Genomic sequencing research in pediatric cancer care: Decision making, attitudes, and perceived utility among adolescents and young adults and their parents.

PURPOSE: Professional guidelines recommend engaging adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in medical decision making (DM), including whether to undergo genomic sequencing (GS). We explored DM around GS and attitudes after return of GS results among a diverse group of AYAs with cancer and their parents. METHODS: We surveyed AYAs with cancer (n = 75) and their parents (n = 52) 6 months after receiving GS results through the Texas KidsCanSeq study. We analyzed AYAs' DM role in GS research enrollment and their satisfaction with that role. We compared AYAs' and parents' self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the AYA's GS results. RESULTS: Most AYAs reported equally sharing DM with their parents (55%) or leading DM (36%) about GS research. Compared with their cancer care DM role, 56% of AYAs reported the same level of involvement in GS research DM, whereas 32% were more involved, and 13% were less involved (P = .011). AYAs were satisfied (99%) with their DM role regarding GS study participation. AYAs and parents had similar self-reported understanding of, attitudes toward, and perceived utility of the GS results. CONCLUSION: Our results support engaging AYAs in DM about GS research and provide insights into AYAs' DM preferences and positive attitudes toward GS.

Families' experiences accessing care after genomic sequencing in the pediatric cancer context: "It's just been a big juggle".

Access to genomic sequencing (GS) and resulting recommendations have not been well described in pediatric oncology. GS results may provide a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) diagnosis that warrants screening and specialist visits beyond cancer treatment, including testing or surveillance for family members. The Texas KidsCanSeq (KCS) Study evaluated implementation of GS in a diverse pediatric oncology population. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 20) to explore experiences of KCS patients' families around learning about a CPS diagnosis and following up on recommended care. We used qualitative content analysis to develop themes and subthemes across families' descriptions of their experiences accessing care and to understand which factors presented barriers and/or facilitators. We found participants had difficulty differentiating which follow-up care recommendations were made for their child's current cancer treatment versus the CPS. In families' access to follow-up care for CPS, organizational factors were crucial: travel time and distance were common hardships, while coordination of care to streamline multiple appointments with different providers helped facilitate CPS care. Financial factors also impacted families' access to CPS-related follow-up care: having financial assistance and insurance were facilitators for families, while costs and lack of insurance posed as barriers for patients who lost coverage during transitions from pediatric to adult care, and for adult family members who had no coverage. Factors related to beliefs and perceptions, specifically perceiving the risk as less salient to them and feeling overwhelmed with the patient's cancer care, presented barriers to follow-up care primarily for family members. Regarding social factors, competing life priorities made it difficult for families to access follow-up care, though having community support alleviated these barriers. We suggest interventions to improve coordination of cancer treatment and CPS-related care and adherence to surveillance protocols for families as children age, such as care navigators and integrating longitudinal genetic counseling into hereditary cancer centers.

Data stewardship in FTLD research: Investigator and research participant views.

INTRODUCTION: Federal policies and guidelines have expanded the return of individual results to participants and expectations for data sharing between investigators and through repositories. Here, we report investigators' and study participants' views and experiences with data stewardship practices within frontotemporal lobal degeneration (FTLD) research, which reveal unique ethical challenges. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with (1) investigators conducting FTLD research that includes genetic data collection and/or analysis and (2) participants enrolled in a single site longitudinal FTLD study. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews identified three meta themes: perspectives on data sharing, experiences with enrollment and participation, and data management and security as mechanisms for participant protections. DISCUSSION: This study identified a set of preliminary gaps and needs regarding data stewardship within FTLD research. The results offer initial insights on ethical challenges to data stewardship aimed at informing future guidelines and policies.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk.

Although the explosive growth of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has moderated, a substantial number of patients are choosing to undergo genetic testing outside the purview of their regular healthcare providers. Further, many industry leaders have been expanding reports to cover many more genes, as well as partnering with employers and others to expand access. This review addresses continuing concerns about DTC genetic testing quality, psychosocial impact, integration with medical practice, effects on the healthcare system, and privacy, as well as emerging concerns about third-party interpretation services and non-health-related uses such as investigative genetic genealogy. It concludes with an examination of two possible futures for DTC genetic testing: merger with traditional modes of healthcare delivery or continuation as a parallel system for patient-driven generation of health-relevant information. Each possibility is associated with distinctive questions related to value and risk.

Building Effective Mentoring Relationships During Clinical Ethics Fellowships: Pedagogy, Programs, and People.

How should clinical ethicists be trained? Scholars have stated that clinical ethics fellowships create well-trained, competent ethicists. While this appears intuitive, few features of fellowship programs have been publicly discussed, let alone debated. In this paper, we examine how fellowships can foster effective mentoring relationships. These relationships provide the foundation for the fellow's transition from novice to competent professional. In this essay, we begin by discussing our pedagogical commitments. Next, we describe the structures our program has created to assist our fellows in becoming competent ethicists. We then outline the kinds of knowledge, skills, and professional attributes mentors should possess. Following this, we focus on the knowledge, skills, and professional attributes that fellows develop as they co-create effective mentoring relationships. We will not prescribe a single approach to fellowship training; instead, our perspective will, we hope, become a catalyst for further conversation on training and mentoring clinical ethics fellows.

Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing.

Prospects have never seemed better for a truly global approach to science to improve human health, with leaders of national initiatives laying out their vision of a worldwide network of related projects. An extensive literature addresses obstacles to global genomic data sharing, yet a series of public polls suggests that the scientific community may be overlooking a significant barrier: potential public resistance to data sharing across national borders. In several large United States surveys, university researchers in other countries were deemed the least acceptable group of data users, and a just-completed US survey found a marked increase in privacy and security concerns related to data access by non-US researchers. Furthermore, diminished support for sharing beyond national borders is not unique to the US, although the limited data from outside the US suggest variation across countries as well as demographic groups. Possible sources of resistance include apprehension about privacy and security protections. Strategies for building public support include making the affirmative case for global data sharing, addressing privacy, security, and other legitimate concerns, and investigating public concerns in greater depth.

Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs?

BACKGROUND: Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. METHODS: We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs. RESULTS: This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.

Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act.

On 13 December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act ("the Act") into law. Many of its provisions support the creation of an "Information Commons," an ecosystem of separate but interconnected initiatives that facilitate open and responsible sharing of genomic and other data for research and clinical purposes. For example, the Act supports the National Institutes of Health in mandating data sharing, provides funding and guidance for the large national cohort program now known as All of Us, expresses congressional support for a global pediatric study network, and strengthens patient access to health information. The Act also addresses potential barriers to data sharing. For example, it makes the issuance of certificates of confidentiality automatic for federally funded research involving "identifiable, sensitive" information and strengthens the associated protections. At the same time, the Act exacerbates or neglects several challenges, for example, increasing complexity by adding a new definition of "identifiable" and failing to address the financial sustainability of data sharing and the scope of commercialization. In sum, the Act is a positive step, yet there is still much work to be done before the goals of broad data sharing and utilization can be achieved.

Legal Barriers to Adolescent Participation in Research About HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections.

Whether adolescents can participate in clinical trials of pharmacologic therapies for HIV prevention, such as preexposure prophylaxis, without parental permission hinges on state minor consent laws. Very few of these laws explicitly authorize adolescents to consent to preventive services for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Unclear state laws may lead to research cessation. We have summarized legal, ethical, and policy considerations related to adolescents' participation in HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention research in the United States, and we have explored strategies for facilitating adolescents' access.

Cultivating Administrative Support for a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service.

Hospital administrators may lack familiarity with what clinical ethicists do (and do not do), and many clinical ethicists report receiving inadequate financial support for their clinical ethics consultation services (CECSs). Ethics consultation is distinct in that it is not reimbursable by third parties, and its financial benefit to the hospital may not be quantifiable. These peculiarities make it difficult for clinical ethicists to resort to tried-and-true outcome-centered evaluative strategies, like cost reduction or shortened length of stay for patients, to show a "need" for ethics consultation. Likewise, it can be difficult for clinical ethicists to "speak the same language" as healthcare administrators and managers, which, in turn, means that CECSs run the risk of being unable to demonstrate value to those who pay for the service. The purpose of this descriptive article is to provide practical guidance to clinical ethicists and program directors on how to cultivate administrative support for a CECS. Specifically, we discuss two elements that clinical ethics leaders must critically appraise and successfully argue to meet the expectations of administrators-the value of a CECS and its fit in clinical workflow.

"Systematizing" ethics consultation services.

While valuable work has been done addressing clinical ethics within established healthcare systems, we anticipate that the projected growth in acquisitions of community hospitals and facilities by large tertiary hospitals will impact the field of clinical ethics and the day-to-day responsibilities of clinical ethicists in ways that have yet to be explored. Toward the goal of providing clinical ethicists guidance on a range of issues that they may encounter in the systematization process, we discuss key considerations and potential challenges in implementing system-wide ethics consultation services. Specifically, we identify four models for organizing, developing, and enhancing ethics consultation activities within a system created through acquisitions: (1) train-the-trainer, (2) local capacity-building, (3) circuit-riding, and (4) consolidated accountability. We note each model's benefits and challenges. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to consider the broader landscape of issues affected by consolidation. We anticipate that clinical ethicists, volunteer consultants, and hospital administrators will benefit from our recommendations.

Translational Research and Health Equity: Gene Therapies for Sickle Cell Disease as a Case Study.

In August of 2023, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine published a timely report titled "Toward Equitable Innovation in Health and Medicine: A Framework." Here, we review some of the key contributions of the report, focusing on two dimensions of equity: input equity and deployment equity. We then use the example of new gene therapies to treat sickle cell disease (SCD) as a case study of input and deployment equity in translational research. The SCD case study illustrates the need for a kind of translational bioethics with deep understanding of lived experiences and clinical realities as well as a high degree of economic and policy sophistication.

Policy options to facilitate cancer genomic variant data sharing: outcomes of a modified policy Delphi.

Sharing cancer gene variant and relevant clinical data could accelerate progress in cancer genomics. However, data sharing is currently impeded by issues related to financial sustainability, equity, incentives, privacy and security, and data quality. Evidence-based policy options to facilitate data sharing in these domains, and ultimately improve interpretation of cancer-associated genomic variants, are therefore needed. We conducted a modified policy Delphi with expert stakeholders that involved generating, evaluating, and ranking potential policy options to address these issues, with a focus on the US context. We found policy options in the financial sustainability domain were highly ranked, particularly stable funding for trusted entities. However, some Delphi panelists noted that the culture of public research funding has favored short-term grants. Panelists favored policy options focused on action by funders, which had the highest overall total scores that combined effectiveness and feasibility ratings and priority ranking within domains. Panelists also endorsed some policy options connected to actors such as journals, but they were more skeptical of policy options connected to legislative actors and data resources. These findings are critical inputs for policy makers as they consider policies to enable sharing of cancer gene variant data to improve health.

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability.

As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.

Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research.

Purpose: With increased use of genomic testing in cancer research and clinical care, it is important to understand the perspectives and decision-making preferences of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer and their treating oncologists. Methods: We conducted an interview substudy of the BASIC3 Study, which enrolled newly diagnosed cancer patients <18 years of age with assent. Of 32 young adults (YAs) with cancer who reached the age of majority (AOM; 18 years) while on study, 12 were successfully approached and all consented to study continuation at AOM. Of those, seven completed an interview. Patients' oncologists, who enrolled and participated in return of clinical genomic results, were also interviewed (n = 12). Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: YAs cited the possibility of helping others and advancing science as major reasons for their assent to initial study enrollment and their willingness to consent at AOM. YAs thought obtaining informed consent from research participants for study continuation at AOM was a good idea in case they changed their minds or wanted to make their own decisions, and to keep them aware of study activities. There was diversity in what YAs understood and learned from genomic testing: some recalled specific findings, while some remembered minimal information about their results. Oncologists varied in their assessment of adolescents' engagement with the study and understanding of their results. Conclusion: Given the different ways AYAs engage with genomic information, careful assessment of AYAs' diverse communication and decision-making preferences is needed to tailor interactions accordingly.

Benefits of sharing neurophysiology data from the BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans Consortium.

Sharing human brain data can yield scientific benefits, but because of various disincentives, only a fraction of these data is currently shared. We profile three successful data-sharing experiences from the NIH BRAIN Initiative Research Opportunities in Humans (ROH) Consortium and demonstrate benefits to data producers and to users.

National Institutes of Mental Health Data Archive: Privacy, Consent, and Diversity Considerations and Options for Improvement.

Data sharing is essential to further advance the field of neuropsychiatry. However, it raises significant ethical issues in the domains of privacy, consent, and diversity. We begin by considering the sensitive nature of much neuropsychiatric data. Next, we review relevant policies of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), a prominent funder in this field. Because data sharing in neuropsychiatry is in its infancy and rapidly evolving, the NIMH policies serve as a helpful starting point for examining ethical considerations related to the collection and distribution of neuropsychiatric data. However, we find gaps in their guidance in each of the three key ethical domains. Finally, we illustrate how examination of lessons and strategies from other contexts where sustained attention has already been given to these ethical issues may add value by suggesting specific opportunities for improvement. In particular, we highlight approaches including a three-tiered data access scheme, use of technology to enhance the data sharing component of the informed consent process, and evidence-based, targeted recruitment of underrepresented populations to support diverse data resources. Assessment of current policy and potentially helpful innovations in other fields is a necessary step in moving the field forward in an ethically responsible manner.

Hashtag who's missing? Lessons for genomic databases.

Genomic databases support research intended to advance understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Utility is linked to diversity, and initiatives are seeking to enroll traditionally underrepresented groups such as people with disabilities. Commentators have called for adoption of a participant-centric approach to build trust and address barriers to inclusion. Complexities emerge, however, when minors are enrolled and whose perspective on their condition may with time diverge from their parents' perspective. Public response to MSSNG, a genomic database focused on autism, and public discourse regarding neurodiversity reveal division regarding autism as a difference or identity versus a disease. We explore what it means for genomic databases enrolling individuals, particularly minors, with disabilities to be participant-centric when affected individuals disagree about the nature of their condition and research priorities, offering recommendations for participant engagement and measures when enrolling minors with conditions that are the subject of difference-disease debates.

Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi Panel Deliberation.

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources-a "cancer gene variant commons"-incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers.