Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T17:24:04.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Challenge of Informed Consent and Return of Results in Translational Genomics: Empirical Analysis and Recommendations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Gail E. Henderson ,
Susan M. Wolf ,
Kristine J. Kuczynski ,
Steven Joffe ,
Richard R. Sharp ,
D. Williams Parsons ,
Bartha M. Knoppers ,
Joon-Ho Yu  and
Paul S. Appelbaum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Large-scale sequencing tests, including whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS), are rapidly moving into clinical use. Sequencing is already being used clinically to identify therapeutic opportunities for cancer patients who have run out of conventional treatment options, to help diagnose children with puzzling neurodevelopmental conditions, and to clarify appropriate drug choices and dosing in individuals. To evaluate and support clinical applications of these technologies, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) have funded studies on clinical and research sequencing under the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) program as well as studies on return of results (RoR). Most of these studies use sequencing in real-world clinical settings and collect data on both the application of sequencing and the impact of receiving genomic findings on study participants. They are occurring in the context of controversy over how to obtain consent for exome and genome sequencing.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , Fall 2014 , pp. 344 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Manolio, T. A.et al, “Implementing Genomic Medicine in the Clinic: The Future Is Here,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 4 (2013): 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See ACMG Board of Directors, “Points to Consider for Informed Consent for Genome/Exome Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 9 (2013): 748–749;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayuso, C.et al, “Informed Consent for Whole-Genome Sequencing Studies in the Clinical Setting: Proposed Recommendations on Essential Content and Process,” European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 10 (2013): 1054–1059;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caulfield, T.et al, “Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement,” PLoS Biology 6, no. 3 (2008): e73;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, G. E., “Is Informed Consent Broken?” American Journal of the Medical Sciences 342, no. 4 (2011): 267–272;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronenthal, C. Delaney, S. K. Christman, M. F., “Broadening Research Consent in the Era of Genome-Informed Medicine,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 432–436;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, A. L. Beskow, L. M., “Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11 (2010): 361–381;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormond, K. E.et al, “Challenges in the Clinical Application of Whole-Genome Sequencing,” The Lancet 375, no. 9727 (2010): 1749–1751;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing, October 2012, available at <http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PrivacyProgress508_1.pdf>(last visited July 30, 2014);.(last+visited+July+30,+2014);.>Google Scholar
Sharp, R. R., “Downsizing Genomic Medicine: Approaching the Ethical Complexity of Whole-Genome Sequencing by Starting Small,” Genetics in Medicine 13, no. 3 (2011): 191–194;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trinidad, S. B.et al, “Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think?” AJOB Primary Research 3, no. 3 (2012): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ACMG Board of Directors, “Points to Consider in the Clinical Application of Genomic Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 8 (2012): 759–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. C.et al, “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 7 (2013): 565–574;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), “Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 8 (2013): 664–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Burke, W.et al, “Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need To Talk!” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 854–859;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwen, J. E. Boyer, J. T. Sun, K. Y., “Evolving Approaches to the Ethical Management of Genomic Data,” Trends in Genetics 29, no. 6 (2013): 375–382;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, A. L.et al, “Point-Counterpoint. Ethics and Genomic Incidental Findings,” Science 340, no. 6136 (2013): 1047–1048;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts, December 2013, available at <http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf>(last visited July 30, 2014);.(last+visited+July+30,+2014);.>Google Scholar
Wolf, S. M. Annas, G. J. Elias, S., “Point-Counterpoint. Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics,” Science 340, no. 6136 (2013): 1049–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), ACMG Updates Recommendation on “Opt Out” for Genome Sequencing Return of Results, April 1, 2014, available at <https://www.acmg.net/docs/Release_ACMGUpdatesRecommendations_final.pdf>(last visited July 30, 2014).(last+visited+July+30,+2014).>Google Scholar
See Green, et al, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Allen, C. Foulkes, W. D., “Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Consent Forms Used in Cancer Genome Sequencing,” BMC Medical Ethics 12, no. 1 (2011): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), “Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research,” available at <http://www.genome.gov/27546194>(last visited July 30, 2014).(last+visited+July+30,+2014).>Google Scholar
See Wolf, S. M.et al, “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Knoppers, B. M. Zawati, M. H. Kirby, E. S., “Sampling Populations of Humans Across the World: ELSI Issues,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 13 (2012): 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), “Informed Consent for Genomics Research,” available at <http://www.genome.gov/27026588>(last visited July 30, 2014).(last+visited+July+30,+2014).>Google Scholar
See Allen, Foulkes, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
See Manolio, et al, supra note 1.Google Scholar
See Green, et al, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id, at 567.Google Scholar
See ACMG, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Kannry, J. L. Williams, M. S., “Integration of Genomics into the Electronic Health Record: Mapping Terra Incognita,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 10 (2013): 757–760;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazin, R.et al, “Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Incorporating Genomic Information into Electronic Health Records,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 10 (2013): 810–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paasche-Orlow, M. K.et al, “Readability of Consent Form Templates: A Second Look,” IRB 35, no. 4 (2013): 12–19.Google Scholar
See NHGRI, supra note 12.Google Scholar