Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice

Myra I Roche, Jonathan S Berg, Myra I Roche, Jonathan S Berg

Abstract

This paper summarizes the current controversies surrounding the identification and disclosure of "incidental" or "secondary" findings from genomic sequencing and the implications for genetic counseling practice. The rapid expansion of clinical sequencing has influenced the ascertainment and return of incidental findings, while empiric data to inform best practices are still being generated. Using the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) research project as an example, we discuss the implications of different models of consent and their impact on patient decisions.

Keywords: Clinical sequencing; Genetic counseling; Incidental findings; Informed consent; Medical actionability; Secondary findings.

References

    1. •• Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA. 2006;296(2):212–5. An early articulation of many concerns related to the potential for genomic incidental findings to derail genomic medicine.
    1. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;36(2):219. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x.
    1. 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(12):1331–1334. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.89.
    1. •• 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. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. Accessed 2 June 2015. A landmark paper that establishes recommended terminology and for incidental and secondary findings, and proposes pragmatic approaches to dealing with the possibility of incidental findings.
    1. Netzer C, Klein C, Kohlhase J, Kubisch C. New challenges for informed consent through whole genome array testing. J Med Genet. 2009;46(7):495–496. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2009.068015.
    1. Nguyen K, Putoux A, Busa T, Cordier MP, Sigaudy S, Till M, et al. Incidental findings on array comparative genomic hybridization: detection of carrier females of dystrophinopathy without any family history. Clin Genet. 2015;87(5):488–491. doi: 10.1111/cge.12421.
    1. • 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(6):499–4. An early effort to establish categories of genomic information that could be used to guide informed decision-making, analysis, and return of results.
    1. Jackson L, Goldsmith L, O’Connor A, Skirton H. Incidental findings in genetic research and clinical diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(12):3159–3167. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35615.
    1. Wolf SM. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet Med. 2012;14(4):355–357. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.26.
    1. Abdul-Karim R, Berkman BE, Wendler D, Rid A, Khan J, Badgett T, et al. Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):564–571. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0084.
    1. 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(3):248–255. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.130.
    1. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, Brothers K, Clayton EW, Chung W, et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94(6):818–826. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009.
    1. • Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565–74. Recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics for a minimal list of genetic conditions that should be reported as incidental or secondary findings in clinical genomic sequencing; these recommendations elicited substantial reactions, and helped to stimulate a critical discussion of these issues.
    1. Dorschner MO, Amendola LM, Turner EH, Robertson PD, Shirts BH, Gallego CJ, et al. Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants’ exomes. Am J Hum Genet. 2013;93(4):631–640. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.08.006.
    1. • Amendola LM, Dorschner MO, Robertson PD, Salama JS, Hart R, Shirts BH, et al. Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification. Genome Res. 2015;25(3):305–15. Estimates prevalence of adult onset, medically actionable secondary findings from exome sequencing and highlights challenges in variant classification.
    1. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F, Niu Z, Person R, Ding Y, et al. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA. 2014;312(18):1870–1879. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.14601.
    1. Ding L-EE, 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(3):197–204. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.94.
    1. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340(6136):1049–1050. doi: 10.1126/science.1239119.
    1. McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, Biesecker BB, McCullough LB, Blumenthal-Barby JS, et al. Point-counterpoint ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science. 2013;340(6136):1047–1048. doi: 10.1126/science.1240156.
    1. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):32–42. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.754062.
    1. Evans JP. When is a medical finding “incidental”? Genet Med. 2013;15(7):515–516. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.74.
    1. Clayton EW, Haga S, Kuszler P, Bane E, Shutske K, Burke W. Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genet Med. 2013;15(8):624–629. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.7.
    1. Hegde M, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P, Gibson J, Bone Jeng LJ, Joseph L, et al. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing-A clinical laboratory perspective: A report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2015. Provides a laboratory perspective on the risk, benefits, and complexities of reporting secondary findings.
    1. Burke W, Antommaria AH, Bennett R, Botkin J, Clayton EW, Henderson GE, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med. 2013;15(11):854–859. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.113.
    1. Park JY, Clark P, Londin E, Sponziello M, Kricka LJ, Fortina P. Clinical exome performance for reporting secondary genetic findings. Clin Chem. 2014;61(1):213–220. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.231456.
    1. Cassa CA, Tong MY, Jordan DM. Large numbers of genetic variants considered to be pathogenic are common in asymptomatic individuals. Hum Mut. 2013;34(9):1216–1220. doi: 10.1002/humu.22375.
    1. • Clayton EW, McCullough LB, Biesecker LG, Joffe S, Ross LF, Wolf SM, et al. Addressing the ethical challenges in genetic testing and sequencing of children. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(3):3–9. A comparison by the CSER Pediatric Working Group of the recommendations made by the American Academy of Pediatrics to those of the ACMG regarding predictive genetic testing in children and an analysis of the differences.
    1. Scheuner MT, Peredo J, Benkendorf J, Bowdish B, Feldman G, Fleisher L, et al. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med. 2014;17(1):27–35. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.165.
    1. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification. Genet Med. 2013;15(8):664–666. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.82.
    1. Andorno R. The right not to know: an autonomy based approach. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(5):435–439. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001578.
    1. McGuire AL, McCullough LB, Evans JP. The indispensable role of professional judgment in genomic medicine. JAMA. 2013;309(14):1465–1466. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.1438.
    1. Aziz N, Zhao Q, Bry L, Driscoll DK, Funke B, Gibson JS, et al. College of American Pathologists’ Laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(4):481–493. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0250-CP.
    1. • Kuppermann M. Pena S, Bishop JT, Nakagawa S, Gregorish SE, Sit A, et al. Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(12):1210–7. Randomized control trial of a computerized, interactive decision-support guide resulted in less prenatal test use and more informed choices when financial barriers were removed.
    1. Kocarnik JM, Fullerton SM. Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA. 2014;311(8):795–796. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.369.
    1. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L, Klein TE, Butte AJ, Altman RB, et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet. 2010;375(9727):1749–1751. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60599-5.
    1. Bick D, Dimmock D. Whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2011;23(6):594–600. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32834b20ec.
    1. Tabor HK. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Gen Part A. 2012;158A(6):1310–1319. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35328.
    1. Williams JL, Faucett WA, Smith-Packard B, Wagner M, Williams MS. An assessment of time involved in pre-test case review and counseling for a whole genome sequencing clinical research program. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(4):516–521. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9697-4.
    1. Bernhardt B, Roche MI, Perry D, Scollon S, Tomlinson A, Skinner D. Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2015
    1. • Ayuso C, Millán JM, Mancheño M, Dal-Ré R. Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(10):1054–9. A systematic review of papers regarding informed consent for clinical genomic sequencing was done to provide a minimum set of information needed for informed consent.
    1. Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, Klitzman R, Fyer A, Martinez J, et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;44(4):22–32. doi: 10.1002/hast.328.
    1. ACMG Board of Directors Points to consider for informed consent for genome/exome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(9):748–9. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.94.
    1. 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 Couns. 2014;23(4):594–603. doi: 10.1007/s10897-013-9683-2.
    1. Jamal SM, Joon‐Ho Y, Jessica XC, Karin MD, Jessie HC, Holly KT, et al. Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2013;161(6):935–950. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35942.
    1. Henderson GE, Wolf SM, Kuczynski K, Joffe S, Sharp RR, Parsons DW, et al. The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42(3):344–355. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12151.
    1. Prince AER, Conley J, Davis A, Lazaro-Muñoz G, Cadigan RJ. Automatic placement of genomic research results in medical records: Do researchers have a duty? Should participants have a choice? J Law Med Ethics. 2015 (in press).
    1. Hazin R, Brothers KB, Malin BA, Koenig BA, Sanderson SC, Rothstein MA, et al. Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet Med. 2013;15(10):810–816. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.117.
    1. Facio FM, Sapp JC, Linn A, Biesecker LG. Approaches to informed consent for hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating clinical genomics research. BMC Genom. 2011;5:45. doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-5-45.
    1. Burke W, Evans BJ, Jarvik GP. Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet Part C. 2014;166C(1):105–111. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31393.
    1. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT, Biesecker LG, Dimmock DP, Evans JP, et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med. 2012;14(4):405–410. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.21.
    1. 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(3):230–236. doi: 10.1111/cge.12060.
    1. Yu J-HH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;95(1):77–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004.
    1. Reiff M, Mueller R, Mulchandani S, Spinner NB, Pyeritz RE, Bernhardt BA. A qualitative study of healthcare providers’ perspectives on the implications of genome-wide testing in pediatric clinical practice. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(4):474–488. doi: 10.1007/s10897-013-9653-8.
    1. 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 Part A. 2012;158A(10):2519–2525. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35554.
    1. Brandt DS, Shinkunas L, Hillis SL, Daack-Hirsch SE, Driessnack M, Downing NR, 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(4):544–553. doi: 10.1007/s10897-013-9583-5.
    1. Berg JS, Adams M, Nassar N, Bizon C, Lee K, Schmitt CP, et al. An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet Med. 2012;15(1):36–44. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.112.
    1. • Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Gen Med. 2012;14(4):393–8. Discussion of early clinical experiences with NGS.
    1. Berg JS, Amendola LM, Eng C, Van Allen E, Gray SW, Wagle N, et al. Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Genet Med. 2013;15(11):860–867. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.133.
    1. McLaughlin HM, Ceyhan-Birsoy O, Christensen KD, Kohane IS, Krier J, Lane WJ, et al. A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing. BMC Med Genet. 2013;15:134. doi: 10.1186/s12881-014-0134-1.
    1. • Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(10):529–40. Review of published studies on secondary findings and proposes a decision-making schematic for use in the disclosure.
    1. Anderson JA, Hayeems RZ, Shuman C, Szego MJ, Monfared N, Bowdin S, et al. Predictive genetic testing for adult-onset disorders in minors: a critical analysis of the arguments for and against the 2013 ACMG guidelines. Clin Genet. 2015;87(4):301–310. doi: 10.1111/cge.12460.
    1. •• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee On Bioethics, Committee On Genetics and the American College Of Medical Genetics and Genomic Social, Ethical, And Legal Issues Committee. Policy statement: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):620–2. This policy statement was developed collaboratively by the AAP and the ACMG to make recommendation about genetic testing and screening in children and published prior to the ACMG recommendations on reporting of incidental findings.
    1. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions. Med Health Care Philos. 2014
    1. Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, Johnson VA, Shah LL, Simon CM, et al. ‘Information is information’: a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet. 2013;84(1):11–18. doi: 10.1111/cge.12167.
    1. •• 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(4):249–57. Summarizes data from 8 diverse focus groups about communication of results available after diagnostic genomic sequencing of children.
    1. Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA, Relkin NR, Whitehouse PJ, Brown T, et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s disease. NEJM. 2009;361(3):245–254. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0809578.
    1. Roche MI. Moving toward NextGenetic counseling. Genet Med. 2012;14(9):777–778. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.84.
    1. Janssens C. The hidden harm behind the return of results from personal genome services: a need for rigorous and responsible evaluation. Genet Med. 2014
    1. •• Grubs R, Parker, L and Hamilton, R. Subtle. Psychosocial sequelae of genetic test results. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2014. A review of subtle psychosocial sequelae following result disclosure that is difficult to assess using existing quantitative measures but has relevance for decision-making about predictive genetic testing.
    1. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM. Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard. Genet Med. 2013;15(9):751–752. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.105.
    1. Facio FM, Eidem H, Fisher T, Brooks S, Linn A, Kaphingst KA, et al. Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):261–265. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.179.
    1. Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C, Ivey LE, Hooker G, Biesecker LG, et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet. 2014;85(2):120–126. doi: 10.1111/cge.12254.
    1. Clift K, Halverson C, Friskdal A, Kumbamu A, Sharp RR, McCormick J. Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Appl Transl Genom. 2015;4:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.005.
    1. Prince AE, Roche MI. Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(6):891–902. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9743-2.
    1. Burke W, Trinidad SB, Clayton EW. Seeking genomic knowledge: the case for clinical restraint. Hastings Law J. 2013;64(6):1650–1664.
    1. Sharp RR. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genet Med. 2011;13(3):191–194. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31820f603f.
    1. • 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(5):395–9. Experience of a commercial laboratory in assessing preferences for secondary findings results for families undergoing diagnostic exome sequencing.
    1. Bergner AL, Bollinger J, Raraigh KS, Tichnell C, Murray B, Blout CL, et al. Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2014;164A(11):2745–2752. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36706.
    1. Goddard KA, Whitlock EP, Berg JS, Williams MS, Webber EM, Webster JA, et al. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet Med. 2013;15(9):721–728. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.37.
    1. • Regier DA, Peacock SJ, Pataky R, van der Hoek K, Jarvik GP, Hoch J, et al. Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ. 2015;187(6):E190–97. An attempt to estimate personal utility for information from secondary genomic findings by a discrete choice method.
    1. Bennette CS, Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Patrick D, Amendola L, Burke W, et al. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value–development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT) Genet Med. 2013;15(11):873–881. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.63.
    1. 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 Part A. 2011;155A(12):2916–2924. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34357.
    1. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med. 2007;10(1):19–32. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f524f.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Col N, Bennett C, Barry M, Eden K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014
    1. Birch PH. Interactive e-counselling for genetics pre-test decisions: where are we now? Clin Genet. 2015;87(3):209–217. doi: 10.1111/cge.12430.
    1. Kaphingst KA, Facio FM, Cheng MRR, Brooks S, Eidem H, Linn A, et al. Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet. 2012;82(5):408–415. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01909.x.
    1. Waisbren S, Back D, Liu C, Kalia S, Ringer S, Holm IA, et al. Parents are interested in newborn genomic testing during the early postpartum period. Genet Med. 2014
    1. Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Barg C, Cressman C, Carroll JC, et al. Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(11):1248–1254. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.22.
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE, Edwards A, Montori VM. Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2009;30(6):701–711. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386231.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere