HostSeq: a Canadian whole genome sequencing and clinical data resource.

HostSeq was launched in April 2020 as a national initiative to integrate whole genome sequencing data from 10,000 Canadians infected with SARS-CoV-2 with clinical information related to their disease experience. The mandate of HostSeq is to support the Canadian and international research communities in their efforts to understand the risk factors for disease and associated health outcomes and support the development of interventions such as vaccines and therapeutics. HostSeq is a collaboration among 13 independent epidemiological studies of SARS-CoV-2 across five provinces in Canada. Aggregated data collected by HostSeq are made available to the public through two data portals: a phenotype portal showing summaries of major variables and their distributions, and a variant search portal enabling queries in a genomic region. Individual-level data is available to the global research community for health research through a Data Access Agreement and Data Access Compliance Office approval. Here we provide an overview of the collective project design along with summary level information for HostSeq. We highlight several statistical considerations for researchers using the HostSeq platform regarding data aggregation, sampling mechanism, covariate adjustment, and X chromosome analysis. In addition to serving as a rich data source, the diversity of study designs, sample sizes, and research objectives among the participating studies provides unique opportunities for the research community.

Autologous bilayered self-assembled skin substitutes (SASSs) as permanent grafts: a case series of 14 severely burned patients indicating clinical effectiveness.

Split-thickness skin autografts (AGs) are the standard surgical treatment for severe burn injuries. However, the treatment of patients with substantial skin loss is limited by the availability of donor sites for skin harvesting. As an alternative to skin autografts, our research group developed autologous self-assembled skin substitutes (SASSs), allowing the replacement of both dermis and epidermis in a single surgical procedure. The aim of the study was to assess the clinical outcome of the SASSs as a permanent coverage for full-thickness burn wounds. Patients were recruited through the Health Canada's Special Access Program. SASSs were grafted on debrided full-thickness wounds according to similar protocols used for AGs. The graft-take and the persistence of the SASS epithelium over time were evaluated. 14 patients received surgical care with SASSs. The mean percentage of the SASS graft-take was 98 % (standard deviation = 5) at 5 to 7 d after surgery. SASS integrity persisted over time (average follow-up time: 3.2 years), without noticeable deficiency in epidermal regeneration. Assessment of scar quality (skin elasticity, erythema, thickness) was performed on a subset of patients. Non-homogeneous pigmentation was noticed in several patients. These results indicated that the SASS allowed the successful coverage of full-thickness burns given its high graft-take, aesthetic outcome equivalent to autografting and the promotion of long-term tissue regeneration. When skin donor sites are in short supply, SASSs could be a valuable alternative to treat patients with full-thickness burns covering more than 50 % of their total body surface area.

Points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic genomic sequencing.

Although NGS technologies are well-embedded in the clinical setting for identification of genetic causes of disease, guidelines issued by professional bodies are inconsistent regarding some aspects of reporting results. Most recommendations do not give detailed guidance about whether variants of uncertain significance (VUS) should be reported by laboratory personnel to clinicians, and give conflicting messages regarding whether unsolicited findings (UF) should be reported. There are also differences both in their recommendations regarding whether actively searching for secondary findings (SF) is appropriate, and in the extent to which they address the duty (or lack thereof) to reanalyse variants when new information arises. An interdisciplinary working group considered the current guidelines, their own experiences, and data from a recent qualitative study to develop a set of points to consider for laboratories reporting results from diagnostic NGS. These points to consider fall under six categories: (i) Testing approaches and technologies used, (ii) Approaches for VUS; (iii) Approaches for reporting UF, (iv) Approaches regarding SF; (v) Reanalysis of data & re-contact; and vi) Minors. While it is unclear whether uniformity in reporting across all laboratories is desirable, we hope these points to consider will be useful to diagnostic laboratories as they develop their processes for making decisions about reporting VUS and UF from NGS in the diagnostic context.

Towards a global cancer knowledge network: dissecting the current international cancer genomic sequencing landscape.

BACKGROUND: While next generation sequencing has enhanced our understanding of the biological basis of malignancy, current knowledge on global practices for sequencing cancer samples is limited. To address this deficiency, we developed a survey to provide a snapshot of current sequencing activities globally, identify barriers to data sharing and use this information to develop sustainable solutions for the cancer research community. METHODS: A multi-item survey was conducted assessing demographics, clinical data collection, genomic platforms, privacy/ethics concerns, funding sources and data sharing barriers for sequencing initiatives globally. Additionally, respondents were asked as to provide the primary intent of their initiative (clinical diagnostic, research or combination). RESULTS: Of 107 initiatives invited to participate, 59 responded (response rate = 55%). Whole exome sequencing (P = 0.03) and whole genome sequencing (P = 0.01) were utilized less frequently in clinical diagnostic than in research initiatives. Procedures to identify cancer-specific variants were heterogeneous, with bioinformatics pipelines employing different mutation calling/variant annotation algorithms. Measurement of treatment efficacy varied amongst initiatives, with time on treatment (57%) and RECIST (53%) being the most common; however, other parameters were also employed. Whilst 72% of initiatives indicated data sharing, its scope varied, with a number of restrictions in place (e.g. transfer of raw data). The largest perceived barriers to data harmonization were the lack of financial support (P < 0.01) and bioinformatics concerns (e.g. lack of interoperability) (P = 0.02). Capturing clinical data was more likely to be perceived as a barrier to data sharing by larger initiatives than by smaller initiatives (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These results identify the main barriers, as perceived by the cancer sequencing community, to effective sharing of cancer genomic and clinical data. They highlight the need for greater harmonization of technical, ethical and data capture processes in cancer sample sequencing worldwide, in order to support effective and responsible data sharing for the benefit of patients.

Harmonizing Global Biospecimen Consent Practices to Advance Translational Research: A Call to Action.

One of the many challenges of translational medicine is working with research participants to donate biospecimens through an ethical informed consent framework. The increasingly complex ethical and regulatory differences across jurisdictions translates into limitations on use and potential value of biological specimens and their associated data in clinical research. We introduce a call to action for more uniform global standards for collection of biological specimen informed consent data to enable greater advancements in medical research.

Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.

In recent years, risk stratification has sparked interest as an innovative approach to disease screening and prevention. The approach effectively personalizes individual risk, opening the way to screening and prevention interventions that are adapted to subpopulations. The international perspective project, which is developing risk stratification for breast cancer, aims to support the integration of its screening approach into clinical practice through comprehensive tool-building. Policies and guidelines for risk stratification-unlike those for population screening programs, which are currently well regulated-are still under development. Indeed, the development of guidelines for risk stratification reflects the translational aspects of perspective. Here, we describe the risk stratification process that was devised in the context of perspective, and we then explain the consensus-based method used to develop recommendations for breast cancer screening and prevention in a risk-stratification approach. Lastly, we discuss how the recommendations might affect current screening policies.

Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research.

The use of biobanks in biomedical research has grown considerably in recent years. As a result of the increasing analysis of tissue samples stored in biobanks, there has also been an increase in the probability of discovering-in addition to the research target-incidental findings (IF). We identified 23 laws, policies and guidelines from international, regional and national organizations that provide guidance or identify the need for the disclosure of IF to research participants. We analyzed these instruments to determine their contemplation of the funding considerations for the disclosure of IF, examining their guidance for who discloses and the extent of researcher responsibilities. We found that the available normative documents provide little guidance to researchers and biobanks for how they should address cost and funding concerns associated with IF disclosure. It is therefore essential that the research and policy communities think through the financial implications of imposing an ethical responsibility to disclose IF. Concerted efforts should be made by policymakers, ethicists, researchers, clinicians and research institutions to develop detailed funding recommendations, potentially universal in application, to aid in the disclosure of IF, and we provide recommendations on steps that can be taken to ensure full consideration of these issues.

Clinical trial transparency and orphan drug development: recent trends in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry.

BACKGROUND: Data sharing from clinical trials can be key to the development and approval of medicines for rare diseases. Many events during the first half of 2013 have contributed to the movement for increased transparency. These include the development of the European Medicines Agency's new data publication policy, the creation of the AllTrials petition and GlaxoSmithKline's choice to sign it, the launch of GlaxoSmithKline's system for access to patient-level clinical trial data and Roche's commitment to create a similar system, the release of results from the Yale University Open Data Access project's first medicine analysis for Medtronic, and the creation of the Reg4All website. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: This paper summarises major developments in clinical trial transparency between January and June 2013 and analyses the composition of datasets released by GlaxoSmithKline. METHODS: GlaxoSmithKline's database of available trials was tabulated and graphs of relevant trial characteristics were produced. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Due to current transparency initiatives, it is likely that much more data will be made available over the next few years through systems similar to GlaxoSmithKline's. Although some aspects of GlaxoSmithKline's model could limit its usefulness, the data currently listed is diverse and could be promising for researchers interested in rare disease treatment.

Legal liability and the uncertain nature of risk prediction: the case of breast cancer risk prediction models.

BACKGROUND: The rapidity of technological change in genetics is not always matched by the uptake of this new knowledge into practice. Increasing genetic knowledge has already led to legal liability for those who have not used it properly, such as not informing patients or their families of potential genetic risk. A similar outcome is also of concern in the case of risk prediction models used for hereditary breast cancer. RESULTS: No legal case has directly addressed the use of risk prediction models. However, as genetic medicine and risk prediction models become more widely used, the prospect of a lawsuit will also increase. Current case law is instructive on the circumstances under which medical liability actions could be pursued and circumstances under which liability is unlikely, such as the provision of faulty family history information by a patient. CONCLUSIONS: There is existing case law on family history and genetics that parallels in many respects the use of risk prediction models. However, the idea of a bad 'prediction' is a difficult legal concept. Outside of a plain misuse or failure to use a risk prediction model when circumstances clearly required it, there is little legal guidance presently available to determine the risk for medical liability.

Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks.

Numerous studies of genetic epidemiology and post-genomics in respiratory diseases rely on the use of biobanks, defined as organised biological sample collections with associated personal and clinical data. The use of biobanks is increasing and raises several ethical issues. What are the ethical trends and legal frameworks in the post-genomic era? Are there new issues in relation to the developments of techniques and new study designs? How does this affect the clinician's attitudes and relationship with the patients? The main ethical issues encountered are: informed consent; confidentiality; secondary use of samples and data over time; return of results; and data sharing. Different levels and modalities of dealing with such issues are identified and vary from legally binding measures to "soft" regulations, such as ethical recommendations by various committees or professional organisations. A further level of complexity appears with the increasing international dimension of such activities in a context in which national positions vary on those topics. There is a tension between a necessary level of diversity in ethical positions and an indispensable common pedestal of principles and procedures to manage these issues in order to foster research. Current legal and ethical trends favour the facilitation of secondary use of samples, more biobank openness, balanced with a growing attention to dialogue and public/stakeholder consultation, an increased role for research ethics committees and more sophisticated data protection and governance structures.