Literature DB >> 22676197

Return of research results from pharmacogenomic versus disease susceptibility studies: what's drugs got to do with it?

Lynn G Dressler1.   

Abstract

One of the most controversial ethical issues in genomics research is the return of individual research results to research subjects. As new technologies, including whole-genome sequencing, provide an increased opportunity for researchers to find clinically relevant research results, the questions related to if, when and how individual research results should be returned become more central to the ethical conduct of genomic research. In the absence of federal guidance on this issue, many groups and individuals have developed recommendations and suggestions to address these questions. Most of these recommendations have focused on the return of individual results from disease susceptibility studies. However, in addition to predicting the development of disease, genomic research also includes predicting an individual's response to drugs, especially the risk of developing adverse events. This article evaluates and compares the return of individual research results from disease susceptibility studies versus pharmacogenomic studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22676197      PMCID: PMC4539533          DOI: 10.2217/pgs.12.59

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacogenomics        ISSN: 1462-2416            Impact factor:   2.533


  28 in total

1.  ASHG statement. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. The American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research.

Authors:  Meredith C Meacham; Helene Starks; Wylie Burke; Kelly Edwards
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  CYP2D6 and tamoxifen: DNA matters in breast cancer.

Authors:  Janelle M Hoskins; Lisa A Carey; Howard L McLeod
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 6.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  S B Haga; J M O'Daniel; G M Tindall; I R Lipkus; R Agans
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.550

9.  IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

Authors:  Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek; Roselle Ponsaran; Janell M Markey; Helene Starks; Nancy Gerson; Susan Lewis; Nancy Press; Eric Juengst; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Pharmacogenetics in breast cancer: steps toward personalized medicine in breast cancer management.

Authors:  Sarah Rofaiel; Esther N Muo; Shaker A Mousa
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2010-09-17
View more
  3 in total

1.  Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Michael A Diefenbach; Randi Zinberg; Carol R Horowitz; Margaret Smirnoff; Micol Zweig; Samantha Streicher; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-06-22

2.  A Pilot Study for Return of Individual Pharmacogenomic Results to Population-Based Cohort Study Participants.

Authors:  Kinuko Ohneda; Masahiro Hiratsuka; Hiroshi Kawame; Fuji Nagami; Yoichi Suzuki; Kichiya Suzuki; Akira Uruno; Mika Sakurai-Yageta; Yohei Hamanaka; Makiko Taira; Soichi Ogishima; Shinichi Kuriyama; Atsushi Hozawa; Hiroaki Tomita; Naoko Minegishi; Junichi Sugawara; Inaho Danjoh; Tomohiro Nakamura; Tomoko Kobayashi; Yumi Yamaguchi-Kabata; Shu Tadaka; Taku Obara; Eiji Hishimuma; Nariyasu Mano; Masaki Matsuura; Yuji Sato; Masateru Nakasone; Yohei Honkura; Jun Suzuki; Yukio Katori; Yoichi Kakuta; Atsushi Masamune; Yoko Aoki; Masaharu Nakayama; Shigeo Kure; Kengo Kinoshita; Nobuo Fuse; Masayuki Yamamoto
Journal:  JMA J       Date:  2022-03-11

3.  Clinical Utility of Oncuria™, a Multiplexed Liquid Biopsy for the Non-Invasive Detection of Bladder Cancer-A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Kaoru Murakami; Ian Pagano; Hideki Furuya; Timothy Daskivich; Dave Mori; Charles J Rosser
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-06
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.