Literature DB >> 24814192

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

Gail P Jarvik1, Laura M Amendola2, Jonathan S Berg3, Kyle Brothers4, Ellen W Clayton5, Wendy Chung6, Barbara J Evans7, James P Evans3, Stephanie M Fullerton8, Carlos J Gallego2, Nanibaa' A Garrison5, Stacy W Gray9, Ingrid A Holm10, Iftikhar J Kullo11, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann12, Cathy McCarty13, Cynthia A Prows14, Heidi L Rehm12, Richard R Sharp15, Joseph Salama2, Saskia Sanderson16, Sara L Van Driest5, Marc S Williams17, Susan M Wolf18, Wendy A Wolf19, Wylie Burke8.   

Abstract

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.
Copyright © 2014 The American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24814192      PMCID: PMC4121476          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  35 in total

1.  How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants?

Authors:  David Wendler; Rebecca Pentz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Mark A Rothstein; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes.

Authors:  Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Emily H Turner; Peggy D Robertson; Brian H Shirts; Carlos J Gallego; Robin L Bennett; Kelly L Jones; Mari J Tokita; James T Bennett; Jerry H Kim; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; Daniel S Kim; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Arno G Motulsky; C Ronald Scott; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh; Wylie Burke; Wendy H Raskind; Peter Byers; Fuki M Hisama; Deborah A Nickerson; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  B B Biesecker; M Boehnke; K Calzone; D S Markel; J E Garber; F S Collins; B L Weber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-04-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard.

Authors:  Anne Townsend; Shelin Adam; Patricia H Birch; Jan M Friedman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       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

Review 10.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Laura M Amendola; Christine Eng; Eliezer Van Allen; Stacy W Gray; Nikhil Wagle; Heidi L Rehm; Elizabeth T DeChene; Matthew C Dulik; Fuki M Hisama; Wylie Burke; Nancy B Spinner; Levi Garraway; Robert C Green; Sharon Plon; James P Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  191 in total

1.  Return of Results from Research Using Newborn Screening Dried Blood Samples.

Authors:  Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Aaron J Goldenberg
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  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

3.  Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; R Jean Cadigan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 4.  Unravelling the human genome-phenome relationship using phenome-wide association studies.

Authors:  William S Bush; Matthew T Oetjens; Dana C Crawford
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view.

Authors:  Elcke J Kranendonk; M Corrette Ploem; Raoul C M Hennekam
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 4.246

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.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

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.  Research Participants' Attitudes towards Receiving Information on Genetic Susceptibility to Arsenic Toxicity in Rural Bangladesh.

Authors:  Lizeth I Tamayo; Hannah Lin; Alauddin Ahmed; Hasan Shahriar; Rabiul Hasan; Golam Sarwar; Hem Mahbubul Eunus; Habibul Ahsan; Brandon L Pierce
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Erisa Mwaka; Lyn Horn
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.