Literature DB >> 23846343

Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent.

Brooke L Levenseller1, Danielle J Soucier, Victoria A Miller, Diana Harris, Laura Conway, Barbara A Bernhardt.   

Abstract

Advances in whole genome and whole exome sequencing (WGS/WES) technologies have led to increased availability in clinical settings. Currently, there are few guidelines relating to the process and content of informed consent for WGS/WES, nor to which results should be returned to families. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups to assess the views of professionals, parents, and adolescents for the future implementation of WES. The discussions assessed understanding of the risks and benefits of WES, preferences for the informed consent discussion, process for return of results, and the decision-making role of the pediatric patient. Professional focus group participants included bioethicists, physicians, laboratory directors, and genetic counselors. Parent focus groups included individuals with children who could be offered sequencing due to a potential genetic cause of the child's condition. On-line discussion groups were conducted with adolescents aged 13-17 who had a possible genetic disorder. We identified discrepancies between professionals and patient groups regarding the process and content of informed consent, preference for return of results, and the role of the child in decision-making. Professional groups were concerned with the uncertainty regarding professional obligations, changing interpretation in genomic medicine, and practical concerns of returning results over time. Parent and adolescent groups focused on patient choice and personal utility of sequencing results. Each group expressed different views on the role of the child in decision-making and return of results. These discrepancies represent potential barriers to informed consent and a challenge for genetic counselors regarding the involvement of pediatric patients in decision-making and return of results discussions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23846343      PMCID: PMC3849137          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9626-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  36 in total

Review 1.  Genetic dilemmas and the child's right to an open future.

Authors:  D S Davis
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  The coming explosion in genetic testing--is there a duty to recontact?

Authors:  Reed E Pyeritz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors:  Zoe Lohn; Shelin Adam; Patricia Birch; Anne Townsend; Jan Friedman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Informed consent for enrolling minors in genetic susceptibility research: a qualitative study of at-risk children's and parents' views about children's role in decision-making.

Authors:  Gail Geller; Ellen S Tambor; Barbara A Bernhardt; Gertrude Fraser; Lawrence S Wissow
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.012

5.  Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Steven Joffe; Barbara A Koenig; Barbara B Biesecker; Laurence B McCullough; Jennifer S Blumenthal-Barby; Timothy Caulfield; Sharon F Terry; Robert C Green
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  The beliefs, motivations, and expectations of parents who have enrolled their children in a genetic biorepository.

Authors:  Erin D Harris; Sonja I Ziniel; Jonathan G Amatruda; Catherine M Clinton; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Noelle L Huntington; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Technical report: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Laine Friedman Ross; Howard M Saal; Karen L David; Rebecca R Anderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations.

Authors:  Brian J O'Roak; Pelagia Deriziotis; Choli Lee; Laura Vives; Jerrod J Schwartz; Santhosh Girirajan; Emre Karakoc; Alexandra P Mackenzie; Sarah B Ng; Carl Baker; Mark J Rieder; Deborah A Nickerson; Raphael Bernier; Simon E Fisher; Jay Shendure; Evan E Eichler
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  35 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.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  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

4.  Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings.

Authors:  Amanda L Bergner; Juli Bollinger; Karen S Raraigh; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; Carrie Lynn Blout; Aida Bytyci Telegrafi; Cynthia A James
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Pediatric Whole Exome Sequencing: an Assessment of Parents' Perceived and Actual Understanding.

Authors:  Leandra K Tolusso; Kathleen Collins; Xue Zhang; Jennifer R Holle; C Alexander Valencia; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Please Test My Child for a Cancer Gene, but Don't Tell Her.

Authors:  Johan Bester; Maya Sabatello; Clara D M van Karnebeek; John D Lantos
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Honey, I Sequenced the Kids: Preventive Genomics and the Complexities of Adolescence.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

8.  Parent and public interest in whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Daniel S Dodson; Aaron J Goldenberg; Matthew M Davis; Dianne C Singer; Beth A Tarini
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results.

Authors:  Sarah Adelsperger; Cynthia A Prows; Melanie F Myers; Cassandra L Perry; Ariel Chandler; Ingrid A Holm; John A Lynch
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-08-30

10.  Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents' considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child.

Authors:  Candice Cornelis; Aad Tibben; Wybo Dondorp; Mieke van Haelst; Annelien L Bredenoord; Nine Knoers; Marcus Düwell; Ineke Bolt; Marieke van Summeren
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.