State of the Science and Ethical Considerations for Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Monogenic Cystic Kidney Diseases and Ciliopathies.

There is a broad phenotypic spectrum of monogenic polycystic kidney diseases (PKDs). These disorders often involve cilia-related genes and lead to the development of fluid-filled cysts and eventual kidney function decline and failure. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic (PGT-M) disorders has moved into the clinical realm. It allows prospective parents to avoid passing on heritable diseases to their children, including monogenic PKD. The PGT-M process involves embryo generation through in vitro fertilization, with subsequent testing of embryos and selective transfer of those that do not harbor the specific disease-causing variant(s). There is a growing body of literature supporting the success of PGT-M for autosomal-dominant and autosomal-recessive PKD, although with important technical limitations in some cases. This technology can be applied to many other types of monogenic PKD and ciliopathies despite the lack of existing reports in the literature. PGT-M for monogenic PKD, like other forms of assisted reproductive technology, raises important ethical questions. When considering PGT-M for kidney diseases, as well as the potential to avoid disease in future generations, there are regulatory and ethical considerations. These include limited government regulation and unstandardized consent processes, potential technical errors, high cost and equity concerns, risks associated with pregnancy for mothers with kidney disease, and the impact on all involved in the process, including the children who were made possible with this technology.

Experiences of a Multidisciplinary Genomic Tumor Board Interpreting Risk for Underlying Germline Variants in Tumor-Only Sequencing Results.

PURPOSE: Although analyzing germline and tumor samples concurrently provides the best opportunity for differentiating between germline and somatic mutations, tumor-only sequencing is becoming increasingly common in clinical care. The purpose of this study is to assess how a multidisciplinary genomic tumor board (MGTB) evaluated patients' tumor-only sequencing results and made genetics referrals. With limited professional society guidance on how to manage pathogenic mutations identified via tumor-only sequencing, this study contemplates the professional knowledge and skills necessary to have represented on an MGTB to interpret these results in context of potential germline findings. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with MGTB members and an ethnographic case study of a breast cancer MGTB at a National Cancer Institute cancer center were examined. RESULTS: This MGTB discussed 34 cases of women with advanced-stage breast cancer over 13 months. Interviews and observations of MGTB meetings indicated that members of the MGTB contemplated whether variants were germline or somatic and potential for identification of germline cancer predisposition. On the basis of existing professional society guidelines, 18 patients would be eligible for germline testing. However, the MGTB only referred 11 patients (61%) for additional germline testing, and the remaining seven patients (39%) were not referred, raising questions about the kind of genomic expertise needed on an MGTB to optimize results interpretation and referrals. CONCLUSION: To ensure adequate interpretation, recommendation, and communication of tumor sequencing results, an MGTB should include professionals with knowledge and experience in clinical translation of tumor sequencing, testing methodology, molecular pathology, cancer biology, genomic pathways, germline variant interpretation, evaluation of family history, and application of professional recommendations for germline testing after tumor-only sequencing. These skills may not be held by a single professional on an MGTB.

"A rising tide lifts all boats": establishing a multidisciplinary genomic tumor board for breast cancer patients with advanced disease.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that multidisciplinary genomic tumor boards (MGTB) can inform cancer patient care, though little is known about factors influencing how MGTBs interpret genomic test results, make recommendations, and perceive the utility of this approach. This study's objective was to observe, describe, and assess the establishment of the Breast Multidisciplinary Genomic Tumor Board, the first MGTB focused on interpreting genomic test results for breast cancer patients with advanced disease. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative case study involving participant observation at monthly MGTB meetings from October 2013 through November 2014 and interviews with 12 MGTB members. We analyzed social dynamics and interactions within the MGTB regarding interpretation of genomic findings and participants' views on effectiveness of the MGTB in using genomics to inform patient care. RESULTS: Twenty-two physicians, physician-scientists, basic scientists, bioethicists, and allied care professionals comprised the MGTB. The MGTB reviewed FoundationOne™ results for 40 metastatic breast cancer patients. Based on findings, the board mostly recommended referring patients to clinical trials (34) and medical genetics (15), and Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA) breast cancer therapies (13). Though multidisciplinary, recommendations were driven by medical oncologists. Interviewees described providing more precise care recommendations and professional development as advantages and the limited actionability of genomic test results as a challenge for the MGTB. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest both feasibility and desirability of pooling professional expertise in genomically-guided breast cancer care and challenges to institutionalizing a Breast MGTB, specifically in promoting interdisciplinary contributions and managing limited actionability of genomic test results for patients with advanced disease.

Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The use of molecular tools to individualize health care, predict appropriate therapies, and prevent adverse health outcomes has gained significant traction in the field of oncology under the banner of "personalized medicine" (PM). Enthusiasm for PM in oncology has been fueled by success stories of targeted treatments for a variety of cancers based on their molecular profiles. Though these are clear indications of optimism for PM, little is known about the ethical and social implications of personalized approaches in clinical oncology. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess how a range of stakeholders engaged in promoting, monitoring, and providing PM understand the challenges of integrating genomic testing and targeted therapies into clinical oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study involved the analysis of in-depth interviews with 117 stakeholders whose experiences and perspectives on PM span a wide variety of institutional and professional settings. RESULTS: Despite their considerable enthusiasm for this shift, promoters, monitors, and providers of PM identified 4 domains that provoke heightened ethical and social concerns: (1) informed consent for cancer genomic testing, (2) privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of genomic test results, (3) access to genomic testing and targeted therapies in oncology, and (4) the costs of scaling up pharmacogenomic testing and targeted cancer therapies. CONCLUSIONS: These specific concerns are not unique to oncology, or even genomics. However, those most invested in the success of PM view oncologists' responses to these challenges as precedent setting because oncology is farther along the path of clinical integration of genomic technologies than other fields of medicine. This study illustrates that the rapid emergence of PM approaches in clinical oncology provides a crucial lens for identifying and managing potential frictions and pitfalls that emerge as health care paradigms shift in these directions.