Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences.

BACKGROUND: Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death? METHODS: Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Ethical considerations for modern molecular pathology.

Molecular pathology is becoming an increasingly important discipline in oncology as molecular tumor characteristics will increasingly determine targeted clinical cancer care. In recent years, many technological advances have taken place that contributed to the development of molecular pathology. However, attention to ethical aspects has been lagging behind as illustrated by the lack of publications or professional guidelines. Existing guidelines or publications on ethical aspects of DNA sequencing are mostly aimed at germline or tumor sequencing in clinical genetics or biomedical research settings. As a result, large differences have been demonstrated in the process of tumor sequencing analysis between laboratories. In this perspective we discuss the ethical issues to consider in molecular pathology by following the process of tumor DNA sequencing analysis from the preanalytical to postanalytical phase. For the successful and responsible use of DNA sequencing in clinical cancer care, several moral requirements must be met, for example, those related to the interpretation and returning of genetic results, informed consent, and the retrospective as well as future use of genetic data for biomedical research. Many ethical issues are new to pathology or more stringent than in current practice because DNA sequencing could yield sensitive and potentially relevant data, such as clinically significant unsolicited findings. The context of molecular pathology is unique and complex, but many issues are similar to those applicable to clinical genetics. As such, existing scholarship in this discipline may be translated to molecular pathology with some adaptations and could serve as a basis for guideline development. For responsible use and further development of clinical cancer care, we recommend that pathologists take responsibility for the adequate use of molecular analyses and be fully aware and capable of dealing with the diverse, complex, and challenging aspects of tumor DNA sequencing, including its ethical issues. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Genomic Privacy.

BACKGROUND: Genetic information is unique among all laboratory data because it not only informs the current health of the specific person tested but may also be predictive of the future health of the individual and, to varying degrees, all biological relatives. CONTENT: As DNA sequencing has become ubiquitous with decreasing cost, large repositories of genomic data have emerged from the domains of research, healthcare, law enforcement, international security, and recreational consumer interest (i.e., genealogy). Broadly shared genomic data are believed to be a key element for future discoveries in human disease. For example, the National Cancer Institute's Genomic Data Commons is designed to promote cancer research discoveries by providing free access to the genome data sets of 12000 cancer patients. However, in parallel with the promise of curing diseases, genomic data also have the potential for harm. Genomic data that are deidentified by standard healthcare practices (e.g., removal of name, date of birth) can be reidentified by methods that combine genomic software with publicly available demographic databases (e.g., phone book). Recent law enforcement cases (i.e., Bear Brook Murders, Golden State Killer) in the US have demonstrated the power of combining DNA profiles with genealogy databases. SUMMARY: We examine the current environment of genomic privacy and confidentiality in the US and describe current and future risks to genomic privacy. Reidentification and inference of genetic information of biological relatives will become more important as larger databases of clinical, criminal, and recreational genomic information are developed over the next decade.

Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue.

Suppose that you have deeply personal information that you do not want to share. Further suppose that this information could help others, perhaps even saving their lives. Should you reveal the information or keep it secret? With the increasing prevalence of genetic testing, more and more people are finding themselves in this situation. Although a patient's genetic results are potentially relevant to all her biological family members, her first-degree relatives-parents, children, and full siblings-are most likely to be affected. This is especially true for genetic mutations-like those in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes-that are associated with a dramatically increased risk of disease. Fortunately, people are usually willing to share results with their at-risk relatives. Occasionally, however, a patient refuses to disclose her findings to anyone outside her clinical team. Ethicists have written little on patients' moral duties to their at-risk relatives. Moreover, the few accounts that have been advanced are problematic. Some unnecessarily expose patients' genetic information to relatives who are unlikely to benefit from it, and others fail to ensure that patients' most vulnerable relatives are informed of their genetic risks. Patients' duty to warn can be defended in a way that avoids these problems. I argue that the duty to share one's genetic results is grounded in the principle of rescue-the idea that one ought to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risk of harm to another person when the expected harm is serious and the cost or risk to oneself is sufficiently moderate. When these two criteria are satisfied, a patient will most likely have a duty to warn.

Germline BRCA2 mutations detected in pediatric sequencing studies impact parents' evaluation and care.

There has been no indication to test for BRCA1/2 in children (with the rare exception of Fanconi anemia) as screening begins in adult years and there is a potential to induce anxiety related to adult-onset cancers. However, in the setting of pediatric cancer, with increasing utility and frequency of companion tumor-normal sequencing without regard for phenotype and with BRCA1/2 included in tumor profiling panels, germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other DNA damage repair genes have been found. When mutations in these genes are revealed, there are implications for immediate family members. Here we present two children in whom BRCA2 mutations identified through tumor sequencing prompted parental genetic testing and medical action. These cases illustrate the potential importance of including a matched normal DNA sample when performing tumor profiling of pediatric cancer patients to ensure optimal care.

What can we Learn from Patients' Ethical Thinking about the right 'not to know' in Genomics? Lessons from Cancer Genetic Testing for Genetic Counselling.

This article is based on a qualitative empirical project about a distinct kinship group who were among the first identified internationally as having a genetic susceptibility to cancer (Lynch Syndrome). 50 were invited to participate (42 were tested; eight declined genetic testing). 15, who had all accepted testing, were interviewed. They form a unique case study. This study aimed to explore interviewees' experiences of genetic testing and how these influenced their family relationships. A key finding was that participants framed the decision to be tested as 'common sense'; the idea of choice around the decision was negated and replaced by a moral imperative to be tested. Those who did not follow 'common sense' were judged to be imprudent. Family members who declined testing were discussed negatively by participants. The article addresses what is ethically problematic about how test decliners were discussed and whether these ethical concerns extend to others who are offered genetic testing. Discussions showed that genetic testing was viewed as both an autonomous choice and a responsibility. Yet the apparent conflict between the right to autonomy and the moral imperative of responsibility allowed participants to defend test decliners' decisions by expressing a preference for or defending choice over responsibility. The 'right not to know' seemed an important moral construct to help ethically manage unpopular decisions made by close family who declined testing. In light of this research, the erosion of the 'right not to know' in the genomic age could have subtle yet profound consequences for family relationships.

The Double Helix: Applying an Ethic of Care to the Duty to Warn Genetic Relatives of Genetic Information.

Genetic testing reveals information about a patient's health status and predictions about the patient's future wellness, while also potentially disclosing health information relevant to other family members. With the increasing availability and affordability of genetic testing and the integration of genetics into mainstream medicine, the importance of clarifying the scope of confidentiality and the rules regarding disclosure of genetic findings to genetic relatives is prime. The United Nations International Declaration on Human Genetic Data urges an appreciation for principles of equality, justice, solidarity and responsibility in the context of genetic testing, including a commitment to honoring the privacy and security of the person tested. Considering this global mandate and recent professional statements in the context of a legal amendment to patient privacy policies in Australia, a fresh scrutiny of the legal history of a physician's duty to warn is warranted. This article inquiries whether there may be anything ethically or socially amiss with a potential future recommendation for health professionals or patients to universally disclose particular cancer predisposition genetic diagnosis to genetic family members. While much of the discussion remains applicable to all genetic diagnosis, the article focuses on the practice of disclosure within the context of BRCA1/2 diagnosis. An 'ethic of care' interpretation of legal tradition and current practice will serve to reconcile law and medical policy on the issue of physician disclosure of genetic results to family members without patient consent.

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.

The responses of research participants and their next of kin to receiving feedback of genetic test results following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: The generation of clinically significant genetic data during research studies raises a number of ethical issues about the feedback of this information to research participants. Little is known about research participants' experiences of this practice. METHODS: This qualitative interview study investigated research participants' (n = 10) or their nominated next of kin's (relatives) (n = 15) experiences of receiving BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test information following participation in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. RESULTS: Interviewees had mixed responses to receiving feedback. The participants of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study were more positive about receiving feedback, acknowledging that the genetic information may be useful for their kin. Relatives frequently described themselves as initially distressed at receiving feedback, particularly those who were unaware of the participation of their mothers in the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. The participants of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study and their relatives expressed an intention to disseminate the information to relatives following confirmation of the result. CONCLUSION: We suggest that research participants be encouraged to discuss their participation with family members from the outset. We also outline a number of different strategies for providing feedback to research participants and their next of kin that may lessen the immediate negative impact of receiving feedback of research results.

[Current medicolegal and ethical issues in pathology]. / Aktuelle medizinrechtliche und -ethische Herausforderungen der Pathologie.

The increase in density of information available in relation to patients and research participants, in particular in the context of genetic diagnostics and analysis, results in an increased potential for uncovering details which were unexpected but are of particular significance for the patient. Deciding how this information is dealt with and who is entitled to receive this information, is a medicolegal and ethical balancing act. Incidental findings and the challenges posed by the advent of personalised medicine are but two areas which increasingly impact medical disciplines that do not conventionally work directly with patients. Both areas raise questions of what is legally required and morally necessary. The authors briefly sketch these two areas and the medicolegal and ethical implications for diagnostics and research in pathology.

Privacy protection in whole-genome sequencing.

A report from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues offers several recommendations to help protect the privacy of patients who have whole-genome sequencing.

Delineando fronteiras: reflexão sobre os limites éticos para a aplicação de tecnologias genéticas / Delineating boundaries: reflection on the ethical limits for applying genetic technologies

Este artigo objetiva desenvolver uma reflexão sobre os limites éticos para os usos da engenharia genética em humanos. Para tanto, buscou-se delinear fronteiras éticas entre as duas finalidades para intervençães genéticas: tratamento e melhoramento. Adicionalmente, foi desenvolvido breve retrospecto histórico sobre as investidas eugenistas eclodidas no Brasil, Alemanha e Estados Unidos. Também foram introduzidos argumentos frequentemente empregados contra as intervençães genéticas: a antinaturalidade, o brincar de Deus, a trapaça social, o uso de informaçães genéticas, as implicaçães da manipulação de células germinativas e o recurso lógico às ladeiras escorregadias. O artigo finaliza advertindo para a necessidade do estabelecimento de um debate público sobre o tema, visando propiciar a criação de leis e códigos éticos reguladores da prática científica e médica sobre as tecnologias de manipulação genética. Contudo, tal fato demanda, necessariamente, melhor qualidade de educação e informação da sociedade brasileira, principalmente no âmbito escolar.

[Ethical problems of mutagenesis and genetic testing at the workplace].

Selected ethical problems arising in the studies of mutagenic effects and genetic testing at the workplace (genetic monitoring and genetic screening) are discussed.

Challenges and pitfalls in the introduction of pharmacogenetics for cancer.

There have been several success stories in the field of pharmacogenetics in recent years, including the analysis of HER2 amplification for trastuzumab selection in breast cancer and VKORC1 genotyping for warfarin dosing in thrombosis. Encouraging results from these studies suggest that genetic factors may indeed be important determinants of drug response and toxicity for at least some drugs. However, to apply pharmacogenetics appropriately, a thorough understanding of the scope and limitations of this field is required. The challenges include an appreciation of biological variability, logistical issues pertaining to the proper management of information, the need for robust methods and adequate sample quality with well-designed workflows. At the same time, the economics of pharmacogenetic testing from the perspective of clinicians, patients, governments, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies will play an important role in determining its future use. Ethical considerations such as informed consent and patient privacy, as well as the role of regulatory bodies in addressing these issues, must be fully understood. Only once these issues are properly dealt with can the full benefits of pharmacogenetics begin to be realised.