Literature DB >> 28398474

Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research.

Michael P Mackley1, Benjamin Capps2.   

Abstract

Background: Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance. Sources of data: The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies. Areas of agreement: Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any. Areas of controversy: While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol. Growing points: SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research. Areas timely for developing research: The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical genomics; genome sequencing; genomics research; informed consent; secondary findings

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28398474     DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldx009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med Bull        ISSN: 0007-1420            Impact factor:   4.291


  7 in total

1.  Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings.

Authors:  Georgina Spies; Jolynne Mokaya; Jacqui Steadman; Nicole Schuitmaker; Martin Kidd; S M J Hemmings; Jonathan A Carr; Helena Kuivaniemi; Soraya Seedat
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2020-11-20

2.  Ethical Issues in Newborn Sequencing Research: The Case Study of BabySeq.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Salma Shickh; Marc Clausen; Chloe Mighton; Selina Casalino; Esha Joshi; Emily Glogowski; Kasmintan A Schrader; Adena Scheer; Christine Elser; Seema Panchal; Andrea Eisen; Tracy Graham; Melyssa Aronson; Kara M Semotiuk; Laura Winter-Paquette; Michael Evans; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; June C Carroll; Jada G Hamilton; Kenneth Offit; Mark Robson; Kevin E Thorpe; Andreas Laupacis; Yvonne Bombard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants.

Authors:  Ciara Staunton; Maria Kösters; Peter P Pramstaller; Deborah Mascalzoni
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-07-09

Review 5.  Genetic counselling in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Christine Patch; Anna Middleton
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.291

6.  A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings.

Authors:  Ignaas Devisch; Elfride De Baere; Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Caroline Van Cauwenbergh; Bart P Leroy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Old Challenges or New Issues? Genetic Health Professionals' Experiences Obtaining Informed Consent in Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Pascal Borry; Julian Savulescu; Julian J Koplin
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2020-10-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.