Using Newborn Screening Bloodspots for Research: Public Preferences for Policy Options.

OBJECTIVES: Retaining residual newborn screening (NBS) bloodspots for medical research remains contentious. To inform this debate, we sought to understand public preferences for, and reasons for preferring, alternative policy options. METHODS: We assessed preferences among 4 policy options for research use of residual bloodspots through a bilingual national Internet survey of a representative sample of Canadians. Fifty percent of respondents were randomly assigned to select reasons supporting these preferences. Understanding of and attitudes toward screening and research concepts, and demographics were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1102 respondents (94% participation rate; 47% completion rate), the overall preference among policy options was ask permission (67%); this option was also the most acceptable choice (80%). Assume permission was acceptable to 46%, no permission required was acceptable to 29%, and no research allowed was acceptable to 26%. The acceptability of the ask permission option was reduced among participants assigned to the reasoning exercise (84% vs 76%; P = .004). Compared with assume/no permission required, ordered logistic regression showed a significant reduction in preference for the ask permission option with greater understanding of concepts (odds ratio, 0.87; P < .001), greater confidence in science (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001), and a perceived responsibility to contribute to research (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed Canadians prefer that explicit permission is sought for storage and research use of NBS bloodspots. This preference was diminished when reasons supporting and opposing routine storage, and other policy options, were presented. Findings warrant consideration as NBS communities strategize to respond to shifting legislative contexts.

Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process.

This paper proposes a set of recommendations for the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatrics. The Network of Applied Genetic Medicine of Quebec spearheaded the initiative to develop the Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings, which was the result of a consultation process with clinical and research experts in the field. To formulate the Statement of Principles, the authors (i) reviewed empirical and grey literature on the return of research results and incidental findings in Europe and Canada, (ii) conducted a qualitative study of stakeholder groups, (iii) developed, and (iv) validated the recommendations through consultations with the stakeholder groups. The Statement of Principles provides a useful disclosure tool for deciding when, and under what circumstances to return research results and incidental findings. It addresses the issue of return of results in genetic research generally, and has also specific principles for various research contexts, including paediatric research. It delineates ethical issues unique to paediatric research, and provides a framework to guide research ethics committees as well as the research community in addressing these issues.

SOCIO-ETHICAL ISSUES IN PERSONALIZED MEDICINE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS OF GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING TESTS FOR BREAST CANCER PROGNOSIS.

OBJECTIVES: There have been multiple calls for explicit integration of ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in health technology assessment (HTA) and addressing ELSI has been highlighted as key in optimizing benefits in the Omics/Personalized Medicine field. This study examines HTAs of an early clinical example of Personalized Medicine (gene expression profile tests [GEP] for breast cancer prognosis) aiming to: (i) identify ELSI; (ii) assess whether ELSIs are implicitly or explicitly addressed; and (iii) report methodology used for ELSI integration. METHODS: A systematic search for HTAs (January 2004 to September 2012), followed by descriptive and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen HTAs for GEP were retrieved. Only three (18%) explicitly presented ELSI, and only one reported methodology. However, all of the HTAs included implicit ELSI. Eight themes of implicit and explicit ELSI were identified. "Classical" ELSI including privacy, informed consent, and concerns about limited patient/clinician genetic literacy were always presented explicitly. Some ELSI, including the need to understand how individual patients' risk tolerances affect clinical decision-making after reception of GEP results, were presented both explicitly and implicitly in HTAs. Others, such as concern about evidentiary deficiencies for clinical utility of GEP tests, occurred only implicitly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a wide variety of important ELSI raised, these were rarely explicitly addressed in HTAs. Explicit treatment would increase their accessibility to decision-makers, and may augment HTA efficiency maximizing their utility. This is particularly important where complex Personalized Medicine applications are rapidly expanding choices for patients, clinicians and healthcare systems.

Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population-based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent. METHODS: Eight focus groups (FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre-/post-questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95-98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77-88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment-related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies.

To disclose, or not to disclose? Context matters.

Progress in understanding childhood disease using next-generation sequencing (NGS) portends vast improvements in the nature and quality of patient care. However, ethical questions surrounding the disclosure of incidental findings (IFs) persist, as NGS and other novel genomic technologies become the preferred tool for clinical genetic testing. Thus, the need for comprehensive management plans and multidisciplinary discussion on the return of IFs in pediatric research has never been more immediate. The aim of this study is to explore the views of investigators concerning the return of IFs in the pediatric oncology research context. Our findings reveal at least four contextual themes underlying the ethics of when, and how, IFs could be disclosed to participants and their families: clinical significance of the result, respect for individual, scope of professional responsibilities, and implications for the healthcare/research system. Moreover, the study proposes two action items toward anticipatory governance of IF in genetic research with children. The need to recognize the multiplicity of contextual factors in determining IF disclosure practices, particularly as NGS increasingly becomes a centerpiece in genetic research broadly, is heightened when children are involved. Sober thought should be given to the possibility of discovering IF, and to proactive discussions about disclosure considering the realities of young participants, their families, and the investigators who recruit them.

Public concerns regarding the storage and secondary uses of residual newborn bloodspots: an analysis of print media, legal cases, and public engagement activities.

Recently, public concerns have been expressed regarding the non-consented storage and secondary research uses of residual newborn bloodspot (RBS) samples. The purpose of this paper is to examine public responses to the storage and secondary uses of RBS that can be identified through analysis of media, legal cases, and documented public engagement activities. Coverage in the examined print media confirmed the importance of RBS to journalists and those people who expressed their concerns to these journalists. Several lawsuits, brought by parents concerned about the storage of newborn bloodspots, placed the practice of storing NBS into the spotlight. This resulted in controversial debates and the mandatory destruction of millions of samples. Analysis of public engagement activities across several jurisdictions indicated that across (inter)national boundaries there are common elements to what is perceived as inappropriate governance of RBS. Public concerns were grouped into five main themes: trust, transparency, confidentiality, ownership, and stigmatization/discrimination. The results of our analysis help to make a compelling case for placing citizens at the center of the debate and developing policy about the storage and secondary uses of newborn bloodspots.

Ethics education for clinician-researchers in genetics: The combined approach.

Advancements in genomic technology and genetic research have uncovered new and unforeseen ethical and legal issues that must now be faced by clinician-researchers. However, lack of adequate ethical training places clinician-researchers in a position where they might be unable to effectively assess and resolve the issues presented to them. The literature demonstrates that ethics education is relevant and engaging where it is targeted to the level and context of the learners, and it includes real-world based cases approached in innovative ways. In order to test the feasibility of a combined approach to ethics education, a conference was held in 2012 to raise awareness and familiarize participants with the ethical and legal issues surrounding medical technology in genetics and then to have them apply this to reality-based case studies. The conference included participants from a variety of backgrounds and was divided into three sections: (i) informative presentations by experts in the field; (ii) mock REB deliberations; and (iii) a second mock-REB, conducted by a panel of experts. Feedback from participants was positive and indicated that they felt the learning objectives had been met and that the material was presented in a clear and organized fashion. Although only an example of the combined approach in a particular setting, the success of this conference suggests that combining small group learning, practical cases, role-play and interdisciplinary learning provides a positive experience and is an effective approach to ethics education.

FORGE Canada Consortium: outcomes of a 2-year national rare-disease gene-discovery project.

Inherited monogenic disease has an enormous impact on the well-being of children and their families. Over half of the children living with one of these conditions are without a molecular diagnosis because of the rarity of the disease, the marked clinical heterogeneity, and the reality that there are thousands of rare diseases for which causative mutations have yet to be identified. It is in this context that in 2010 a Canadian consortium was formed to rapidly identify mutations causing a wide spectrum of pediatric-onset rare diseases by using whole-exome sequencing. The FORGE (Finding of Rare Disease Genes) Canada Consortium brought together clinicians and scientists from 21 genetics centers and three science and technology innovation centers from across Canada. From nation-wide requests for proposals, 264 disorders were selected for study from the 371 submitted; disease-causing variants (including in 67 genes not previously associated with human disease; 41 of these have been genetically or functionally validated, and 26 are currently under study) were identified for 146 disorders over a 2-year period. Here, we present our experience with four strategies employed for gene discovery and discuss FORGE's impact in a number of realms, from clinical diagnostics to the broadening of the phenotypic spectrum of many diseases to the biological insight gained into both disease states and normal human development. Lastly, on the basis of this experience, we discuss the way forward for rare-disease genetic discovery both in Canada and internationally.

Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening programs.

The availability of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is likely to change the practice of population screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS). This Commentary raises key ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding WGS in NBS and suggests a need for deliberation regarding the policy challenges of introducing sequencing in such programs. Any change in the goals of NBS programs should be discussed carefully and should represent the best interests of the child.

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing.

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, P<0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.

Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children.

PURPOSE: We describe parental attitudes toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research results in the setting of high-risk pediatric cancer and inherited childhood diseases. METHODS: A validated 36-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in three large-scale genome research consortia examining attitudes toward receipt of genomic research results and the influence of certainty, severity, and onset of the condition, in addition to responsibilities to extended family and provision of results even after death of the proband. RESULTS: Of the 563 participants who were sent questionnaires, 362 (64%) responded. Most of them stated a positive right to receive results related to the target condition (97%) or to incidental findings (86%); no difference was found in results between participants with cancer and those with orphan diseases. Furthermore, 92% indicated that genomic research for childhood-onset conditions should occur. The majority wanted incidental results predicting susceptibility even to untreatable fatal conditions (83%), to multiple conditions (87%), or to those with uncertain impact (70%). Most felt sibling genomic results showing serious conditions, whether treatable (93%) or not (88%), and/or results discovered after death of the proband should be shared with family (74%). CONCLUSION: Many parents of children in pediatric genomic research indicated a strong desire to receive a broader range of results than is described in consensus recommendations. Clear delineation of what will be offered should be established at the time of consent.

Returning incidental findings from genetic research to children: views of parents of children affected by rare diseases.

PURPOSE: To explore parental perceptions and experiences regarding the return of genomic incidental research findings in children with rare diseases. METHODS: Parents of children affected by various rare diseases were invited to participate in focus groups or individual telephone interviews in Montreal and Ottawa. Fifteen participants were interviewed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four emergent themes underscored parental enthusiasm for receiving incidental findings concerning their child's health: (1) right to information; (2) perceived benefits and risks; (3) communication practicalities: who, when, and how; and (4) service needs to promote the communication of incidental findings. Parents believed they should be made aware of all results pertaining to their child's health status, and that they are responsible for transmitting this information to their child, irrespective of disease severity. Despite potential negative consequences, respondents generally perceived a favourable risk-benefit ratio in receiving all incidental findings. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how parents assess the risks and benefits of returning incidental findings is essential to genomic research applications in paediatric medicine. The authors believe the study findings will contribute to establishing future best practices, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of parental decisions on themselves and their child.

Defining the Scope of Public Engagement: Examining the "Right Not to Know" in Public Health Genomics.

In this article, we explore the concept of a "right not to know" on a population rather than individual level. We argue that a population level "right not to know" is a useful concept for helping to define the appropriate boundaries of public engagement initiatives in the emerging public health genomics context.

Cohort profile: the maternal-infant research on environmental chemicals research platform.

BACKGROUND: The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) Study was established to obtain Canadian biomonitoring data for pregnant women and their infants, and to examine potential adverse health effects of prenatal exposure to priority environmental chemicals on pregnancy and infant health. METHODS: Women were recruited during the first trimester from 10 sites across Canada and were followed through delivery. Questionnaires were administered during pregnancy and post-delivery to collect information on demographics, occupation, life style, medical history, environmental exposures and diet. Information on the pregnancy and the infant was abstracted from medical charts. Maternal blood, urine, hair and breast milk, as well as cord blood and infant meconium, were collected and analysed for an extensive list of environmental biomarkers and nutrients. Additional biospecimens were stored in the study's Biobank. The MIREC Research Platform encompasses the main cohort study, the Biobank and follow-up studies. RESULTS: Of the 8716 women approached at early prenatal clinics, 5108 were eligible and 2001 agreed to participate (39%). MIREC participants tended to smoke less (5.9% vs. 10.5%), be older (mean 32.2 vs. 29.4 years) and have a higher education (62.3% vs. 35.1% with a university degree) than women giving birth in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The MIREC Study, while smaller in number of participants than several of the international cohort studies, has one of the most comprehensive datasets on prenatal exposure to multiple environmental chemicals. The biomonitoring data and biological specimen bank will make this research platform a significant resource for examining potential adverse health effects of prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals.

Physician recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials: ethics revisited.

Tailoring medical treatment to individual patients requires a strong foundation in research to provide the data necessary to understand the relationship between the disease, the patient, and the type of treatment advocated for. Non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials studying therapeutic resistance require the participation of patients, yet only a small percentage enroll. Treating physicians are often relied on to recruit patients, but they have a number of ethical obligations that might be perceived as barriers to recruiting. Concepts such as voluntariness of consent and conflicts of interest can have an impact on whether physicians will discuss clinical trials with their patients and how patients perceive the information. However, these ethical obligations should not be prohibitive to physician recruitment of patients - precautions can be taken to ensure that patients' consent to research participation is fully voluntary and devoid of conflict, such as the use of other members of the research team than the treating physician to discuss the trial and obtain consent, and better communication between researchers, clinicians, and patients. These can ensure that research benefits are maximized for the good of patients and society.

Emerging issues in paediatric health research consent forms in Canada: working towards best practices.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining a research participant's voluntary and informed consent is the bedrock of sound ethics practice. Greater inclusion of children in research has led to questions about how paediatric consent operates in practice to accord with current and emerging legal and socio-ethical issues, norms, and requirements. METHODS: Employing a qualitative thematic content analysis, we examined paediatric consent forms from major academic centres and public organisations across Canada dated from 2008-2011, which were purposively selected to reflect different types of research ethics boards, participants, and studies. The studies included biobanking, longitudinal studies, and gene-environment studies. Our purpose was to explore the following six emerging issues: (1) whether the scope of parental consent allows for a child's assent, dissent, or future consent; (2) whether the concepts of risk and benefit incorporate the child's psychological and social perspective; (3) whether a child's ability to withdraw is respected and to what extent withdrawal is permitted; (4) whether the return of research results includes individual results and/or incidental findings and the processes involved therein; (5) whether privacy and confidentiality concerns adequately address the child's perspective and whether standard data and/or sample identifiability nomenclature is used; and (6) whether retention of and access to paediatric biological samples and associated medical data are addressed. RESULTS: The review suggests gaps and variability in the consent forms with respect to addressing each of the six issues. Many forms did not discuss the possibility of returning research results, be they individual or general/aggregate results. Forms were also divided in terms of the scope of parental consent (specific versus broad), and none discussed a process for resolving disputes that can arise when either the parents or the child wishes to withdraw from the study. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis provides valuable insight and evidence into how consent forms address current ethical issues. While we do not thoroughly explore the contexts and reasons behind consent form gaps and variability, we do advocate and formulate the development of best practices for drafting paediatric health research consent forms. This can greatly ameliorate current gaps and facilitate harmonised and yet contextualised approaches to paediatric health research ethics.

Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of genomics researchers in a pediatric setting in the context of regulatory guidance recommending the disclosure of clinically significant research findings. METHODS: A validated 32-item questionnaire was sent to 107 researchers with two large-scale projects (the Canadian Pediatric Cancer Genome Consortium and the Finding of Rare Genes Canada Consortium). We examined researchers' attitudes toward obligations to offer genomic research results (including if the participant was deceased, a relative, or a child), influence of the certainty/severity of the condition on this obligation, and personal experiences. RESULTS: Of the 107 researchers, 74 (69%) responded. Researchers did not feel a strong responsibility to look for meaningful incidental results in the research genomic data set (n = 27, 37%). However, once identified, they felt participants had a strong right to receive them, irrespective of being incidental (n = 50, 68%) or primary targets (n = 64, 87%). There was a high degree of support for informing siblings of genomic results (n = 46, 62%), especially for treatable conditions (n = 56, 76%). Less than half of the participants indicated that their research ethics board required an offer of results (n = 34, 46%) or provided a detailed process (n = 16, 22%). CONCLUSION: Researchers strongly support the offer of targeted and incidental genomic research results to participants. Greater regulatory guidance is needed for a consistent approach.

Exploring resources for intrafamilial communication of cancer genetic risk: we still need to talk.

While the importance of intrafamilial communication of hereditary cancer risk has been acknowledged, the factors that promote and act as barriers to patients disclosing their information to their families are complex and emerging. This raises the question: How are patients guided in practice to contemplate intrafamilial communication? Focusing on breast cancer, we conducted an exploratory study examining current resources supporting patients and health-care professionals, and isolated the messages surrounding intrafamilial communication of cancer risk. We find the duty for health-care professionals to counsel patients regarding intrafamilial communication is acknowledged to varying degrees by multiple actors in the cancer care delivery landscape, including health-care professional associations, health service organizations, and patient groups. A range of medical, psychosocial, and other factors underlying intrafamilial communication are acknowledged in messages to patients. Patients, however, are often referred to a single group of health-care professionals to discuss their diverse and complex needs. At the same time, messages aimed at patients appear to place the emphasis on barriers that could exist for patients contemplating intrafamilial communication, while highlighting the benefits families derive from such communication. Taken together, this points to a lack of coherence within materials directed to patients and suggests the need to do coordinated research among stakeholders to address two related issues: (1) determining who are the actors best positioned to send messages surrounding intrafamilial communication to patients and (2) addressing the content of messages conveyed in patient materials.

Intrafamilial disclosure of risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: points to consider.

The primary goal of breast and ovarian cancer screening is to minimize the cases of advanced disease and therefore its mortality rate. For hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, one method to reach this goal is to disseminate genetic risk information among family members. However, experience tells us that this information does not always reach family members in a timely manner, if at all. There are many moving parts to a decision to disclose genetic risk information within a family, and the lack of detail and cohesion in current guidelines do a disservice to hereditary breast cancer prevention. Utilizing legal, medical, and policy databases for literature, case law and policy documents relating to communication of genetic test results within families, as well as a consultative process with representative stakeholders, a points to consider has been developed to address a number of issues that might impact the ability and willingness of patients to inform family members of genetic risk. These include: what is "genetic information"; who is the "family"; why should patients inform their family members; and how should health professionals be involved in this process? This represents only an initial step towards fostering better communication within families. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for encouraging this communication and motivations for disclosing or not and to promote the development of a solution, considering the complexity of human relationships and the probabilistic nature of genetic information.