Keywords
medical genetics
unsolicited findings
patient disclosure
How to Cite
Abstract
With progress in medical genetics, genome-sequencing techniques are becoming more and more efficient. However, these genetic tests may lead to the detection of unsolicited genetic findings, i.e. findings that are not the primary purpose of the screening. New ethical issues have emerged, in particular the question of whether to disclose these unsolicited findings to the patient or not. Forty-seven patients under supervision in a Medical Genetics service, 15 health professionals and 107 members of the French general population expressed their opinion regarding the appropriateness of disclosing an unsolicited high penetrance genetic finding in 36 scenarios containing three pieces of information on: a) patient information and consent;b) possibility of prevention and treatment of the detected genetic disease; and c) disclosure of the results by the physician (e.g., no disclosure of the unsolicited results). Four positions were found that were called Respect for patient’s autonomy, Beneficence to patient, Non-maleficence, and Always appropriate.
Allyse, M., & Michie, M. (2013). Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends in Biotechnology, 439–441.
Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, N. H. (2016). Information integration theory: Unified psychology based on three mathematıcal laws. Universitas Psychologica: Pan American Journal of Psychology, [Special Issue on Functional Measurement], 15(3).
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 13(6), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba
Bijlsma, R. M., Wessels, H., Wouters, R. H. P., May, A. M., Ausems, M. G. E. M., Voest, E. E., & Bredenoord, A. L. (2017). Cancer patients’ intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing. Familial Cancer, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0033-7
Christenhusz, G. M., Devriendt, K., & Dierickx, K. (2013). To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. European Journal Of Human Genetics: EJHG, 21(3), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.130
Clift, K. E., Halverson, C. M. E., Fiksdal, A. S., Kumbamu, A., Sharp, R. R., & McCormick, J. B. (2015). Patients’ views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing. Applied & Translational Genomics, 4, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.005
Downing, N. R., Williams, J. K., Daack-Hirsch, S., Driessnack, M., & Simon, C. M. (2013). Genetics specialists’ perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Education and Counseling, 90(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.09.010
Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., Biesecker, L. G., Dimmock, D., Evans, J. P., … Jacob, H. J. (2012). Exploring Concordance and Discordance for Return of Incidental Findings from Clinical Sequencing. Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 14(4), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.21
Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., … Biesecker, L. G. (2013). ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 15(7), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73
Green, R. C., Lupski, J. R., & Biesecker, L. G. (2013). Reporting Genomic Sequencing Results to Ordering Clinicians. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(4), 365–366. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.41703
Guedj, M., Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Mullet, E., & Sorum, P. C. (2006). Do French lay people and health professionals find it acceptable to breach confidentiality to protect a patient’s wife from a sexually transmitted disease? Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(7), 414–419. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.012195
Guedj, M., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2012). French lay people’s views regarding the acceptability of involuntary hospitalization of patients suffering from psychiatric illness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.11.010
Haute Autorité de Santé. (2013). Règles de bonnes pratiques en génétique constitutionnelle à des fins médicales (Hors diagnostic prénatal). Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-02/regles_de_bonne_pratique_en_genetique_constitutionnelle_a_des_fins_medicales.pdf
Hehir-Kwa, J. Y., Claustres, M., Hastings, R. J., van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C., Christenhusz, G., Genuardi, M., … Robinson, P. N. (2015). Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(12), 1601–1606. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.111
Igier, V., Sastre, M. T. M., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2015). A Mapping of People’s Positions Regarding the Breaking of Bad News to Patients. Health Communication, 30(7), 694–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.898013
Journal officiel de la République Française. Arrêté du 27 mai 2013 définissant les règles de bonnes pratiques applicables à l’examen des caractéristiques génétiques d’une personne à des fins médicales (2013).
Kalia, S. S., Adelman, K., Bale, S. J., Chung, W. K., Eng, C., Evans, J. P., … Group, on behalf of the A. S. F. M. W. (2017). Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 19(2), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.190
Lemke, A. A., Bick, D., Dimmock, D., Simpson, P., & Veith, R. (2013). Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study. Clinical Genetics, 84(3), 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12060
Lohn, Z., Adam, S., Birch, P., Townsend, A., & Friedman, J. (2013). Genetics professionals’ perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161(3), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35794
Lolkema, M. P., Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk, C. G., Bredenoord, A. L., Kapitein, P., Roach, N., Cuppen, E., … Voest, E. E. (2013). Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. Journal Of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal Of The American Society Of Clinical Oncology, 31(15), 1842–1848. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2789
Middleton, A., Morley, K. I., Bragin, E., Firth, H. V., Hurles, M. E., Wright, C. F., & Parker, M. (2015). Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. European Journal of Human Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.58
Ormond, K. E., Wheeler, M. T., Hudgins, L., Klein, T. E., Butte, A. J., Altman, R. B., … Greely, H. T. (2010). Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. The Lancet, 375(9727), 1749–1751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60599-5
Ploem, C. (2014). Handling Unsolicited Findings in Clinical Care: A Legal Perspective. European Journal of Health Law, 21(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-12341336
Regier, D. A., Peacock, S. J., Pataky, R., Hoek, K. van der, Jarvik, G. P., Hoch, J., & Veenstra, D. (2015). Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(6), E190–E197. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140697
Rigter, T., van Aart, C. j. a., Elting, M. w., Waisfisz, Q., Cornel, M. c., & Henneman, L. (2014). Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clinical Genetics, 85(5), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12299
Roche, M. I., & Berg, J. S. (2015). Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 3(4), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-015-0075-9
Sedkaoui, H., & Mullet, E. (2016). Mapping French people's views on chemical castration of child and adolescent sex offenders. Universitas Psychologica: Panamerican Journal of Psychology [Special Issue on Functional Measurement], 15(3).
Shahmirzadi, L., Chao, E. C., Palmaer, E., Parra, M. C., Tang, S., & Gonzalez, K. D. F. (2014). Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 16(5), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.153
Townsend, A., Adam, S., Birch, P. H., Lohn, Z., Rousseau, F., & Friedman, J. M. (2012). “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s Box”: comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 158A(10), 2519–2525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35554
van El, C. G., Cornel, M. C., Borry, P., Hastings, R. J., Fellmann, F., Hodgson, S. V., … de Wert, G. M. W. R. (2013). Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(6), 580–584. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.46
Wolf, S. M., Annas, G. J., & Elias, S. (2013). Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics. Science, 340(6136), 1049–1050. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239119
Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., Kahn, J. P., Cho, M. K., Clayton, E. W., … Wilfond, B. S. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36(2), 219–248, 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x
Yu, J.-H., Harrell, T. M., Jamal, S. M., Tabor, H. K., & Bamshad, M. J. (2014). Attitudes of Genetics Professionals Toward the Return of Incidental Results from Exome and Whole-Genome Sequencing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 95(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.