Literature DB >> 23907645

Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

Wylie Burke1, Armand H Matheny Antommaria, Robin Bennett, Jeffrey Botkin, Ellen Wright Clayton, Gail E Henderson, Ingrid A Holm, Gail P Jarvik, Muin J Khoury, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Nancy A Press, Lainie Friedman Ross, Mark A Rothstein, Howard Saal, Wendy R Uhlmann, Benjamin Wilfond, Susan M Wolf, Ron Zimmern.   

Abstract

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23907645      PMCID: PMC3832423          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.113

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


  21 in total

1.  Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions.

Authors:  W Burke; S S Coughlin; N C Lee; D L Weed; M J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2001

2.  Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable?

Authors:  Linn Getz; Johann A Sigurdsson; Irene Hetlevik
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-08-30

Review 3.  Predisease: when does it make sense?

Authors:  Anthony J Viera
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-05-30       Impact factor: 6.222

4.  Overview of screening: where we are and where we may be headed.

Authors:  Russell Harris
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

5.  Currents in contemporary bioethics.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 6.  Hereditary hemochromatosis.

Authors:  Richard S Ajioka; James P Kushner
Journal:  Semin Hematol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.851

7.  Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 8.  Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: evidence, economics, and ethics.

Authors:  S D Grosse; W H Rogowski; L F Ross; M C Cornel; W J Dondorp; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies.

Authors:  Katrina A B Goddard; Evelyn P Whitlock; Jonathan S Berg; Marc S Williams; Elizabeth M Webber; Jennifer A Webster; Jennifer S Lin; Kasmintan A Schrader; Doug Campos-Outcalt; Kenneth Offit; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Celine Hollombe
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  144 in total

1.  Clinical Management of Pediatric Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2014-12-01

Review 2.  Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 6.915

3.  Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the "Benefit to Families".

Authors:  Benjamin S Wilfond; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  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

Review 5.  Genomics of Immune Diseases and New Therapies.

Authors:  Michael Lenardo; Bernice Lo; Carrie L Lucas
Journal:  Annu Rev Immunol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 28.527

6.  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

7.  Returning a Genomic Result for an Adult-Onset Condition to the Parents of a Newborn: Insights From the BabySeq Project.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Amy McGuire; Stacey Pereira; Heidi Rehm; Robert C Green; Alan H Beggs
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 8.  Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Jason Karlawish; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  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

10.  How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Authors:  Cynthia M Khan; Christine Rini; Barbara A Bernhardt; J Scott Roberts; Kurt D Christensen; James P Evans; Kyle B Brothers; Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.