PURPOSE: Return of individual genetic results to research participants, including participants in archives and biorepositories, is receiving increased attention. However, few groups have deliberated on specific results or weighed deliberations against relevant local contextual factors. METHODS: The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, which includes five biorepositories conducting genome-wide association studies, convened a return of results oversight committee to identify potentially returnable results. Network-wide deliberations were then brought to local constituencies for final decision making. RESULTS: Defining results that should be considered for return required input from clinicians with relevant expertise and much deliberation. The return of results oversight committee identified two sex chromosomal anomalies, Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, as well as homozygosity for factor V Leiden, as findings that could warrant reporting. Views about returning findings of HFE gene mutations associated with hemochromatosis were mixed due to low penetrance. Review of electronic medical records suggested that most participants with detected abnormalities were unaware of these findings. Local considerations relevant to return varied and, to date, four sites have elected not to return findings (return was not possible at one site). CONCLUSION: The eMERGE experience reveals the complexity of return of results decision making and provides a potential deliberative model for adoption in other collaborative contexts.
PURPOSE: Return of individual genetic results to research participants, including participants in archives and biorepositories, is receiving increased attention. However, few groups have deliberated on specific results or weighed deliberations against relevant local contextual factors. METHODS: The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, which includes five biorepositories conducting genome-wide association studies, convened a return of results oversight committee to identify potentially returnable results. Network-wide deliberations were then brought to local constituencies for final decision making. RESULTS: Defining results that should be considered for return required input from clinicians with relevant expertise and much deliberation. The return of results oversight committee identified two sex chromosomal anomalies, Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, as well as homozygosity for factor V Leiden, as findings that could warrant reporting. Views about returning findings of HFE gene mutations associated with hemochromatosis were mixed due to low penetrance. Review of electronic medical records suggested that most participants with detected abnormalities were unaware of these findings. Local considerations relevant to return varied and, to date, four sites have elected not to return findings (return was not possible at one site). CONCLUSION: The eMERGE experience reveals the complexity of return of results decision making and provides a potential deliberative model for adoption in other collaborative contexts.
Authors: Amy L McGuire; Melissa Basford; Lynn G Dressler; Stephanie M Fullerton; Barbara A Koenig; Rongling Li; Cathy A McCarty; Erin Ramos; Maureen E Smith; Carol P Somkin; Carol Waudby; Wendy A Wolf; Ellen Wright Clayton Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Betsy A Garlitz; Emily L Harris; Tracy L Beil; Paula R Smith Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Walter A Kukull; Roger Higdon; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Linda Teri; Gerard D Schellenberg; Gerald van Belle; Lance Jolley; Eric B Larson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2002-11
Authors: Ellen Wright Clayton; Maureen Smith; Stephanie M Fullerton; Wylie Burke; Catherine A McCarty; Barbara A Koenig; Amy L McGuire; Laura M Beskow; Lynn Dressler; Amy A Lemke; Erin M Ramos; Laura Lyman Rodriguez Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Anya E R Prince; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; R Jean Cadigan Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: K A Kaphingst; J Ivanovich; B B Biesecker; R Dresser; J Seo; L G Dressler; P J Goodfellow; M S Goodman Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Mildred K Cho; Katherine Gillespie; Meghan Halley; Nina Varsava; Kelly E Ormond; Harold S Luft; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Adam S Gordon; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; David S Carrell; Laura M Amendola; Michael O Dorschner; Aaron Scrol; Ian B Stanaway; Shannon DeVange; James D Ralston; Hana Zouk; Heidi L Rehm; Eric Larson; David R Crosslin; Kathy A Leppig; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Erin M Ramos; Corina Din-Lovinescu; Jonathan S Berg; Lisa D Brooks; Audrey Duncanson; Michael Dunn; Peter Good; Tim J P Hubbard; Gail P Jarvik; Christopher O'Donnell; Stephen T Sherry; Naomi Aronson; Leslie G Biesecker; Bruce Blumberg; Ned Calonge; Helen M Colhoun; Robert S Epstein; Paul Flicek; Erynn S Gordon; Eric D Green; Robert C Green; Matthew Hurles; Kensaku Kawamoto; William Knaus; David H Ledbetter; Howard P Levy; Elaine Lyon; Donna Maglott; Howard L McLeod; Nazneen Rahman; Gurvaneet Randhawa; Catherine Wicklund; Teri A Manolio; Rex L Chisholm; Marc S Williams Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Andrew Cagan; Vivian S Gainer; Su-Chun Cheng; Tianxi Cai; Peter Szolovits; Stanley Y Shaw; Susanne Churchill; Elizabeth W Karlson; Shawn N Murphy; Isaac Kohane; Katherine P Liao Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 9.071