Ethical considerations for the return of incidental findings in ophthalmic genomic research

Translational Vision Science and Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-11

  Souzeau, Emmanuelle ^a   Burdon, Kathryn P ^a,b   Mackey, David A ^b,c   Hewitt, Alex W ^b,d   Savarirayan, Ravi ^d   Otlowski, Margaret ^b   Craig, Jamie E ^a  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Genetic research; Incidental findings; Return of results

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; SCIENTIST; VALIDITY;

EID: 85021252317     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21642591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.5.1.3     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1170
2. Bamshad MJ, Ng SB, Bigham AW, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:745–755
3. Gilissen C, Hoischen A, Brunner HG, Veltman JA. Unlocking Mendelian disease using exome sequencing. Genome Biol. 2011;12:228–238
4. Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Lupski JR, Gibbs RA. Human genome sequencing in health and disease. Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:35–61
5. Zhang X. Exome sequencing greatly expedites the progressive research of Mendelian diseases. Front Med. 2014;8:42–57
6. Gharahkhani P, Burdon KP, Hewitt AW, et al. Accurate imputation-based screening of Gln368Ter myocilin variant in primary openangle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56:5087–5093
7. Pinxten W, Howard HC. Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28:269–279
8. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:219–248
9. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21: 248–255
10. 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
11. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY. Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data. Trends Genet. 2013;29:375–382
12. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC, Bamshad MJ. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A:2916–2924
13. Pike ER, Rothenberg KH, Berkman BE. Finding fault? Exploring legal duties to return incidental findings in genomic research. Georgetown Law J. 2014;102:795–843
14. Wolf SM. Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013;14:557–577
15. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJ. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 2011;27:41–47
16. Hallowell N, Hall A, Alberg C, Zimmern R. Revealing the results of whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing in research and clinical investigations: some ethical issues. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:317–321
17. McGuire AL, Lupski JR. Personal genome research: what should the participant be told? Trends Genet. 2010;26:199–201
18. 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;8:36–43
19. Blasimme A, Soulier A, Julia S, Leonard S, Cambon-Thomsen A. Disclosing results to genomic research participants: differences that matter. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:20–22
20. Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:38cm20
21. Evans JP, Rothschild BB. Return of results: not that complicated? Genet Med. 2012;14:358–360
22. Berkman BE, Hull SC, Eckstein L. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Per Med. 2014;11:285–295
23. Clayton EW, McGuire AL. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med. 2012;14:473–477
24. National Health Medical Research Council. Principles for the Translation of ‘Omics’-Based Tests from Discovery to Health Care. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2015. Available at https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/g10. Accessed January 28, 2016
25. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–574
26. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med. 2014;17:68–69
27. van El CG, Cornel MC, Borry P, et al. Wholegenome sequencing in health care. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:580–584
28. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Implementation of Massively Parallel Sequencing. Location: Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia; 2014. Available at https://www.rcpa.edu.au/getattachment/7d264a73-938f-45b5912f-272872661aaa/Massively-Parallel-Sequencing-Implementation. Accessed January 28, 2016
29. Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, et al. 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
30. 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
31. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 2014. Available at http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/. Accessed January 15, 2016
32. Public Health Genomics Foundation. Managing incidental and pertinent findings from WGS in the 100,000 Genome Project. 2013. Available at http://www.phgfoundation.org/reports/13799. Accessed January 15, 2016
33. Senecal K, Rahimzadeh V, Knoppers BM, et al. Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process. Genome. 2015;58:541–548
34. 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;94:818–826
35. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues; 2012. Available at http://bioethics.gov/node/764. Accessed January 28, 2016
36. Weiner C. Anticipate and communicate: ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-toconsumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180: 562–564
37. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2006;6:8–17
38. 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
39. Stone EM. Genetic testing for age-related macular degeneration: not indicated now. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:598–600
40. Craig JE, Baird PN, Healey DL, et al. Evidence for genetic heterogeneity within eight glaucoma families, with the GLC1A Gln368STOP mutation being an important phenotypic modifier. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1607–1620
41. Mackey DA, Heon E, Webster AR. Predictive DNA testing in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:633
42. Rayapudi S, Schwartz SG, Wang X, Chavis P. Vitamin A and fish oils for retinitis pigmentosa. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:CD008428
43. Eckstein L, Garrett JR, Berkman BE. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42: 190–207
44. Knoppers BM, Avard D, Senecal K, Zawati MH. Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22:3–5
45. Begg CB. On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1221–1226
46. Moyer VA. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:271–281
47. Ding LE, Burnett L, Chesher D. The impact of reporting incidental findings from exome and whole-genome sequencing: predicted frequencies based on modeling. Genet Med. 2015;17:197–204
48. Amendola LM, Dorschner MO, Robertson PD, et al. Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification. Genome Res. 2015;25:305–315
49. Jurgens J, Ling H, Hetrick K, et al. Assessment of incidental findings in 232 whole-exome sequences from the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics. Genet Med. 2015;17:782–788
50. Xue Y, Chen Y, Ayub Q, et al. Deleterious- and disease-allele prevalence in healthy individuals: insights from current predictions, mutation databases, and population-scale resequencing. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;91:1022–1032
51. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of Mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med. 2013;369: 1502–1511
52. Cassa CA, Savage SK, Taylor PL, Green RC, McGuire AL, Mandl KD. Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Res. 2012;22:421–428
53. Lawrence L, Sincan M, Markello T, et al. The implications of familial incidental findings from exome sequencing: the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program experience. Genet Med. 2014;16: 741–750
54. Tabor HK, Auer PL, Jamal SM, et al. Pathogenic variants for Mendelian and complex traits in exomes of 6,517 European and African Americans: implications for the return of incidental results. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;95:183–193
55. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am J Bioeth. 2013;13:32–42
56. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al. No expectation to share incidental findings in genomic research. Lancet. 2014;385:1289–1290
57. Kaye J, Hurles M, Griffin H, et al. Managing clinically significant findings in research: the UK10K example. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22: 1100–1104
58. Rotimi CN, Marshall PA. Tailoring the process of informed consent in genetic and genomic research. Genome Med. 2010;2:20–26
59. Biesecker LG, Mullikin JC, Facio FM, et al. The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Res. 2009;19:1665–1674
60. Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44: 22–32
61. Yu JH, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Self-guided management of exome and wholegenome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genet Med. 2013;15:684–690
62. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13: 371–376
63. Henderson GE, Wolf SM, Kuczynski KJ, et al. The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:344–355
64. Crawford G, Foulds N, Fenwick A, Hallowell N, Lucassen A. Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med. 2013;15: 896–899
65. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues; 2013. Available at http://bioethics.gov/node/3183. Accessed January 28, 2016
66. Facio FM, Sapp JC, Linn A, Biesecker LG. Approaches to informed consent for hypothesistesting and hypothesis-generating clinical genomics research. BMC Med Genomics. 2012;5:45
67. 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
68. 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
69. 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
70. 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
71. 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. 2015;doi: 10.1111/cge.12597
72. Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med. 2012; 14:451–457
73. 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
74. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.58
75. Bernhardt C, Schwan AM, Kraus P, Epplen JT, Kunstmann E. Decreasing uptake of predictive testing for Huntington’s disease in a German centre: 12 years’ experience (1993–2004). Eur J Hum Genet. 2009;17:295–300
76. Miller EM, Wang Y, Ware SM. Uptake of cardiac screening and genetic testing among hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathy families. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:258–267
77. Brooks L, Lennard F, Shenton A, et al. BRCA1/2 predictive testing: a study of uptake in two centres. Eur J Hum Genet. 2004;12:654–662
78. Viberg J, Segerdahl P, Langenskiold S, Hansson MG. Freedom of choice about incidental findings can frustrate participants’ true preferences. Bioethics. 2015; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12160
79. Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:1310–1319
80. Johns AL, Miller DK, Simpson SH, et al. Returning individual research results for genome sequences of pancreatic cancer. Genome Med. 2014;6:42–49
81. 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.
82. 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
83. 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
84. 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
85. Donegan RK, Hill SE, Freeman DM, et al. Structural basis for misfolding in myocilinassociated glaucoma. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24: 2111–2124
86. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Vermeesch J, Dierickx K. Why genomics shouldn’t get too personal: in favor of filters: re: invited comment by Tabor Holly K et al. in American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A Volume 155. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:2641–2642
87. 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.