, Braxton A, Tsipis J, Kramer K: Genetic counselors' views and experiences with the clinical integration of genome sequencing. J Genet Counsel 2014; 23: 496-505.
12. Lolkema MP, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Bredenoord AL, Kapitein P, Roach N, Cuppen E: Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 1842-1848.
13. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A: DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet Med 2008; 10: 46-53.
14. Platt J, Cox R, Enns GM: Points to consider in the clinical use of NGS panels for mitochondrial disease: an analysis of gene inclusion and consent forms. J Genet Counsel 2014; 23: 594-603.
15. Stadler ZK, Schrader KA, Vijai J, Robson ME, Offit K: Cancer genomics and inherited risk. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 687-698.
16. 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.
17. Boers SN, van Delden JJ, Knoers NV, Bredenoord AL: Postmortem disclosure of genetic information to family members: active or passive?Trends Mol Med 2015; 21: 148-153.
18. Roychowdhury S, Iyer MK, Robinson DR et al: Personalized oncology through integrative high-throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3: 111ra121.
19. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW et al: American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15: 565-574.
20. 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.
21. 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 Gen 2014; 94: 818-882.
22. Ormondroyd E, Moynihan C, Watson M et al: Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: a qualitative study of the impact on relatives. J Genet Couns 2007; 16: 527-538.
23. 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: 393-398.
24. Biesecker LG, Burke W, Kohane I, Plon SE, Zimmern R: Next generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready? Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13: 818-824.
25. 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.
26. Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP et al: Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care. Eur J Hum Genet 2014; 22: 391-395.