Literature DB >> 23401068

Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing.

Zoe Lohn1, Shelin Adam, Patricia Birch, Anne Townsend, Jan Friedman.   

Abstract

Whole exome or whole genome analysis using massively parallel sequencing technologies will undoubtedly solve diagnostic dilemmas; however, incidental findings (IF) that may have medical and social implications will also be discovered. While there is consensus in the literature that analytically valid and medically actionable IF should be returned to patients if requested, there is debate regarding the return of other IF. There are currently no guidelines established for managing IF in the clinical context. We therefore distributed an online questionnaire to 496 geneticists and genetic counselors in Canada to explore this unresolved issue, and 210 professionals participated (response rate = 42%). The proportion of respondents who indicated that they would return IF to patients depended on the nature of the finding, ranging from 95% for information pertaining to a serious and treatable condition to 12% for information with only social implications (e.g., non-paternity). There was a lack of consensus around the disclosure of certain IF such as genetic carrier status, especially for pediatric patients. The most important considerations identified as impacting IF disclosure included condition-specific factors such as treatment availability, test accuracy, and evidence indicating pathogenicity. This is the first study to document the views of geneticists and genetic counselors in Canada towards the disclosure of IF, and represents a step towards evidence-based guidelines for clinical genome-wide sequencing investigations.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23401068     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  29 in total

1.  Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

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

Review 2.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Three clinical experiences with SNP array results consistent with parental incest: a narrative with lessons learned.

Authors:  Benjamin M Helm; Katherine Langley; Brooke Spangler; Samantha Vergano
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Sarah A Walser; Katherine S Kellom; Steven C Palmer; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 5.  Management and return of incidental genomic findings in clinical trials.

Authors:  C Ayuso; J M Millan; R Dal-Re
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 3.550

6.  Practices and views of neurologists regarding the use of whole-genome sequencing in clinical settings: a web-based survey.

Authors:  Iris Jaitovich Groisman; Thierry Hurlimann; Amir Shoham; Béatrice Godard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research.

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Yuan Zhang; Jo Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-01-17       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Genetic professionals' views on genetic counsellors: a French survey.

Authors:  Christophe Cordier; Nicolas Taris; Ramona Moldovan; Hagay Sobol; Marie-Antoinette Voelckel
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-08-18

Review 9.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

10.  Acceptability of, and Information Needs Regarding, Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Ben Storey; Veronica Quinn; Belinda Rahman; Lesley Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.