Literature DB >> 28512758

Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: Perspectives of laboratory personnel.

Danya F Vears1,2, Karine Sénécal3, Pascal Borry1,2.   

Abstract

While next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enormous potential to identify genetic causes of disease, the nature of the technology means that it can also identify additional information about the individual receiving sequencing that is unrelated to the original rationale for testing. Reporting these unsolicited findings (UF) to clinicians, and subsequently to patients, could lead to potentially lifesaving interventions. Most international guidelines provide limited specific recommendations as to whether these UF should be reported. Little research has been conducted exploring which of these variants are reported in practice. Twenty-six interviews were conducted with 27 laboratory personnel, representing 24 laboratories in Europe (12), Canada (five), and Australasia (Seven) to explore their reporting practices. There is considerable variation between laboratories in the reporting of UF. While some limit their reporting to findings that are relevant to the clinical question, others report UF to varying degrees. In addition, most laboratory personnel interviewed said that their laboratories do not actively search for secondary findings in disease-causing genes unrelated to the clinical question, such as those suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Our study highlights that laboratories are still grappling with decisions about which UF to report from NGS and are calling for more guidance.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioethics; diagnostic; genetic counseling; genetic testing; genomic sequencing; incidental findings

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28512758     DOI: 10.1002/humu.23259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.878


  8 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.  Points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic genomic sequencing.

Authors:  D F Vears; K Sénécal; A J Clarke; L Jackson; A M Laberge; L Lovrecic; A Piton; K L I Van Gassen; H G Yntema; B M Knoppers; P Borry
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Webber; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Leslie G Biesecker; Adam H Buchanan; Elizabeth V Clarke; Erin Currey; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Kristy Lee; Noralane M Lindor; Christa Lese Martin; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Kathleen F Mittendorf; Kristin R Muessig; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ronak Y Patel; Erin M Ramos; Shannon Rego; Anne M Slavotinek; Nara Lygia M Sobriera; Meredith A Weaver; Marc S Williams; James P Evans; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations.

Authors:  Pascal Pujol; Pierre Vande Perre; Laurence Faivre; Damien Sanlaville; Carole Corsini; Bernard Baertschi; Michèle Anahory; Dominique Vaur; Sylviane Olschwang; Nadem Soufir; Noëlle Bastide; Sarah Amar; Michèle Vintraud; Olivier Ingster; Stéphane Richard; Pierre Le Coz; Jean-Philippe Spano; Olivier Caron; Pascal Hammel; Elisabeth Luporsi; Alain Toledano; Xavier Rebillard; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Olivier Putois; Jean-Marc Rey; Christian Hervé; Caroline Zorn; Karen Baudry; Virginie Galibert; Joseph Gligorov; David Azria; Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets; Nelly Burnichon; Marc Spielmann; Daniel Zarca; Isabelle Coupier; Olivier Cussenot; Anne-Paule Gimenez-Roqueplo; Sophie Giraud; Anne-Sophie Lapointe; Patricia Niccoli; Isabelle Raingeard; Muriel Le Bidan; Thierry Frebourg; Arash Rafii; David Geneviève
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Should we respect parents' views about which results to return from genomic sequencing?

Authors:  D F Vears
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.132

6.  The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Heidi Beate Bentzen; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Martina C Cornel; Heidi Carmen Howard; Oliver Feeney; Leigh Jackson; Deborah Mascalzoni; Álvaro Mendes; Borut Peterlin; Brigida Riso; Mahsa Shabani; Heather Skirton; Sigrid Sterckx; Danya Vears; Matthias Wjst; Heike Felzmann
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-09-26

7.  Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.063

8.  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
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.