Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results
- First Online:
- 870 Downloads
As exome and whole genome sequencing become clinically available, the potential to receive a large number of clinically relevant but incidental results is a significant challenge in the provision of genomic counseling. We conducted three focus groups of a total of 35 individuals who were members of ASHG and/or NSGC, assessing views towards the return of genomic results. Participants stressed that patient autonomy was primary. There was consensus that a mechanism to return results to the healthcare provider, rather than patient, and to streamline integration into the electronic health record would ensure these results had the maximal impact on patient management. All three focus groups agreed that pharmacogenomic results were reasonable to return and that they were not felt to be stigmatizing. With regard to the return of medically relevant results, there was much debate. Participants had difficulty in consistently assigning specific diseases to ‘bins’ that were considered obligatory versus optional for disclosure. Consensus was reached regarding the importance of informed consent and pretest counseling visits to clarify what the return of results process would entail. Evidence based professional guidelines should continue to be developed and regularly revised to assist in consistently and appropriately providing genomic results to patients.
KeywordsWhole genome sequencing Whole exome sequencing Return of results Informed consent Patient autonomy Pretest counseling Professional attitudes
- Ambry Genetics. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from: http://www.ambrygen.com/genomic-services/exome-sequencing.
- Bainbridge, M. N., Wiszniewski, W., Murdock, D. R., et al. (2011). Whole-genome sequencing for optimized patient management. Science Translational Medicine, 3, 87re3. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002243.
- Baylor College of Medicine, Whole Genome Laboratory. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from: https://www.bcm.edu/geneticlabs/index.cfm?PMID=21319.
- Beskow, L. M., & Burke, W. (2010). Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 38cm20. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3000952.
- Fabsitz, R. R., McGuire, A., Sharp, R. R., et al. (2010). National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation Cardiovascular Genetics, 3, 574–580.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GeneDx. (2012). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from: http://www.genedx.com/test-catalog/xomedx/.
- Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., et al. (2013). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Retrieved April 2, 2013 from: <http://www.acmg.net/docs/ACMG_Releases_Highly-Anticipated_Recommendations_on_Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_Exome_and_Genome_Sequ encing.pdf>.
- Raffan, E., Hurst, L. A., Al Turki, S., et al. (2011). Early diagnosis of Werner's syndrome using exome- wide sequencing in a single, atypical patient. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2. doi 10.3389/fendo.2011.00008.
- The eMERGE Network. (2013). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from: http://emerge.mc.vanderbilt.edu.
- The MedSeq Project, Genomes2People. (2013). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from: http://www.genomes2people.org/g2p/medseq/.
- UCLA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. (2012). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from: http://pathology.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=292.