Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Full sharing of the electronic health record with patients has been identified as an important opportunity to engage patients in their health and health care. The My HealtheVet Pilot, the initial personal health record of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, allowed patients and their delegates to view and download content in their electronic health record, including clinical notes, laboratory tests, and imaging reports. OBJECTIVE: A qualitative study with purposeful sampling sought to examine patients' views and experiences with reading their health records, including their clinical notes, online. METHODS: Five focus group sessions were conducted with patients and family members who enrolled in the My HealtheVet Pilot at the Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Oregon. A total of 30 patients enrolled in the My HealtheVet Pilot, and 6 family members who had accessed and viewed their electronic health records participated in the sessions. RESULTS: Four themes characterized patient experiences with reading the full complement of their health information. Patients felt that seeing their records positively affected communication with providers and the health system, enhanced knowledge of their health and improved self-care, and allowed for greater participation in the quality of their care such as follow-up of abnormal test results or decision-making on when to seek care. While some patients felt that seeing previously undisclosed information, derogatory language, or inconsistencies in their notes caused challenges, they overwhelmingly felt that having more, rather than less, of their health record information provided benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and their delegates had predominantly positive experiences with health record transparency and the open sharing of notes and test results. Viewing their records appears to empower patients and enhance their contributions to care, calling into question common provider concerns about the effect of full record access on patient well-being. While shared records may or may not impact overall clinic workload, it is likely to change providers' work, necessitating new types of skills to communicate and partner with patients.

Genetic screening.

Current approaches to genetic screening include newborn screening to identify infants who would benefit from early treatment, reproductive genetic screening to assist reproductive decision making, and family history assessment to identify individuals who would benefit from additional prevention measures. Although the traditional goal of screening is to identify early disease or risk in order to implement preventive therapy, genetic screening has always included an atypical element-information relevant to reproductive decisions. New technologies offer increasingly comprehensive identification of genetic conditions and susceptibilities. Tests based on these technologies are generating a different approach to screening that seeks to inform individuals about all of their genetic traits and susceptibilities for purposes that incorporate rapid diagnosis, family planning, and expediting of research, as well as the traditional screening goal of improving prevention. Use of these tests in population screening will increase the challenges already encountered in genetic screening programs, including false-positive and ambiguous test results, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings. Whether this approach is desirable requires further empiric research, but it also requires careful deliberation on the part of all concerned, including genomic researchers, clinicians, public health officials, health care payers, and especially those who will be the recipients of this novel screening approach.

Essential elements of personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Genomic information has been promoted as the basis for "personalized" health care. We considered the benefits provided by genomic testing in context of the concept of personalized medicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated current and potential uses of genomic testing in health care, using prostate cancer as an example, and considered their implications for individualizing or otherwise improving health care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Personalized medicine is most accurately seen as a comprehensive effort to tailor health care to the individual, spanning multiple dimensions. While genomic tests will offer many potential opportunities to improve the delivery of care, including the potential for genomic research to offer opportunities to improve prostate cancer screening and treatment, such advances do not in themselves constitute a paradigm shift in the delivery of health care. Rather, personalized medicine is based on a partnership between clinician and patient that utilizes shared decision making to determine the best health care options among the available choices, weighing the patient's personal values and preferences together with clinical findings. This approach is particularly important for difficult clinical decisions involving uncertainty and trade-offs, such as those involved in prostate cancer screening and management. The delivery of personalized medicine also requires adequate health care access and assurance that basic health needs have been met. Substantial research investment will be needed to identify how genomic tests can contribute to this effort.

Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research.

Family-based research is essential to understanding the genetic and environmental etiology of human disease. The success of family-based research often depends on investigators' ability to identify, recruit, and achieve a high participation rate among eligible family members. However, recruitment of family members raises ethical concerns due to the tension between protecting participants' privacy and promoting research quality, and guidelines for these activities are not well established. The Cancer Genetics Network Bioethics Committee assembled a multidisciplinary group to explore the scientific and ethical issues that arise in the process of family-based recruitment. The group used a literature review as well as expert opinion to develop recommendations about appropriate approaches to identifying, contacting, and recruiting family members. We conclude that there is no single correct approach, but recommend a balanced approach that takes into account the nature of the particular study as well as its recruitment goals. Recruitment of family members should be viewed as part of the research protocol and should require appropriate informed consent of the already-enrolled participant. Investigators should inform prospective participants why they are being contacted, how information about them was obtained, and what will happen to that information if they decide not to participate. The recruitment process should also be sensitive to the fact that some individuals from families at increased genetic risk will have no prior knowledge of their risk status. These recommendations are put forward to promote further discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to family-based recruitment. They suggest a framework for considering alternative recruitment strategies and their implications, as well as highlight areas in need of further empirical research.