Literature DB >> 28039284

Defining categories of actionability for secondary findings in next-generation sequencing.

Celine Moret1, Alex Mauron1, Siv Fokstuen2, Periklis Makrythanasis2,3, Samia A Hurst1.   

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing is increasingly used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of Mendelian diseases. Because of the high likelihood of secondary findings associated with this technique, the process of informing patients is beset with new challenges. One of them is regarding the type of secondary findings that ought to be disclosed to patients. The aim of this research is to propose a practical implementation of the notion of actionability, a common criteria justifying the disclosure of secondary findings but whose interpretation varies greatly among professionals. We distinguish three types of actionability corresponding to (1) well-established medical actions, (2) patient-initiated health-related actions and (3) life-plan decisions. We argue that actionability depends on the characteristics of the mutation or gene and on the values of patients. In discussing the return of secondary findings, it is important that the physician tries to get an impression of the specific situation and values of patients. Regarding variants of uncertain clinical significance in actionable genes, we found that different understandings of autonomy lead to different conclusions and that, for some of them, it may be legitimate to refrain from returning uncertain information. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autonomy; Genetic Information; Informed Consent

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28039284     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  5 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.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  A pediatric perspective on genomics and prevention in the twenty-first century.

Authors:  Bimal P Chaudhari; Kandamurugu Manickam; Kim L McBride
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 3.756

4.  Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines.

Authors:  Thierry Hurlimann; Iris Jaitovich Groisman; Béatrice Godard
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 2.652

5.  A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.

Authors:  Kenji Matsui; Keiichiro Yamamoto; Shimon Tashiro; Tomohide Ibuki
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-12-25       Impact factor: 2.652

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.