Management of Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomic Sequencing Studies

Abstract

Whole‐genome approaches, which are replacing targeted tests in research and clinical practice, increase the chances of ‘incidental findings’ (IFs) – that is, those unrelated to the reason for the test. IFs raise several challenging questions, such as are researchers obliged to disclose IFs, and does this change if the researcher is also a clinician? How can the clinical significance of IFs be determined, and what significance level should determine disclosure? Could family members be tested to help to clarify significance, and if so, how? What should happen if adult‐onset risks are found in children or prenatally? No consensus currently exists about disclosing IFs from research, or about how participants can be helped to make decisions about and give consent (not) to receive them. We recommend that as more research studies that use genome‐wide tests are launched, longitudinal empirical work be conducted to explore participants' experiences and inform best practice for consent and, where relevant, feedback.

Key Concepts

  • Using genome‐wide tests increases the likelihood that findings outside the target area will be made. These are often called ‘incidental findings’ (IFs). Early empirical data show that the chances of finding IFs range between 1% and 7%, depending on the test used.
  • IFs in genetic and genomic medicine differ from those found in imaging or biochemistry because they can predict future risks and risks to family members.
  • Researchers generally are not thought to have a duty of care to research participants, but some experts argue that they ought to return IFs that are clinically valid, medically important and actionable, or even ‘hunt’ for additional findings that fit these criteria.
  • However, research funding for such individualised approaches is often insufficient: protocols do not always include quality assurance procedures, and research teams lack health professionals who can communicate findings to participants.
  • The research‐clinical practice boundary is often blurry: participation to some research studies is offered to patients in the clinic and some promise clinical feedback (e.g. the United Kingdom's 100 000 Genomes Project).
  • Clinical validity is difficult to determine in both research and clinical practice, and this will not necessarily become easier with time, meaning upon discovery, IFs are better thought of as ‘potential incidental findings’.
  • Paediatric IFs introduce more complexity: guidelines and legislation suggest that testing children for adult‐onset conditions should be deferred, but with IFs, the question is not about whether to test the child, but whether to reveal information already found.
  • Prenatal IFs raise the additional issue that women might terminate pregnancies based on information that has uncertain significance.
  • Research about participants' preferences shows that people want to know about all IFs, but this research has been hypothetical and cross‐sectional; thus, satisfaction with real‐life decisions has not been explored.
  • The problem of hypothetical decision making is also relevant in real‐life research settings: at the time of consent, participants are unlikely to have thought about their choices or their implications. Empirical research is thus required to determine best practice in consent and disclosure.

Keywords: incidental findings; genomics; whole‐genome sequencing; whole‐exome sequencing; chromosomal microarray; prenatal; childhood testing; consent

Figure 1. Alternative terms to IFs.
close

References

Ahn JW, Bint S, Irving MD, et al. (2014) A new direction for prenatal chromosome microarray testing: software‐targeting for detection of clinically significant chromosome imbalance without equivocal findings. PeerJ 2: e354.

Alamillo CL, Powis Z, Farwell K, et al. (2015) Exome sequencing positively identified relevant alterations in more than half of cases with an indication of prenatal ultrasound anomalies. Prenatal Diagnosis 35 (11): 1073–1078.

Applebaum P, Waldman CR, Fyer A, et al. (2014) Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research. Genetics in Medicine 16 (5): 367–373.

Bell CJ, Dinwiddie DL, Miller NA, et al. (2011) Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next‐generation sequencing. Science Translational Medicine 3 (65): 65ra4.

Berg JS, Khoury MJ and Evans JP (2011) Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13 (6): 499–504.

Bergner AL, Bollinger J, Raraigh KS, et al. (2014) Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 164A (11): 2745–2752.

Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, et al. (2013) Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genetics in Medicine 15 (2): 139–145.

Bernhardt BA, Tomlinson AN, Lautenbach D et al. (2014) Experience with Obtaining Onformed Consent for Genomic Sequencing: Developing Recommendations for Best Practices. The American Society of Human Genetics conference, October 2014, San Diego, USA.

Bertier G, Zawati MH and Joly Y (2015) The role of whole genome and whole exome sequencing in preventive genomic sequencing programs. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (7): 22–24.

Botkin JR, Belmont JW, Berg JS, et al. (2015) Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Journal of Human Genetics 97 (1): 6–21.

Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Peeters H, et al. (2014) The communication of secondary variants: interviews with parents whose children have undergone array‐CGH testing. Clinical Genetics 86 (3): 207–216.

Crawford G, Foulds N, Fenwick A, et al. (2013) Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genetics in Medicine 15 (11): 896–899.

Drury S (2015) Exome Sequencing ‐ The Future of Prenatal Diagnosis? The Changing Face of Prenatal Diagnosis conference, September 2015, London, UK.

Fernandez CV, Strahlendorf C, Avard D, et al. (2013) Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting. Genetics in Medicine 15 (7): 558–564.

Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin D, et al. (2014) Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genetics in Medicine 16 (8): 633–640.

Gardiner C, Wellesley D, Kilby M, et al. (2015) Recommendations for the use of chromosomal microarray in pregnancy. British Society for Genetic Medicine. Retrieved from http://www.bsgm.org.uk/news‐events/news/recommendations‐for‐the‐use‐of‐chromosome‐microarray‐in‐pregnancy/ (accessed 11 Nov 2015).

Gliwa C and Berkman BE (2013) Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2): 32–42.

Gourna EG, Armstrong N and Wallace SE (2015) Compare and contrast: a cross‐national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. European Journal of Human Genetics. [Epub ahead of print].

Hallowell N, Hall A, Alberg C, et al. (2015) Revealing the results of whole‐genome sequencing and whole‐exome sequencing in research and clinical investigations: some ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4): 317–321.

Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, et al. (2013) Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 41 (6): 610–620.

Hitch K, Joseph G, Guiltinan J, et al. (2014) Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. Journal of Genetic Counseling 23 (4): 539–551.

Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al. (2014) Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. American Journal of Human Genetics 94 (6): 818–826.

Kalynchuk EJ, Althouse A, Parker LS, et al. (2015) Prenatal whole‐exome sequencing: parental attitudes. Prenatal Diagnosis. [Epub ahead of print].

Kaphingst KA, Ivanovich J, Biesecker BB, et al. (2015) Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. Clinical Genetics. [Epub ahead of print].

Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, et al. (2015) Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty‐first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics 23 (2): 141–146.

Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM, Fernandez CV, et al. (2014) Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10): 691–696.

Kleiderman E, Avard D, Besso A, et al. (2015) Disclosure of incidental findings in cancer genomic research: investigators' perceptions on obligations and barriers. Clinical Genetics 88 (4): 320–326.

Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, et al. (2013) Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings. Genetics in Medicine 15 (11): 888–895.

Knoppers BM, Avard D, Senecal K, et al. (2014) Return of whole‐genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. European Journal of Human Genetics 22 (1): 3–5.

Knoppers BM, Zawati MH and Senecal K (2015) Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole‐genome sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics 16 (9): 553–559.

McClellan KA, Kleiderman E, Black L, et al. (2013) Exploring resources for intrafamilial communication of cancer genetic risk: we still need to talk. European Journal of Human Genetics 21 (9): 903–910.

Middleton A, Parker M, Wright CF, et al. (2013) Empirical research on the ethics of genomic research. American Journal of Human Genetics Part A 161A (8): 2099–2101.

Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al. (2015) No expectation to share incidental findings in genomic research. Lancet 385 (9975): 1289–1290.

Nguyen K, Putoux A, Busa T, et al. (2015) Incidental findings on array comparative genomic hybridization: detection of carrier females of dystrophinopathy without any family history. Clinical Genetics 87 (5): 488–491.

O'Rawe J, Jiang T, Sun G, et al. (2013) Low concordance of multiple variant‐calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing. Genome Medicine 5 (3): 28.

Regier DA, Peacock SJ, Pataky R, et al. (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.

Reiff M, Mueller R, Mulchandani S, et al. (2014) A qualitative study of healthcare providers' perspectives on the implications of genome‐wide testing in pediatric clinical practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling 23 (4): 474–488.

Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, et al. (2013) Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Annals of Oncology 24 (Suppl 8): viii69–viii74.

Rigter T, van Aart CJ, Elting MW, et al. (2014) Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clinical Genetics 85 (5): 417–422.

Schuol S, Schickhardt C, Wiemann S, et al. (2015) So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings. Genome Medicine 7 (1): 83‐015‐0198‐3. eCollection 2015.

Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, et al. (2014) Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 16 (5): 395–399.

Shkedi‐Rafid S, Dheensa S, Crawford G, et al. (2014) Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. Journal of Medical Genetics 51 (11): 715–723.

Simon C, Shinkunas LA, Brandt D, et al. (2012) Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (7): 417–422.

Srebniak M, Boter M, Oudesluijs G, et al. (2011) Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow. European Journal of Human Genetics 19 (12): 1230–1237.

Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, et al. (2012) Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 158A (6): 1310–1319.

Thorogood A, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, et al. (2014) An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 88‐6939‐15‐88.

Walser SA, Kellom KS, Palmer SC, et al. (2015) Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing. Prenatal Diagnosis 35 (9): 870–878.

Weiner C (2014) Anticipate and communicate: ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct‐to‐consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). American Journal of Epidemiology 180 (6): 562–564.

Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F, et al. (2014) Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole‐exome sequencing. JAMA 312 (18): 1870–1879.

Zawati Van Ness B and Knoppers BM (2011) Incidental findings in genomic research: a review of international norms. GenEdit 9 (1): 1–8.

Further Reading

Boddington P (2012) Ethical Challenges in Genomics Research: A Guide to Understanding Ethics in Context. London: Springer.

Perry B (2015) Genetics, Health, and Society. USA: Emerald.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Dheensa, Sandi, Shkedi‐Rafid, Shiri, Crawford, Gillian, Bertier, Gabrielle, Schonstein, Lisa, and Lucassen, Anneke(Jan 2016) Management of Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomic Sequencing Studies. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0025838]