Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance

We discuss a case where clinical genomic investigation of muscle weakness unexpectedly found a genetic variant that might (or might not) predispose to kidney cancer. We argue that despite its off-target and uncertain nature, this variant should be discussed with the man who had the test, not because it is medical information, but because this discussion would allow the further clinical evaluation that might lead it to becoming so. We argue that while prominent ethical debates around genomics often take 'results' as a starting point and ask questions as to whether to look for and how to react to them, the construction of genomic results is fraught with ethical complexity, although often couched as a primarily technical problem. We highlight the need for greater focus on, and appreciation of, the ethical work undertaken daily by scientists and clinicians working in genomic medicine and discuss how public conversations around genomics need to adapt to prepare future patients for potentially uncertain and unexpected outcomes from clinical genomic tests

Ethical preparedness in genomic medicine: how NHS clinical scientists navigate ethical issues

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic. We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising. We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking

Genomic variant sharing: a position statement.

Sharing de-identified genetic variant data is essential for the practice of genomic medicine and is demonstrably beneficial to patients. Robust genetic diagnoses that inform medical management cannot be made accurately without reference to genetic test results from other patients, as well as population controls. Errors in this process can result in delayed, missed or erroneous diagnoses, leading to inappropriate or missed medical interventions for the patient and their family. The benefits of sharing individual genetic variants, and the harms of not sharing them, are numerous and well-established. Databases and mechanisms already exist to facilitate deposition and sharing of pseudonomised genetic variants, but clarity and transparency around best practice is needed to encourage widespread use, prevent inconsistencies between different communities, maximise individual privacy and ensure public trust. We therefore recommend that widespread sharing of a small number of individual genetic variants associated with limited clinical information should become standard practice in genomic medicine. Information robustly linking genetic variants with specific conditions is fundamental biological knowledge, not personal information, and therefore should not require consent to share. For additional case-level detail about individual patients or more extensive genomic information, which is often essential for clinical interpretation, it may be more appropriate to use a controlled-access model for data sharing, with the ultimate aim of making as much information as open and de-identified as possible with appropriate consent

Cognitive and affective outcomes of genetic counselling in the Netherlands at group and individual level:a personalized approach seems necessary

We performed a large outcome study at group and individual level in which the goals of genetic counselling were operationalized into cognitive and affective outcomes: empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety. We then examined which socio-demographic and clinical variables were associated with changes in these outcomes. Data came from 1479 counselees who completed questionnaires (GCOS-18, PPC and STAI) at three time points: before the start of genetic counselling, after the first consultation and after the results of genetic counselling were disclosed. Results showed that at group level empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety improved significantly after the whole genetic counselling process. Effect-sizes were medium for empowerment and small for the other outcomes. At individual level, 48% of counselees improved in empowerment, 21% in perceived personal control and 17% in anxiety. Around 10% of counselees worsened on all outcomes. Only 'reason for referral' and 'genetic test result' were significantly associated with changes in outcomes. This study demonstrated improvements among counselees in cognitive and affective outcomes after genetic counselling at group level. However, our results also suggest that there are opportunities for improvement at individual level, as many counselees remained stable and some even worsened on all outcomes. Routine outcome monitoring could help to explore the needs of counselees and could help to identify counselees who worsen.</p

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation

Population-based preconception carrier screening:how potential users from the general population view a test for 50 serious diseases

With the increased international focus on personalized health care and preventive medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has substantially expanded the options for carrier screening of serious, recessively inherited diseases. NGS screening tests not only offer reproductive options not previously available to couples, but they may also ultimately reduce the number of children born with devastating disorders. To date, preconception carrier screening (PCS) has largely targeted single diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but NGS allows the testing of many genes or diseases simultaneously. We have developed an expanded NGS PCS test for couples; simultaneously it covers 50 very serious, early-onset, autosomal recessive diseases that are untreatable. This is the first, noncommercial, population-based, expanded PCS test to be offered prospectively to couples in a health-care setting in Europe. So far, little is known about how potential users view such a PCS test. We therefore performed an online survey in 2014 among 500 people from the target population in the Netherlands. We enquired about their intention to take an expanded PCS test if one was offered, and through which provider they would like to see it offered. One-third of the respondents said they would take such a test were it to be offered. The majority (44%) preferred the test to be offered via their general practitioner (GP) and 58% would be willing to pay for the test, with a median cost of €75. Our next step is to perform an implementation study in which this PCS test will be provided via selected GPs in the Northern Netherlands

Population-based preconception carrier screening: how potential users from the general population view a test for 50 serious diseases

With the increased international focus on personalized health care and preventive medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has substantially expanded the options for carrier screening of serious, recessively inherited diseases. NGS screening tests not only offer reproductive options not previously available to couples, but they may also ultimately reduce the number of children born with devastating disorders. To date, preconception carrier screening (PCS) has largely targeted single diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but NGS allows the testing of many genes or diseases simultaneously. We have developed an expanded NGS PCS test for couples; simultaneously it covers 50 very serious, early-onset, autosomal recessive diseases that are untreatable. This is the first, noncommercial, population-based, expanded PCS test to be offered prospectively to couples in a health-care setting in Europe. So far, little is known about how potential users view such a PCS test. We therefore performed an online survey in 2014 among 500 people from the target population in the Netherlands. We enquired about their intention to take an expanded PCS test if one was offered, and through which provider they would like to see it offered. One-third of the respondents said they would take such a test were it to be offered. The majority (44%) preferred the test to be offered via their general practitioner (GP) and 58% would be willing to pay for the test, with a median cost of [euro ]75. Our next step is to perform an implementation study in which this PCS test will be provided via selected GPs in the Northern Netherlands

Genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions: opinions of the British adult population and implications for clinical practice

This study set out to explore the attitudes of a representative sample of the British public towards genetic testing in children to predict disease in the future. We sought opinions about genetic testing for adult-onset conditions for which no prevention/treatment is available during childhood, and about genetic 'carrier' status to assess future reproductive risks. The study also examined participants' level of agreement with the reasons professional organisations give in favour of deferring such testing. Participants (n=2998) completed a specially designed questionnaire, distributed by email. Nearly half of the sample (47%) agreed that parents should be able to test their child for adult-onset conditions, even if there is no treatment or prevention at time of testing. This runs contrary to professional guidance about genetic testing in children. Testing for carrier status was supported by a larger proportion (60%). A child's future ability to decide for her/himself if and when to be tested was the least supported argument in favour of deferring testing.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 5 November 2014; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.221