Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 283-293

  Mackley, Michael P ^a   Fletcher, Benjamin ^a   Parker, Michael ^a   Watkins, Hugh ^a   Ormondroyd, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RECIPIENT; RESPONSIBILITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WHOLE EXOME SEQUENCING; WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING; DNA SEQUENCE; ETHICS; EXOME; HUMAN GENOME; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

EXOME; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INFORMED CONSENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; WHOLE EXOME SEQUENCING; WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING;

EID: 85014847739     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.109     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al.; eMERGE Act-ROR Committee and CERC Committee; CSER Act-ROR Working Group. Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94:818-826.
2. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Secondary variants-in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:1331-1334.
3. Shkedi-Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, Fenwick A, Lucassen A. Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. J Med Genet 2014;51:715-723.
4. 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. 2013. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate-PCSBI-0.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2016.
5. MacArthur DG, Balasubramanian S, Frankish A, et al.; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human proteincoding genes. Science 2012;335:823-828.
6. Lohn Z, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM. Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: A review. J Genet Couns 2014;23:463-473.
7. 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.
8. Burke W, Antommaria AH, Bennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med 2013;15:854-859.
9. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 2013;340:1049-1050.
10. McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, et al. Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science 2013;340:1047-1048.
11. van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al.; ESHG Public and Professional Policy Committee. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21(suppl 1):S1-S5.
12. Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, et al.; Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet 2015;52:431-437.
13. 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.
14. Jackson L, Goldsmith L, OConnor A, Skirton H. Incidental findings in genetic research and clinical diagnostic tests: A systematic review. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:3159-3167.
15. Mackley MP, Ormondroyd E, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H. Stakeholder views on incidental findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews; 2015: CRD42015023692. http://www.crd.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display-record. asp?ID=CRD42015023692. Accessed 1 May 2016.
16. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG (eds). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Taylor & Francis: New York, 1994:173-194.
17. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117.
18. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349-357.
19. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Making sense of evidence. 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. England: Public Health Research Unit; 2013.
20. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM. Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:583-594.
21. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 2004;328:1312-1315.
22. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:417-430.
23. 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.
24. Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, et al. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet 2013;84:11-18.
25. Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, et al. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:261-265.
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;16:633-640.
27. 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.
28. Jelsig AM, Qvist N, Brusgaard K, Ousager LB. Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23:1423-1426.
29. Kaphingst KA, Ivanovich J, Biesecker BB, et al. Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. Clin Genet 2016;89:378-384.
30. 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 2014;40:691-696.
31. Lemke AA, Bick D, Dimmock D, Simpson P, Veith R. Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: A survey study. Clin Genet 2013;84:230-236.
32. 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.
33. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al.; DDD study. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:21-29.
34. Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP, et al. Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in latestage cancer care. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:391-395.
35. Oberg JA, Glade Bender JL, Cohn EG, et al. Overcoming challenges to meaningful informed consent for whole genome sequencing in pediatric cancer research. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2015;62:1374-1380.
36. Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C, et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet 2014;85:120-126.
37. Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KD. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 2014;16: 395-399.
38. Strong KA, Zusevics KL, Bick D, Veith R. Views of primary care providers regarding the return of genome sequencing incidental findings. Clin Genet 2014;86:461-468.
39. 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 A 2014;164A:2153-2160.
40. Yu JH, 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. Clift KE, Halverson CM, Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Sharp RR, McCormick JB. Patients views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Appl Transl Genom 2015;4:38-43.
42. Gourna EG, Armstrong N, Wallace SE. Compare and contrast: A cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:344-349.
43. Gray SW, Park ER, Najita J, et al. Oncologists and cancer patients views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study. Genet Med 2016; e-pub ahead of print 11 February 2016.
44. 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:e101111.
45. 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.
46. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. Focus group discussions on secondary variants and next-generation sequencing technologies. Eur J Med Genet 2015;58:249-257.
47. Gourna EG, Armstrong N, Wallace SE. Incidental findings from clinical sequencing in Greece: reporting experts attitudes. J Community Genet 2014;5:383-393.
48. 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.
49. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM. "I want to know whats in Pandoras Box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:2519-2525.
50. Downing NR, Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Simon CM. Genetics specialists perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ Couns 2013;90:133-138.
51. Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and wholegenome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77-84.
52. Wynn J, Martinez J, Duong J, et al. Association of researcher characteristics with views on return of incidental findings from genomic research. J Genet Couns 2015;24:833-841.
53. Smith LA, Douglas J, Braxton AA, Kramer K. Reporting incidental findings in clinical whole exome sequencing: incorporation of the 2013 ACMG recommendations into current practices of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 2015;24:654-652.
54. Appelbaum PS, Waldman CR, Fyer A, et al. Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research. Genet Med 2014;16:367-373.
55. Simon CM, Williams JK, Shinkunas L, Brandt D, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M. Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011;6:53-67.
56. Tomlinson AN, Skinner D, Perry DL, Scollon SR, Roche MI, Bernhardt BA. "Not Tied Up Neatly with a Bow": Professionals challenging cases in informed consent for genomic sequencing. J Genet Couns 2016;25:62-72.
57. Klitzman R, Buquez B, Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, Chung WK. Processes and factors involved in decisions regarding return of incidental genomic findings in research. Genet Med 2014;16:311-317.
58. Rigter T, van Aart CJ, Elting MW, Waisfisz Q, Cornel MC, Henneman L. Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clin Genet 2014;85:417-422.
59. Scheuner MT, Peredo J, Benkendorf J, et al. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med 2015;17:27-35.
60. Grove ME, Wolpert MN, Cho MK, Lee SS, Ormond KE. Views of genetics health professionals on the return of genomic results. J Genet Couns 2014;23: 531-538.
61. Bernhardt BA, Roche MI, Perry DL, Scollon SR, Tomlinson AN, Skinner D. Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2015;167A:2635-2646.
62. Arora S, Haverfield E, Richard G, Haga SB, Mills R. Clinical and counseling experiences of early adopters of whole exome sequencing. J Genet Couns 2016;25:337-343.
63. Christensen KD, Vassy JL, Jamal L, et al.; MedSeq Project Team. Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? a qualitative analysis. Clin Genet 2016;89:228-234.
64. Barajas M, Ross LF. Pediatric professionals attitudes about secondary findings in genomic sequencing of children. J Pediatr 2015;166:1276-1282.e7.
65. Fernandez CV, Strahlendorf C, Avard D, et al. Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting. Genet Med 2013;15:558-564.
66. Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with metaanalysis. BMJ 2016;352:i1102.
67. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT, et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012;14: 405-410.
68. Ropka ME, Wenzel J, Phillips EK, Siadaty M, Philbrick JT. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:840-855.
69. Bowdin SC, Hayeems RZ, Monfared N, Cohn RD, Meyn MS. The SickKids Genome Clinic: developing and evaluating a pediatric model for individualized genomic medicine. Clin Genet 2016;89:10-19.
70. van Zelst-Stams WA, Scheffer H, Veltman JA. Clinical exome sequencing in daily practice: 1,000 patients and beyond. Genome Med 2014;6:2.