Literature DB >> 30951675

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Yvonne Bombard1, Kyle B Brothers2, Sara Fitzgerald-Butt3, Nanibaa' A Garrison4, Leila Jamal5, Cynthia A James6, Gail P Jarvik7, Jennifer B McCormick8, Tanya N Nelson9, Kelly E Ormond10, Heidi L Rehm11, Julie Richer12, Emmanuelle Souzeau13, Jason L Vassy14, Jennifer K Wagner15, Howard P Levy16.   

Abstract

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.
Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genetics; genetics policy; genomics; participants; recontact; research

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30951675      PMCID: PMC6451731          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.02.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  78 in total

1.  One thing leads to another: the cascade of obligations when researchers report genetic research results to study participants.

Authors:  Fiona Alice Miller; Robin Zoe Hayeems; Li Li; Jessica Peace Bytautas
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Use of panel tests in place of single gene tests in the cancer genetics clinic.

Authors:  A Yorczyk; L S Robinson; T S Ross
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 4.438

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.  Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Authors:  Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

5.  Research ethics consultation: the Stanford experience.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho; Sara L Tobin; Henry T Greely; Jennifer McCormick; Angie Boyce; David Magnus
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec

6.  The legal risks of returning results of genomics research.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists.

Authors:  Kym Boycott; Taila Hartley; Shelin Adam; Francois Bernier; Karen Chong; Bridget A Fernandez; Jan M Friedman; Michael T Geraghty; Stacey Hume; Bartha M Knoppers; Anne-Marie Laberge; Jacek Majewski; Roberto Mendoza-Londono; M Stephen Meyn; Jacques L Michaud; Tanya N Nelson; Julie Richer; Bekim Sadikovic; David L Skidmore; Tracy Stockley; Sherry Taylor; Clara van Karnebeek; Ma'n H Zawati; Julie Lauzon; Christine M Armour
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  Reinterpretation of sequence variants: one diagnostic laboratory's experience, and the need for standard guidelines.

Authors:  Caitlin Chisholm; Hussein Daoud; Mahdi Ghani; Gabrielle Mettler; Jean McGowan-Jordan; Liz Sinclair-Bourque; Amanda Smith; Olga Jarinova
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

Authors:  Scott A Turner; Smita K Rao; R Hayes Morgan; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Data sharing as a national quality improvement program: reporting on BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant-interpretation comparisons through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR).

Authors:  Matthew S Lebo; Kathleen-Rose Zakoor; Kathy Chun; Marsha D Speevak; John S Waye; Elizabeth McCready; Jillian S Parboosingh; Ryan E Lamont; Harriet Feilotter; Ian Bosdet; Tracy Tucker; Sean Young; Aly Karsan; George S Charames; Ronald Agatep; Elizabeth L Spriggs; Caitlin Chisholm; Nasim Vasli; Hussein Daoud; Olga Jarinova; Robert Tomaszewski; Stacey Hume; Sherryl Taylor; Mohammad R Akbari; Jordan Lerner-Ellis
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  31 in total

1.  Clinical Genetic Screening in Adult Patients with Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Enrico Cocchi; Jordan Gabriela Nestor; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.

Authors:  Ryan Pysar; Courtney K Wallingford; Jackie Boyle; Scott B Campbell; Lisa Eckstein; Rebekah McWhirter; Bronwyn Terrill; Chris Jacobs; Aideen M McInerney-Leo
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Steven Joffe; Deborah E Sellers; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-Lavigne; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2019-11-22

Review 4.  Genetic Counseling and Genome Sequencing in Pediatric Rare Disease.

Authors:  Alison M Elliott
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 6.915

5.  Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry.

Authors:  Juliann M Savatt; Danielle R Azzariti; David H Ledbetter; Emily Palen; Heidi L Rehm; Erin Rooney Riggs; Christa Lese Martin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Changes in genetic variant results over time in pediatric cardiomyopathy and electrophysiology.

Authors:  Sara Cherny; Rachael Olson; Kathryn Chiodo; Lauren C Balmert; Gregory Webster
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Ethical and Legal Considerations for the Inclusion of Underserved and Underrepresented Immigrant Populations in Precision Health and Genomic Research in the United States.

Authors:  Jennifer K Wagner
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 2.006

8.  Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chloe Mighton; Salma Shickh; Elizabeth Uleryk; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Yvonne Bombard
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 8.822

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.  Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine.

Authors:  Jennifer K Wagner; Michelle N Meyer
Journal:  HGG Adv       Date:  2021-04-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.