Literature DB >> 25229012

Return of Results from Genomic Sequencing: A Policy Discussion of Secondary Findings for Cancer Predisposition.

Kimberly J Johnson1, Sarah Gehlert1.   

Abstract

Advances in DNA sequencing technology now allow for the rapid genome-wide identification of inherited and acquired genetic variants including those that have been identified as pathogenic alleles for a number of diseases including cancer. Whole genome and exome sequencing are increasingly becoming a part of both clinical practice and research studies. In 2013 the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that results of pathogenic genetic variants in 56 genes, nearly half of which comprise cancer genes (including BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, MLH1, MLH2, MSH6, PMS2, and APC),be returned to patients who have their genome sequenced independent of the purpose for the test. This recommendation has been highly controversial for several reasons, particularly the recommendation that individuals be returned secondary findings of disease causing variants for adult onset conditions regardless of age and without consideration of patient preferences. In addition, the policy regarding returning results of secondary findings from genomic sequencing studies in research settings is currently unclear. In response to these emerging ethical issues, the Washington University Brown School in St. Louis, MO, United Stateshosted a policy forum entitled "First do no harm: Genetic privacy in the age of genomic sequencing" on February 25th, 2014. The forum included a panel of experts to discuss their views on ethical issues related to return of results in both the clinical and research settings. In this report, we highlight key issues related to return of results from genome sequencing tests that emerged during the forum.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACMG; BRCA1; BRCA2; Secondary findings; cancer; genetic; genome; incidental findings; results; return; testing

Year:  2014        PMID: 25229012      PMCID: PMC4163150          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2014.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Policy        ISSN: 2213-5383


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Incidentalomas in genomics and radiology.

Authors:  Benjamin D Solomon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  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

4.  Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Position statement on opportunistic genomic screening from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (UK and Ireland).

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Chris Patch; Jennifer Wiggins; Kathy Barnes; Gill Crawford; Caroline Benjamin; Anita Bruce
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public.

Authors:  Dina L G Borzekowski; Yue Guan; Katherine C Smith; Lori H Erby; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Policy challenges of clinical genome sequencing.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; Anna Middleton; Hilary Burton; Fiona Cunningham; Steve E Humphries; Jane Hurst; Ewan Birney; Helen V Firth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-11-22

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.  Breast and ovarian cancer risks in a large series of clinically ascertained families with a high proportion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Dutch founder mutations.

Authors:  Richard M Brohet; Maria E Velthuizen; Frans B L Hogervorst; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Caroline Seynaeve; Margriet J Collée; Senno Verhoef; Margreet G E M Ausems; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Christi J van Asperen; Encarna Gómez García; Fred Menko; Jan C Oosterwijk; Peter Devilee; Laura J van't Veer; Flora E van Leeuwen; Douglas F Easton; Matti A Rookus; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 6.318

View more
  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research.

Authors:  Sarah Gehlert; Jessica Mozersky
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  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

Review 4.  Unravelling biology and shifting paradigms in cancer with single-cell sequencing.

Authors:  Timour Baslan; James Hicks
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  Leadership, Literacy, and Translational Expertise in Genomics: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work.

Authors:  Allison Werner-Lin; Judith L M McCoyd; Maya H Doyle; Sarah J Gehlert
Journal:  Health Soc Work       Date:  2016-08-01

6.  Which attributes of whole genome sequencing tests are most important to the general population? Results from a German preference study.

Authors:  Marika Plöthner; Katharina Schmidt; Clarissa Schips; Kathrin Damm
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2018-02-14

Review 7.  South Korea: in the midst of a privacy reform centered on data sharing.

Authors:  Hannah Kim; So Yoon Kim; Yann Joly
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  What constitutes good ethical practice in genomic research in Africa? Perspectives of participants in a genomic research study in Uganda.

Authors:  Rwamahe Rutakumwa; Jantina de Vries; Michael Parker; Paulina Tindana; Oliver Mweemba; Janet Seeley
Journal:  Glob Bioeth       Date:  2019-03-24

Review 9.  Integrating Somatic and Germline Next-Generation Sequencing Into Routine Clinical Oncology Practice.

Authors:  J Kevin Hicks; Rachel Howard; Phillip Reisman; Jacob J Adashek; Karen K Fields; Jhanelle E Gray; Bryan McIver; Kelly McKee; Mandy F O'Leary; Randa M Perkins; Edmondo Robinson; Ankita Tandon; Jamie K Teer; Joseph Markowitz; Dana E Rollison
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-05-20

10.  What are people willing to pay for whole-genome sequencing information, and who decides what they receive?

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; F Reed Johnson; Karen V MacDonald; Amy Pugh; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.