Literature DB >> 22974017

Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives.

Ben Chan1, Flavia M Facio, Haley Eidem, Sara Chandros Hull, Leslie G Biesecker, Benjamin E Berkman.   

Abstract

Whole-genome analysis and whole-exome analysis generate many more clinically actionable findings than traditional targeted genetic analysis. These findings may be relevant to research participants themselves as well as for members of their families. Though researchers performing genomic analyses are likely to find medically significant genetic variations for nearly every research participant, what they will find for any given participant is unpredictable. The ubiquity and diversity of these findings complicate questions about disclosing individual genetic test results. We outline an approach for disclosing a select range of genetic results to the relatives of research participants who have died, developed in response to relatives' requests during a pilot study of large-scale medical genetic sequencing. We also argue that studies that disclose individual research results to participants should, at a minimum, passively disclose individual results to deceased participants' relatives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22974017      PMCID: PMC4104597          DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2012.699138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  14 in total

1.  Role of next of kin in accessing health records of deceased relatives.

Authors:  Anneke M Lucassen; Michael Parker; Robert Wheeler
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-04-17

Review 2.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.639

3.  Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Vardit Ravitsky; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 4.  Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Paul Atkinson; Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Rachel Iredale; Hazel Thornton; Joanna Dundon; Chris Shaw; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2007-07-04       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Stephanie Brooks; Johanna Loewenstein; Susannah Green; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research.

Authors:  Kimberly A Quaid; Nenette M Jessup; Eric M Meslin
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

7.  Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  H J Järvinen; M Aarnio; H Mustonen; K Aktan-Collan; L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; A De La Chapelle; J P Mecklin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  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

9.  The "duty to warn" a patient's family members about hereditary disease risks.

Authors:  Kenneth Offit; Elizabeth Groeger; Sam Turner; Eve A Wadsworth; Mary A Weiser
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-09-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Communicating genetics research results to families: problems arising when the patient participant is deceased.

Authors:  E Ormondroyd; C Moynihan; A Ardern-Jones; R Eeles; C Foster; S Davolls; M Watson
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.894

View more
  29 in total

1.  Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  What does the duty to warn require?

Authors:  Seema K Shah; Sara Chandros Hull; Michael A Spinner; Benjamin E Berkman; Lauren A Sanchez; Ruquyyah Abdul-Karim; Amy P Hsu; Reginald Claypool; Steven M Holland
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 3.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Susan M Wolf; Kari G Chaffee; Marguerite E Robinson; Noralane M Lindor; Deborah R Gordon; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Active Disclosure of Secondary Germline Findings to Deceased Research Participants' Personal Representatives: Process and Outcomes.

Authors:  Molly Daniels; Chetna Wathoo; Lauren Brusco; Karen H Lu; Kenna Shaw; Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava; Banu Arun; Louise Strong; Jennifer K Litton; Karina Eterovic; Ugur Aytac; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills; Ken Chen; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-10-31

6.  Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know.

Authors:  Niels Nijsingh
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03

7.  The ever-evolving concept of clinical significance and the potential for sins of omission in genetic research.

Authors:  Gregory Costain; Anne S Bassett
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 11.229

8.  Patients' Choices for Return of Exome Sequencing Results to Relatives in the Event of Their Death.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Susan B Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Barbara J Evans; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; P Pearl O'Rourke
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Development of a consensus approach for return of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project.

Authors:  Nicole C Lockhart; Carol J Weil; Latarsha J Carithers; Susan E Koester; A Roger Little; Simona Volpi; Helen M Moore; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.