Literature DB >> 23619276

Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model.

Joon-Ho Yu1, Seema M Jamal, Holly K Tabor, Michael J Bamshad.   

Abstract

Researchers and clinicians face the practical and ethical challenge of if and how to offer for return the wide and varied scope of results available from individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing. We argue that rather than viewing individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing as a test for which results need to be "returned," that the technology should instead be framed as a dynamic resource of information from which results should be "managed" over the lifetime of an individual. We further suggest that individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing results management is optimized using a self-guided approach that enables individuals to self-select among results offered for return in a convenient, confidential, personalized context that is responsive to their value system. This approach respects autonomy, allows individuals to maximize potential benefits of genomic information (beneficence) and minimize potential harms (nonmaleficence), and also preserves their right to an open future to the extent they desire or think is appropriate. We describe key challenges and advantages of such a self-guided management system and offer guidance on implementation using an information systems approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23619276      PMCID: PMC4010112          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.35

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  70 in total

1.  Medicine. Whole-genome sequencing: the new standard of care?

Authors:  Liam R Brunham; Michael R Hayden
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Prenatal whole genome sequencing: just because we can, should we?

Authors:  Greer Donley; Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants.

Authors:  D I Shalowitz; F G Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Colin Halverson; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research.

Authors:  Holly K Tabor; Benjamin E Berkman; Sara Chandros Hull; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  B Meiser; V Collins; R Warren; C Gaff; D J B St John; M-A Young; K Harrop; J Brown; J Halliday
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Brittney N Crock; Brian Van Ness; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Laura M Beskow; Mildred K Cho; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Ralph Hall; Judy Illes; Moira Keane; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Isaac S Kohane; Bonnie Leroy; Karen J Maschke; William McGeveran; Pilar Ossorio; Lisa S Parker; Gloria M Petersen; Henry S Richardson; Joan A Scott; Sharon F Terry; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: black and Hispanic women particularly at risk.

Authors:  Douglas E Levy; Stacey D Byfield; Catherine B Comstock; Judy E Garber; Sapna Syngal; William H Crown; Alexandra E Shields
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Incidence and predictors of positive and negative effects of BRCA1/2 genetic testing on familial relationships: a 3-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Julie Lapointe; Karine Bouchard; Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Elizabeth Maunsell; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  37 in total

1.  Community dissemination and genetic research: moving beyond results reporting.

Authors:  Susan Brown Trinidad; Evette J Ludman; Scarlett Hopkins; Rosalina D James; Theresa J Hoeft; Annie Kinegak; Henry Lupie; Ralph Kinegak; Bert B Boyer; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Kate A McBride; Nina Hallowell; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-05-26

3.  Policy and the inevitability of sharing: GINA and social media.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Rebecca S Engrav
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Michael J Bamshad; Holly K Tabor
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Pathogenic variants for Mendelian and complex traits in exomes of 6,517 European and African Americans: implications for the return of incidental results.

Authors:  Holly K Tabor; Paul L Auer; Seema M Jamal; Jessica X Chong; Joon-Ho Yu; Adam S Gordon; Timothy A Graubert; Christopher J O'Donnell; Stephen S Rich; Deborah A Nickerson; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Enhancing the incidental pipeline in genomic sequencing.

Authors:  B D Solomon
Journal:  Mol Syndromol       Date:  2014-01-23

8.  Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field.

Authors:  Ruth Ottman; Catharine Freyer; Heather C Mefford; Annapurna Poduri; Daniel H Lowenstein
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 5.864

9.  "Use it or lose it" as an alternative approach to protect genetic privacy in personalized medicine.

Authors:  Jennifer K Wagner; Jessica T Mozersky; Reed E Pyeritz
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.