Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU.

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

A Survey of Overlapping Surgery Policies at U.S. Hospitals.

The authors surveyed hospitals across the country on their policies regarding overlapping surgery, and found large variation between hospitals in how this practice is regulated. Specifically, institutions chose to define "critical portions" in a variety of ways, ultimately affecting not only surgical efficiency but also the autonomy of surgical trainees and patient experiences at these different hospitals.

Health and kinship matter: Learning about direct-to-consumer genetic testing user experiences via online discussions.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), but little is known about individuals' motivations and experiences (e.g., discussion topics and emotions after obtaining the test results) in engaging with DTC-GT services. Previous studies either involved only a small number of DTC-GT consumers or were based on hypothetical scenarios. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating online discussions about DTC-GT that developed naturally among tens of thousands of social media users. METHODS: We focused on the posts that were published in the r/23andme and r/AncestryDNA subreddits, which correspond to the two companies with the largest number of consumers in the DTC-GT market. We applied computational methods to infer and examine the topics discussed, temporal trends in posting rates and themes (e.g., aggregation of related topics), and emotions expressed in these online forums. RESULTS: We collected 157,000 posts published by 16,500 Reddit users between 2013 and 2019. We found that the posting rates increased sharply after popular promotional events (e.g., each Amazon Prime Day and Black Friday) and most posts were inquiries into, or status updates about, testing progress. The inferred themes of Ancestral Origin and Kinship/Feelings were the two most frequently discussed, while discussions about the Health Risks theme focused primarily on submitting DTC-GT raw data to third parties for interpretation. The Kinship/Feelings theme exhibited the largest range of emotional response. A qualitative review of the posts with extreme emotions showed that some people became excited because they found their biological parents or other kin, while others became upset because they unexpectedly found that their parents or other kin were not biologically related to them. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that online social media platforms can serve as a rich resource for characterizing actual DTC-GT experiences. The findings suggest that DTC-GT consumers' purchasing behaviors are associated with societal events and that future investigations should consider how DTC-GT challenges our understanding of kinship structure and function, genomic privacy, and the interpretation of health risks.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years. RESULTS: Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.

Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again.

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

PURPOSE: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Enrichment sampling for a multi-site patient survey using electronic health records and census data.

Objective: We describe a stratified sampling design that combines electronic health records (EHRs) and United States Census (USC) data to construct the sampling frame and an algorithm to enrich the sample with individuals belonging to rarer strata. Materials and Methods: This design was developed for a multi-site survey that sought to examine patient concerns about and barriers to participating in research studies, especially among under-studied populations (eg, minorities, low educational attainment). We defined sampling strata by cross-tabulating several socio-demographic variables obtained from EHR and augmented with census-block-level USC data. We oversampled rarer and historically underrepresented subpopulations. Results: The sampling strategy, which included USC-supplemented EHR data, led to a far more diverse sample than would have been expected under random sampling (eg, 3-, 8-, 7-, and 12-fold increase in African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and those with less than a high school degree, respectively). We observed that our EHR data tended to misclassify minority races more often than majority races, and that non-majority races, Latino ethnicity, younger adult age, lower education, and urban/suburban living were each associated with lower response rates to the mailed surveys. Discussion: We observed substantial enrichment from rarer subpopulations. The magnitude of the enrichment depends on the accuracy of the variables that define the sampling strata and the overall response rate. Conclusion: EHR and USC data may be used to define sampling strata that in turn may be used to enrich the final study sample. This design may be of particular interest for studies of rarer and understudied populations.

Protecting Life While Preserving Liberty: Ethical Recommendations for Suicide Prevention With Artificial Intelligence.

In the United States, suicide increased by 24% in the past 20 years, and suicide risk identification at point-of-care remains a cornerstone of the effort to curb this epidemic (1). As risk identification is difficult because of symptom under-reporting, timing, or lack of screening, healthcare systems rely increasingly on risk scoring and now artificial intelligence (AI) to assess risk. AI remains the science of solving problems and accomplishing tasks, through automated or computational means, that normally require human intelligence. This science is decades-old and includes traditional predictive statistics and machine learning. Only in the last few years has it been applied rigorously in suicide risk prediction and prevention. Applying AI in this context raises significant ethical concern, particularly in balancing beneficence and respecting personal autonomy. To navigate the ethical issues raised by suicide risk prediction, we provide recommendations in three areas-communication, consent, and controls-for both providers and researchers (2).

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.

Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals' willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically "are you worried about genetic privacy," the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors-sociocultural, relational, and media-that influence people's opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research.

Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is primarily used to address specific clinical concerns by detecting risk of future disease, clarifying diagnosis, or directing treatment. Additionally, CGES makes possible the disclosure of autosomal recessive and X-linked carrier results as additional secondary findings, and research about the impact of carrier results disclosure in this context is needed. METHODS: Representatives from 11 projects in the clinical sequencing exploratory research (CSER) consortium collected data from their projects using a structured survey. The survey focused on project characteristics, which variants were offered and/or disclosed to participants as carrier results, methods for carrier results disclosure, and project-specific outcomes. We recorded quantitative responses and report descriptive statistics with the aim of describing the variability in approaches to disclosing carrier results in translational genomics research projects. RESULTS: The proportion of participants with carrier results was related to the number of genes included, ranging from 3% (three genes) to 92% (4,600 genes). Between one and seven results were disclosed to those participants who received any positive result. Most projects offered participants choices about whether to receive some or all of the carrier results. There were a range of approaches to communicate results, and many projects used separate approaches for disclosing positive and negative results. CONCLUSION: Future translational genomics research projects will need to make decisions regarding whether and how to disclose carrier results. The CSER consortium experience identifies approaches that balance potential participant interest while limiting impact on project resources.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

PURPOSE: In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed that de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. The National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect in 2015, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes toward biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Science, EthxWeb, and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR. RESULTS: The final 48 studies included surveys (n = 23), focus groups (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 14), interviews (n = 1), and consent form analyses (n = 2). Study quality was characterized as good (n = 19), fair (n = 27), and poor (n = 2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but it was lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and when pharmaceutical companies had access to data. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.Genet Med 18 7, 663-671.

Privacy in the Genomic Era.

Genome sequencing technology has advanced at a rapid pace and it is now possible to generate highly-detailed genotypes inexpensively. The collection and analysis of such data has the potential to support various applications, including personalized medical services. While the benefits of the genomics revolution are trumpeted by the biomedical community, the increased availability of such data has major implications for personal privacy; notably because the genome has certain essential features, which include (but are not limited to) (i) an association with traits and certain diseases, (ii) identification capability (e.g., forensics), and (iii) revelation of family relationships. Moreover, direct-to-consumer DNA testing increases the likelihood that genome data will be made available in less regulated environments, such as the Internet and for-profit companies. The problem of genome data privacy thus resides at the crossroads of computer science, medicine, and public policy. While the computer scientists have addressed data privacy for various data types, there has been less attention dedicated to genomic data. Thus, the goal of this paper is to provide a systematization of knowledge for the computer science community. In doing so, we address some of the (sometimes erroneous) beliefs of this field and we report on a survey we conducted about genome data privacy with biomedical specialists. Then, after characterizing the genome privacy problem, we review the state-of-the-art regarding privacy attacks on genomic data and strategies for mitigating such attacks, as well as contextualizing these attacks from the perspective of medicine and public policy. This paper concludes with an enumeration of the challenges for genome data privacy and presents a framework to systematize the analysis of threats and the design of countermeasures as the field moves forward.