IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders—Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewers—has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue

Ashkenazi Jews: Overburdened and Overexposed?

Utilizing a closed-ended survey and three focus groups drawn from one Midwest city, this study examined attitudes of Ashkenazi Jews toward involvement in genetic research. The research is framed within an analysis of the extent of Ashkenazi involvement in research; factors that make this group an attractive object of genetic study; cultural, historical, and religious factors within the group that drive people\u27s attitudes toward being subjects of genetic research; community consent as a possible response to concerns within this population about research participation. Although some participants had concerns about discrimination and privacy, there was a clear sense of the potential benefits of genetic research and testing. The majority of respondents did not agree that genetic research could hurt the image of the Jewish community. Subjects expressed consensus that decisions about participation in research should be made by individuals, and not by the community. In conclusion, Ashkenazi Jews in this study did not feel overstudied and overexposed. They were not interested in community consultation or consent for genetic research on their ethnic group

Genomics and Newborn Screening: Perspectives of Public Health Programs

This study assesses the benefits and challenges of using genomics in Newborn Screening Programs (NBS) from the perspectives of State program officials. This project aims to help programs develop policies that will aid in the integration of genomic technology. Discussion groups were conducted with the NBS Program and Laboratory Directors in the seven HRSA Regional Genomics Collaboratives (August 2014–March 2016). The discussion groups addressed expected uses of genomics, potential benefits, and challenges of integrating genomic technology, and educational needs for parents and other NBS stakeholders: Twelve focus groups were conducted, which included participants from over 40 state programs. Benefits of incorporating genomics included improving screening modalities, supporting diagnostic procedures, and screening for a wider spectrum of disorders. Challenges included the costs of genomics, the ability to educate parents and health care providers about results, and the potential negative psychosocial impact of genomic information. Attempts to address the challenges of integrating genomics must focus on preserving the child welfare goals of NBS programs. Health departments will need to explore how genomics could be used to enhance programs while maintaining universal access to screening

“A rising tide lifts all boats”: establishing a multidisciplinary genomic tumor board for breast cancer patients with advanced disease

Abstract Background Research suggests that multidisciplinary genomic tumor boards (MGTB) can inform cancer patient care, though little is known about factors influencing how MGTBs interpret genomic test results, make recommendations, and perceive the utility of this approach. This study’s objective was to observe, describe, and assess the establishment of the Breast Multidisciplinary Genomic Tumor Board, the first MGTB focused on interpreting genomic test results for breast cancer patients with advanced disease. Methods We conducted a qualitative case study involving participant observation at monthly MGTB meetings from October 2013 through November 2014 and interviews with 12 MGTB members. We analyzed social dynamics and interactions within the MGTB regarding interpretation of genomic findings and participants’ views on effectiveness of the MGTB in using genomics to inform patient care. Results Twenty-two physicians, physician-scientists, basic scientists, bioethicists, and allied care professionals comprised the MGTB. The MGTB reviewed FoundationOne™ results for 40 metastatic breast cancer patients. Based on findings, the board mostly recommended referring patients to clinical trials (34) and medical genetics (15), and Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA) breast cancer therapies (13). Though multidisciplinary, recommendations were driven by medical oncologists. Interviewees described providing more precise care recommendations and professional development as advantages and the limited actionability of genomic test results as a challenge for the MGTB. Conclusions Findings suggest both feasibility and desirability of pooling professional expertise in genomically-guided breast cancer care and challenges to institutionalizing a Breast MGTB, specifically in promoting interdisciplinary contributions and managing limited actionability of genomic test results for patients with advanced disease

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders—Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewers—has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants wanted to know the result. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research, and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., CLIA lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow return (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results