Literature DB >> 25228303

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice.

Shiri Shkedi-Rafid1, Sandi Dheensa2, Gillian Crawford1, Angela Fenwick2, Anneke Lucassen1.   

Abstract

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic testing; Genomics; Incidental findings; Medical ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25228303     DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2014-102435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  30 in total

1.  Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Elli G Gourna; Natalie Armstrong; Susan E Wallace
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Cynthia A Prows; Melissa DeJonckheere; William B Brinkman; Lisa Vaughn; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.

Authors:  Deborah R Gordon; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Marguerite Robinson; Wesley O Petersen; Jason S Egginton; Kari G Chaffee; Gloria M Petersen; Susan M Wolf; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-12-31

6.  "I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings.

Authors:  M Vornanen; K Aktan-Collan; N Hallowell; H Konttinen; H Kääriäinen; A Haukkala
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2018-01-16

7.  Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Lisa M Ballard; Rachel H Horton; Angela Fenwick; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  A qualitative analysis of the attitudes of Irish patients towards participation in genetic-based research.

Authors:  T P McVeigh; K J Sweeney; M J Kerin; D J Gallagher
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 1.568

9.  Management of Incidental Findings in the Era of Next-generation Sequencing.

Authors:  Heather L Blackburn; Bradley Schroeder; Clesson Turner; Craig D Shriver; Darrell L Ellsworth; Rachel E Ellsworth
Journal:  Curr Genomics       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.236

10.  So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings.

Authors:  Sebastian Schuol; Christoph Schickhardt; Stefan Wiemann; Claus R Bartram; Klaus Tanner; Roland Eils; Benjamin Meder; Daniela Richter; Hanno Glimm; Christof von Kalle; Eva C Winkler
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.