Literature DB >> 24975944

Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.

Joon-Ho Yu1, Tanya M Harrell2, Seema M Jamal2, Holly K Tabor3, Michael J Bamshad4.   

Abstract

Professional recommendations for the return of results from exome and whole-genome sequencing (ES/WGS) have been controversial. The lack of clear guidance about whether and, if so, how to return ES/WGS incidental results limits the extent to which individuals and families might benefit from ES/WGS. The perspectives of genetics professionals, particularly those at the forefront of using ES/WGS in clinics, are largely unknown. Data on stakeholder perspectives could help clarify how to weigh expert positions and recommendations. We conducted an online survey of 9,857 genetics professionals to learn their attitudes on the return of incidental results from ES/WGS and the recent American College of Medical Genetic and Genomics Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Of the 847 respondents, 760 completed the survey. The overwhelming majority of respondents thought that incidental ES/WGS results should be offered to adult patients (85%), healthy adults (75%), and the parents of a child with a medical condition (74%). The majority thought that incidental results about adult-onset conditions (62%) and carrier status (62%) should be offered to the parents of a child with a medical condition. About half thought that offered results should not be limited to those deemed clinically actionable. The vast majority (81%) thought that individual preferences should guide return. Genetics professionals' perspectives on the return of ES/WGS results differed substantially from current recommendations, underscoring the need to establish clear purpose for recommendations on the return of incidental ES/WGS results as professional societies grapple with developing and updating recommendations.
Copyright © 2014 The American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24975944      PMCID: PMC4085580          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004

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


  32 in total

1.  The state of the medical geneticist workforce: findings of the 2003 survey of American Board of Medical Genetics certified geneticists.

Authors:  Judith A Cooksey; Gaetano Forte; Judith Benkendorf; Miriam G Blitzer
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 2.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

3.  American Society of Human Genetics membership survey results, 1989.

Authors:  K L Garver; K M Lent
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Genetic testing: clinical and personal utility.

Authors:  Rachel A Mills; Susanne B Haga; Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Journal:  Virtual Mentor       Date:  2012-08-01

5.  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

6.  Incomplete knowledge of the clinical context as a barrier to interpreting incidental genetic research findings.

Authors:  Gregory Costain; Anne S Bassett
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study.

Authors:  A A Lemke; D Bick; D Dimmock; P Simpson; R Veith
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  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

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

Authors:  Brooke L Levenseller; Danielle J Soucier; Victoria A Miller; Diana Harris; Laura Conway; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  53 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Factors associated with participation by African Americans in a study of the genetics of glaucoma.

Authors:  Rupin Parikh; Laura O'Keefe; Rebecca Salowe; Makayla Mccoskey; Wei Pan; Prithvi Sankar; Eydie Miller-Ellis; Victoria Addis; Amanda Lehman; Maureen Maguire; Joan O'Brien
Journal:  Ethn Health       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.772

3.  Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  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

5.  Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing: Incorporation of the 2013 ACMG Recommendations into Current Practices of Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Lacey A Smith; Jessica Douglas; Alicia A Braxton; Kate Kramer
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  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

7.  Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients.

Authors:  Carly Rost; Karin M Dent; Jeffrey Botkin; Erin Rothwell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine.

Authors:  Colin Me Halverson; Kristin E Clift; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-02-09

9.  In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Yuan Zhang; Ying Chen; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.