Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 531–538

Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results

  • Megan E. Grove
  • Maya N. Wolpert
  • Mildred K. Cho
  • Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
  • Kelly E. Ormond
Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Whole genome sequencing Whole exome sequencing Return of results Informed consent Patient autonomy Pretest counseling Professional attitudes 

References

  1. Ambry Genetics. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from: http://www.ambrygen.com/genomic-services/exome-sequencing.
  2. Ashley, E. A., Butte, A. J., Wheeler, M. T., et al. (2010). Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. The Lancet, 375, 1525–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Baylor College of Medicine, Whole Genome Laboratory. (2012). Retrieved March 28, 2012 from: https://www.bcm.edu/geneticlabs/index.cfm?PMID=21319.
  5. Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 499–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beskow, L. M., & Burke, W. (2010). Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 38cm20. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3000952.
  7. Biesecker, L. G. (2012). Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 393–398.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollinger, J. M., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 451–457.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cassa, C. A., Savage, S. K., Taylor, P. L., Green, R. C., McGuire, A. L., & Mandl, K. D. (2012). Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Research, 22, 421–428.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clayton, E. W., & McGuire, A. L. (2012). The legal risks of returning results of genomic research. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 473–477.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fargher, E. A., Eddy, C., Newman, W., et al. (2007). Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS. Pharmacogenomics, 8, 1511–1519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullerton, S. M., Wolf, W. A., Brothers, K. B., et al. (2012). Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 424–431.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GeneDx. (2012). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from: http://www.genedx.com/test-catalog/xomedx/.
  15. Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., et al. (2012). Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 405–410.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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>.
  17. Kaufman, D., Murphy, J., Scott, J., & Hudson, K. (2008). Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 831–839.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohane, I. S., Hsing, M., & Kong, S. W. (2012). Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lerner-Ellis, J. (2012). The clinical implementation of whole genome sequencing: a conversation with seven scientific experts. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, 35, 689–693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin, Z., Chen, Q., Lee, M., et al. (2012). Exome sequencing reveals mutations in TRPV3 as a cause of Olmsted Syndrome. American Journal of Human Genetics, 90, 558–564.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meacham, M. C., Starks, H., Burke, W., & Edwards, K. (2010). Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5, 31–41.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meulenkamp, T. M., Gevers, S. K., Bovenberg, J. A., Koppelman, G. H., van Hylckama, V. A., & Smets, E. M. A. (2010). Communication of biobanks’ research results: what do (potential) participants want? American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 152, 2482–2492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Need, A. C., Shashi, V., Hitomi, Y., et al. (2012). Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions. Journal of Medical Genetics, 49, 353–361.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ormond, K. E., Wheeler, M. T., Hudgins, L., et al. (2010). Challenges in the clinical application of whole- genome sequencing. The Lancet, 375, 1749–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Partridge, A. H., Burstein, H. J., Gelman, R. S., Marcom, P. K., & Winer, E. P. (2003). Do patients participating in clinical trials want to know study results? Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95, 491–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. The eMERGE Network. (2013). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from: http://emerge.mc.vanderbilt.edu.
  28. The MedSeq Project, Genomes2People. (2013). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from: http://www.genomes2people.org/g2p/medseq/.
  29. Townsend, A., Adam, S., Birch, P. H., et al. (2012). “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s Box”: comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 158, 2519–2525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UCLA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. (2012). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from: http://pathology.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=292.
  31. Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., et al. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Worthey, E. A., Mayer, A. N., Syverson, G. D., et al. (2011). Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 255–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan E. Grove
    • 1
  • Maya N. Wolpert
    • 2
  • Mildred K. Cho
    • 2
  • Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
    • 2
  • Kelly E. Ormond
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Stanford Center for Biomedical EthicsStanfordUSA
  3. 3.StanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations