The ethical challenges of diversifying genomic data: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

This article aims to explore the ethical issues arising from attempts to diversify genomic data and include individuals from underserved groups in studies exploring the relationship between genomics and health. We employed a qualitative synthesis design, combining data from three sources: 1) a rapid review of empirical articles published between 2000 and 2022 with a primary or secondary focus on diversifying genomic data, or the inclusion of underserved groups and ethical issues arising from this, 2) an expert workshop and 3) a narrative review. Using these three sources we found that ethical issues are interconnected across structural factors and research practices. Structural issues include failing to engage with the politics of knowledge production, existing inequities, and their effects on how harms and benefits of genomics are distributed. Issues related to research practices include a lack of reflexivity, exploitative dynamics and the failure to prioritise meaningful co-production. Ethical issues arise from both the structure and the practice of research, which can inhibit researcher and participant opportunities to diversify data in an ethical way. Diverse data are not ethical in and of themselves, and without being attentive to the social, historical and political contexts that shape the lives of potential participants, endeavours to diversify genomic data run the risk of worsening existing inequities. Efforts to construct more representative genomic datasets need to develop ethical approaches that are situated within wider attempts to make the enterprise of genomics more equitable.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.

Ethical preparedness in genomic medicine: how NHS clinical scientists navigate ethical issues.

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking.

Prospective study design and data analysis in UK Biobank.

Population-based prospective studies, such as UK Biobank, are valuable for generating and testing hypotheses about the potential causes of human disease. We describe how UK Biobank's study design, data access policies, and approaches to statistical analysis can help to minimize error and improve the interpretability of research findings, with implications for other population-based prospective studies being established worldwide.

Glowing gels and pipettes aplenty: how do commercial stock image banks portray genetic tests?

News stories and patient-facing material about genetic tests are often illustrated by images, but the content of such images and the messages they propagate are rarely scrutinised. Stock image banks were searched to identify a hundred images relating to genetic tests and analysed using a multimodal critical discourse approach, aiming to identify what the images featured, how they were composed, and what they communicated about genetic testing. We found that images tended to focus on technical aspects of sample processing (for example, pipetting) and drew on older technologies (for example slab gel electrophoresis) when representing data arising from genetic tests. Composition choices like focussing images around pipette tips, or emphasising colour or brightness of electrophoretic bands, represented genetic testing as precise, unambiguous and illuminating. Only 7% of images featured a person having a genetic test, and only one image alluded to communication of genetic results. Current popular visual representations of genetic testing rarely highlight the possibility of uncertain or non-diagnostic outcomes, and may contribute to high public expectations of informativeness and certainty from such tests.

Ancestry, race and ethnicity: the role and relevance of language in clinical genetics practice.

BACKGROUND: The terms ancestry, race and ethnicity are used variably within the medical literature and within society and clinical care. Biological lineage can provide an important context for the interpretation of genomic data, but the language used, and practices around when to ascertain this, vary. METHODS: Using a fictional case scenario we explore the relevance of questions around ancestry, race and ethnicity in clinical genetic practice. RESULTS: In the UK, data on 'ethnicity' are routinely collected by those using genomic medicine, as well as within the wider UK National Health Service, although the reasons for this are not always clear to practitioners and patients. Sometimes it is requested as a proxy for biological lineage to aid variant interpretation, refine estimations of carrier frequency and guide decisions around the need for pharmacogenetic testing. CONCLUSION: There are many challenges around the use and utility of these terms. Currently, genomic databases are populated primarily with data from people of European descent, and this can lead to health disparities and poorer service for minoritised or underserved populations. Sensitivity and consideration are needed when communicating with patients around these areas. We explore the role and relevance of language around biological lineage in clinical genetics practice.

Secondary (additional) findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: Disease manifestation, health care outcomes, and costs of disclosure.

PURPOSE: The UK 100,000 Genomes Project offered participants screening for additional findings (AFs) in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or hereditary cancer syndromes including breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, MYH-associated polyposis, multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN), and von Hippel-Lindau. Here, we report disclosure processes, manifestation of AF-related disease, outcomes, and costs. METHODS: An observational study in an area representing one-fifth of England. RESULTS: Data were collected from 89 adult AF recipients. At disclosure, among 57 recipients of a cancer-predisposition-associated AF and 32 recipients of an FH-associated AF, 35% and 88%, respectively, had personal and/or family history evidence of AF-related disease. During post-disclosure investigations, 4 cancer-AF recipients had evidence of disease, including 1 medullary thyroid cancer. Six women with an HBOC AF, 3 women with a Lynch syndrome AF, and 2 individuals with a MEN AF elected for risk-reducing surgery. New hyperlipidemia diagnoses were made in 6 FH-AF recipients and treatment (re-)initiated for 7 with prior hyperlipidemia. Generating and disclosing AFs in this region cost £1.4m; £8680 per clinically significant AF. CONCLUSION: Generation and disclosure of AFs identifies individuals with and without personal or familial evidence of disease and prompts appropriate clinical interventions. Results can inform policy toward secondary findings.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Screening in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Among cancer predisposition genes, most direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests evaluate three Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) founder mutations in BRCA1/2, which represent a small proportion of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PLPV) in cancer predisposing genes. In this study, we investigate PLPV in BRCA1/2 and other cancer predisposition genes that are missed by testing only AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: Individuals were referred to genetic testing for personal diagnoses of breast and/or ovarian cancer (clinical cohort) or were self-referred (nonindication-based cohort). There were 348,692 participants in the clinical cohort and 7,636 participants in the nonindication-based cohort. Both cohorts were analyzed for BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations. Full sequence analysis was done for PLPV in BRCA1/2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2 (truncating variants), EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2/6, NF1, PMS2, RAD51C/D, and 22 other genes. RESULTS: BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations accounted for 10.8% and 29.7% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in the clinical and nonindication-based cohorts, respectively. AJ founder mutations accounted for 89.9% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in those of full AJ descent, but only 69.6% of those of partial AJ descent. In total, 0.5% of all individuals had a BRCA1/2 AJ founder variant, while 7.7% had PLPV in a high-risk breast/ovarian cancer gene. For non-AJ individuals, limiting evaluation to the AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations missed >90% of mutations in actionable cancer risk genes. Secondary analysis revealed a false-positive rate of 69% for PLPV outside of non-AJ BRCA 1/2 founder mutations. CONCLUSION: DTC genetic testing misses >90% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in individuals of non-AJ ancestry and about 10% of BRCA1/2 PLPV among AJ individuals. There is a high false-positivity rate for non-AJ BRCA 1/2 PLPV with DTC genetic testing.

Ethical preparedness and developments in genomic healthcare.

Considerations of the notion of preparedness have come to the fore in the recent pandemic, highlighting a need to be better prepared to deal with sudden, unexpected and unwanted events. However, the concept of preparedness is also important in relation to planned for and desired interventions resulting from healthcare innovations. We describe ethical preparedness as a necessary component for the successful delivery of novel healthcare innovations, and use recent advances in genomic healthcare as an example. We suggest that practitioners and organisations charged with delivering innovative and ambitious healthcare programmes can only succeed if they are able to exhibit the attribute of ethical preparedness.

Interventions to support patients with sharing genetic test results with at-risk relatives: a synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).

Whilst the finding of heritable susceptibility to disease was once relatively rare, mainstreaming of genetic testing has resulted in a steady increase. Patients are often encouraged to share their genetic test results with relevant relatives, but relatives may not receive this information, leaving them without knowledge of their own risk. Therefore, strategies to help communicate such information are important. This review aimed to explore the efficacy of existing interventions to improve the sharing of genetic test results. A synthesis without meta-analysis design was used. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and AMED was conducted, and five studies were identified worldwide. Data were extracted for each study regarding study aim, participant characteristics, condition, intervention details, comparison, study duration, outcome measures, theory and behaviour change techniques used. Limited efficacy and application of theory was found. Knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy were not increased in any intervention. No gender differences in communication behaviour were encountered in interventions that recruited men and women. Two studies reported an evaluation of acceptability, which showed that the interventions were well received by patients and health professionals. No study reported the involvement of the target population in any phase of intervention development. Given the lack of health psychology-informed interventions in this area of clinical genetics, we recommend genetic health professionals, health psychologists and patients collaborate on all stages of future interventions that involve the cascading of genetic health information within families. We also provide guidance regarding use of theory and intervention elements for future intervention development.

Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance.

We discuss a case where clinical genomic investigation of muscle weakness unexpectedly found a genetic variant that might (or might not) predispose to kidney cancer. We argue that despite its off-target and uncertain nature, this variant should be discussed with the man who had the test, not because it is medical information, but because this discussion would allow the further clinical evaluation that might lead it to becoming so. We argue that while prominent ethical debates around genomics often take 'results' as a starting point and ask questions as to whether to look for and how to react to them, the construction of genomic results is fraught with ethical complexity, although often couched as a primarily technical problem. We highlight the need for greater focus on, and appreciation of, the ethical work undertaken daily by scientists and clinicians working in genomic medicine and discuss how public conversations around genomics need to adapt to prepare future patients for potentially uncertain and unexpected outcomes from clinical genomic tests.

Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is proposed that, through restriction to individuals delineated as high risk, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) might enable more efficient targeting of existing cancer screening programmes and enable extension into new age ranges and disease types. To address this proposition, we present an overview of the performance of PRS tools (ie, models and sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms) alongside harms and benefits of PRS-stratified cancer screening for eight example cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, pancreas, ovary, kidney, lung, and testicular cancer). METHODS: For this modelling analysis, we used age-stratified cancer incidences for the UK population from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (2016-18) and published estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for current, future, and optimised PRS for each of the eight cancer types. For each of five PRS-defined high-risk quantiles (ie, the top 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1%) and according to each of the three PRS tools (ie, current, future, and optimised) for the eight cancers, we calculated the relative proportion of cancers arising, the odds ratios of a cancer arising compared with the UK population average, and the lifetime cancer risk. We examined maximal attainable rates of cancer detection by age stratum from combining PRS-based stratification with cancer screening tools and modelled the maximal impact on cancer-specific survival of hypothetical new UK programmes of PRS-stratified screening. FINDINGS: The PRS-defined high-risk quintile (20%) of the population was estimated to capture 37% of breast cancer cases, 46% of prostate cancer cases, 34% of colorectal cancer cases, 29% of pancreatic cancer cases, 26% of ovarian cancer cases, 22% of renal cancer cases, 26% of lung cancer cases, and 47% of testicular cancer cases. Extending UK screening programmes to a PRS-defined high-risk quintile including people aged 40-49 years for breast cancer, 50-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 60-69 years for prostate cancer has the potential to avert, respectively, a maximum of 102, 188, and 158 deaths annually. Unstratified screening of the full population aged 48-49 years for breast cancer, 58-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 68-69 years for prostate cancer would use equivalent resources and avert, respectively, an estimated maximum of 80, 155, and 95 deaths annually. These maximal modelled numbers will be substantially attenuated by incomplete population uptake of PRS profiling and cancer screening, interval cancers, non-European ancestry, and other factors. INTERPRETATION: Under favourable assumptions, our modelling suggests modest potential efficiency gain in cancer case detection and deaths averted for hypothetical new PRS-stratified screening programmes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Restriction of screening to high-risk quantiles means many or most incident cancers will arise in those assigned as being low-risk. To quantify real-world clinical impact, costs, and harms, UK-specific cluster-randomised trials are required. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust.

Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data.

As ambitions to 'mainstream' genetic and genomic medicine in the UK advance, patients are increasingly exposed to information about genomic data. Unlike the results of many other medical investigations which are linked to the time of sample collection, genomic testing provides immortal data that do not change across time, and may have relevance for relatives and generations far beyond the patient's own lifespan. This immortality raises new ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, patients and families alike, such as ensuring consent for possible future interpretations; determining when genomic data are best sought (at birth, on illness etc) and reinterpreted; and balancing the confidentiality of patients and duties of care towards others. This paper reports on qualitative work exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives participating in genomic testing, and suggests that their engagements with this immortality are shaped by: the contrast between the simplicity of sample provision and information gathered; understandings of heritability; and notions of genomic data as a collective resource. We discuss the implications this holds for practice and argue that the immortality of genomic data must take a more prominent position in patient and healthcare professional interactions.