Mapping the inputs,analyses, and outputs of biobank research systems to identify sources of incidental findings and individual research results for potential return to participants

Progress in the debate over returning incidental findings (IFs) and individual research results (IRRs) to research participants who provide specimens and data to biobanks in genetic and genomic research requires a new tool to allow comparison across heterogeneous biobank research systems and in-depth analysis of the sources and types of findings generated for potential return. This article presents a new visual mapping tool to allow systematic and standardized depiction of (i) the specimens initially collected, (ii) the materials and data sets then created, (iii) the analyses then performed, and finally (iv) the genetic and genomic results generated, including potential IFs and IRRs. For any individual biobank research system, this sequence of four maps can be created to anticipate the sources and types of IFs and IRRs to be generated, to plan how to handle them, and then to manage them responsibly over time. We discuss how this four-map tool was created and describe its application to four national biobank systems, thereby demonstrating that this tool can provide a common platform to visualize biobank content, anticipate how IFs and IRRs will arise in a biobank research context, and inform policy development.Genet Med 2012:14(4):385–392     

An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine and document the management and return of individual research results and incidental findings to research participants among biobanks.MethodsA comprehensive Internet search was completed to identify biobanks and collect available documents about biobanks and their procedures and policies regarding the return of results. The Internet search was supplemented by an e-mail request to gather further such documents. A total of 2,366 documents were collected for analysis from a sample of 85 biobanks.ResultsThe major finding of this empirical work is that the majority of the biobanks in the sample do not address the return of individual research results and incidental findings in their publicly available documents.ConclusionThe results suggest that there is a need for more discussion and guidance about the most appropriate ways for biobanks to consider the return of individual research results and incidental findings and generate policies and procedures that address this issue.Genet Med 2012:14(4):444–450     

Evaluation of biobank constitution and use: multicentre analysis in France and propositions for formalising the activities of research ethics committees

Biobanks are collections of biological material and related files gathered and stored for clinical or research purposes. Here, we investigated the questions raised during the evaluation of biobanks by biomedical Research Ethics Committees (RECs), particularly in the context of genetic research. We sent a questionnaire to all RECs in France to survey their concerns and the ethical criteria used when evaluating research involving the storage of biological samples. Most of the RECs think that they should be consulted to evaluate the constitution of biobanks. The proportion of RECs of this opinion depended on whether the biobank is being constituted in the absence of an associated research project (initially created for clinical purposes or for undefined research) (14/28), whether the biobank is being constituted for research use (21/28) or whether an existing research biobank is being re-used (19/28). Views diverged concerning the way ethics principles are applied, showing that REC evaluations of biobanks might be formalised at each of the following steps: constitution, use and re-use. In this paper, we suggest concrete elements that could be integrated into the application of the new French law concerning the protection of the human beings participating in research as well as into international recommendations.     

Taking aims seriously: repository research and limits on the duty to return individual research findings

Most discussions of researchers’ duties to return incidental findings or research results to research participants or repository contributors fail to provide an adequate theoretical grounding for such duties. Returning findings is a positive duty, a duty to help somebody. Typically, such duties are specified narrowly such that helping is only a duty when it poses little or no risk or burden to the helper and does not interfere with her legitimate aims. Under current budgetary and personnel constraints, and with currently available information technology, routine return of individual findings from research using repository materials would constitute a substantial burden on the scientific enterprise and would seriously frustrate the aims of both scientists and specimen/data contributors. In most cases, researchers’ limited duties to help repository contributors probably can be fulfilled by some action less demanding than returning individual findings. Furthermore, the duty-to-return issue should be analyzed as a conflict between (possibly) helping some contributors now and (possibly) helping a greater number of people who would benefit in the future from the knowledge produced by research.Genet Med 2012:14(4):461–466     

International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks

Managers of genomic biobanks constantly face ethical and legal challenges ranging from issues associated with the informed consent process to procedural concerns related to access by researchers. Yet, with the availability of next-generation sequencing technologies, one topic is emerging as the focus of ongoing debate: the return of individual research results and incidental findings to participants. This article examines this topic from an international perspective, where policies and guidelines discussing the matter in the context of genomic biobanks and genomic research are analyzed and commented. This approach aims to highlight the shortcomings of these international norms, mainly the danger arising from both the therapeutic misconception and the conflation of research results with incidental findings. This article suggests some elements to consider in order to complement available guidance at the international level.Genet Med 2012:14(4):484–489     

Return of individual research results and incidental findings in the clinical trials cooperative group setting

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative group cancer clinical trial system develops experimental therapies and often collects samples from patients for correlative research. The cooperative group bank (CGB) system maintains biobanks with a current policy not to return research results to individuals. An online survey was created, and 10 directors of CGBs completed the surveys asking about understanding and attitudes in changing policies to consider return of incidental findings (IFs) and individual research results (IRRs) of health significance. The potential impact of the 10 consensus recommendations of Wolf et al. presented in this issue are examined. Reidentification of samples is often not problematic; however, changes to the current banking and clinical trial systems would require significant effort to fulfill an obligation of recontact of subjects. Additional resources, as well as a national advisory board would be required to standardize implementation.Genet Med 2012:14(4):411–416     

Processes and factors involved in decisions regarding return of incidental genomic findings in research

PurposeStudies have begun exploring whether researchers should return incidental findings in genomic studies, and if so, which findings should be returned; however, how researchers make these decisions—the processes and factors involved—has remained largely unexplored.MethodsWe interviewed 28 genomics researchers in-depth about their experiences and views concerning the return of incidental findings.ResultsResearchers often struggle with questions concerning which incidental findings to return and how to make those decisions. Multiple factors shape their views, including information about the gene variant (e.g., pathogenicity and disease characteristics), concerns about participants’ well-being and researcher responsibility, and input from external entities. Researchers weigh the evidence, yet they face conflicting pressures, with relevant data frequently being unavailable. Researchers vary in who they believe should decide: participants, principal investigators, institutional review boards, and/or professional organizations. Contextual factors can influence these decisions, including policies governing return of results by institutions and biobanks and the study design. Researchers vary in desires for: guidance from institutions and professional organizations, changes to current institutional processes, and community-wide genetics education.ConclusionThese data, the first to examine the processes by which researchers make decisions regarding the return of genetic incidental findings, highlight several complexities involved and have important implications for future genetics research, policy, and examinations of these issues.Genet Med 2014:16(4):311–317.     

Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results

Whether or not to give research results back to individuals whose specimens are used for biomedical research is a subject of considerable controversy. Much of the debate has been focused around the ethical and legal concerns with some consideration of broader social issues such as whether or not people will be affected by such information for employment or health care. Much less attention has been paid to biobanks that collect the specimens used to generate the research findings and the issues and operational requirements for implementing return of individual research results. In this article, we give the biobanks’ perspective and highlight that given the diversity among the types of biobanks, it may be difficult to design and implement a blanket policy in this complex area. We discuss the variability in the types of biobanks and some important issues that should be considered in determining whether or not research results should be provided to individuals whose specimens are used in biomedical research. We also discuss challenges that should be considered in implementing any approaches to the return of research results.Genet Med 2012:14(4):478–483     

The legal risks of returning results of genomics research

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing “consensus,” which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.Genet Med 2012:14(4):473–477     

Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago

To be respectful of the public, biobank guiding principles and operations should be responsive to and inclusive of the values and beliefs of their participants. In an effort to increase knowledge and inform institutional policies, we conducted a deliberative engagement of individuals from two healthcare facilities in South Side Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities to consider biobank policies regarding return of research results. We recruited primary caregivers of children receiving care at either a Federally Qualified Health Center or a university-based practice to attend two full-day deliberative engagement sessions, which included four educational presentations followed by focus group discussions. Surveys were administered to assess attitudes before and after the engagement, and an evaluation was conducted to assess the deliberative engagement process. All 45 participants self-identified as African-American. Focus group themes included: (1) overall interest in biobank participation, broad consent, and recontact; (2) root causes of distrust and potential biobank strategies to facilitate trust; (3) perceived positive and negative aspects of receiving research results; and (4) strong interest in receiving and managing their children's research results. Survey data indicated the same degree of interest in receiving results about themselves as about their children. Pre- and post-session findings showed mainly non-significant attitudinal changes in level of interest in biobank participation and return of research results, although there was a decrease in level of concern regarding identification from research data. Our findings reveal shared community insights important in facilitating relationships and policy discussions between biobank researchers and research participants.     

Public’s attitudes on participation in a biobank for research: an Italian survey

Background

The creation of biobanks depends upon people’s willingness to donate their samples for research purposes and to agree to sample storage. Moreover, biobanks are a public good that requires active participation by all interested stakeholders at every stage of development. Therefore, knowing public’s attitudes towards participation in a biobank and biobank management is important and deserves investigation.

Method

A survey was conducted among family members of patients attending the outpatient department of our institute for a geriatric or neurological visit, documenting their willingness to participate in a biobank and their views on the legal-ethical aspects of biobank management. Information regarding subjects’ attitudes on biomedical research in general and genetic research in particular was also collected. Participants’ data on biobanks were compared with data previously collected from the Italian ethics committees (ECs) to evaluate the extent to which lay people and ethics committees share views and concerns regarding biobanks.

Results

One hundred forty-five subjects took part in the survey. The willingness to give biological samples for the constitution of a biobank set up for research purposes was declared by 86% of subjects and was modulated by subjects’ education. People in favour of providing biological samples for a biobank expressed a more positive view on biomedical research than did people who were not in favour; attitude towards genetic research in dementia was the strongest predictor of participation. Different from ECs that prefer specific consent (52%) and do not choose the option of broad consent (8%) for samples collection in a biobank, participants show a clear preference for broad consent (57%), followed by partially restricted consent (16%), specific consent (15%), and multi-layered consent (12%). Almost all of the subjects available to contribute to a biobank desire to receive both individual research results and research results of general value, while around fifty per cent of ECs require results communication.

Conclusion

Family members showed willingness to participate in a biobank for research and expressed a view on the ethical aspects of a biobank management that differ on several issues from the Italian ECs’ opinion. Laypersons’ views should be taken into account in developing biobank regulations.

     

Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view

Many current paediatric studies concern relationships between genes and environment and discuss aetiology, treatment and prevention of Mendelian and multifactorial diseases. Many of these studies depend on collection and long-term storage of data and biological material from affected children in biobanks. Stored material is a source of personal information of the donor and his family and could be used in an undesirable context, potentially leading to discrimination and interfering with a child''s right to an open future. Here, we address the normative framework regarding biobanking with residual tissue of children, protecting the privacy interests of young biobank donors (0–12 years). We analyse relevant legal documents concerning storage and use of children''s material for research purposes. We explore the views of 17 Dutch experts involved in paediatric biobank research and focus on informed consent for donation of leftover tissue as well as disclosure of individual research findings resulting from biobank research. The results of this analysis show that experts have no clear consensus about the appropriate rules for storage of and research with children''s material in biobanks. Development of a framework that provides a fair balance between fundamental paediatric research and privacy protection is necessary.     

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

PurposeWe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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%).ConclusionMany 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.     

Observ-OM and Observ-TAB: Universal syntax solutions for the integration, search, and exchange of phenotype and genotype information

Genetic and epidemiological research increasingly employs large collections of phenotypic and molecular observation data from high quality human and model organism samples. Standardization efforts have produced a few simple formats for exchange of these various data, but a lightweight and convenient data representation scheme for all data modalities does not exist, hindering successful data integration, such as assignment of mouse models to orphan diseases and phenotypic clustering for pathways. We report a unified system to integrate and compare observation data across experimental projects, disease databases, and clinical biobanks. The core object model (Observ-OM) comprises only four basic concepts to represent any kind of observation: Targets, Features, Protocols (and their Applications), and Values. An easy-to-use file format (Observ-TAB) employs Excel to represent individual and aggregate data in straightforward spreadsheets. The systems have been tested successfully on human biobank, genome-wide association studies, quantitative trait loci, model organism, and patient registry data using the MOLGENIS platform to quickly setup custom data portals. Our system will dramatically lower the barrier for future data sharing and facilitate integrated search across panels and species. All models, formats, documentation, and software are available for free and open source (LGPLv3) at http://www.observ-om.org.     

Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings

PurposeComprehensive genomic analysis including exome and genome sequencing is increasingly being utilized in research studies, leading to the generation of incidental genetic findings. It is unclear how researchers plan to deal with incidental genetic findings.MethodsWe conducted a survey of the practices and attitudes of 234 members of the US genetic research community and performed qualitative semistructured interviews with 28 genomic researchers to understand their views and experiences with incidental genetic research findings.ResultsWe found that 12% of the researchers had returned incidental genetic findings, and an additional 28% planned to do so. A large majority of researchers (95%) believe that incidental findings for highly penetrant disorders with immediate medical implications should be offered to research participants. However, there was no consensus on returning incidental results for other conditions varying in penetrance and medical actionability. Researchers raised concerns that the return of incidental findings would impose significant burdens on research and could potentially have deleterious effects on research participants if not performed well. Researchers identified assistance needed to enable effective, accurate return of incidental findings.ConclusionThe majority of the researchers believe that research participants should have the option to receive at least some incidental genetic research results.     

Researchers' opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study

Eighty Dutch investigators (response 41%) involved in biobank research responded to a web-based survey addressing communication of results of biobank research to individual participants. Questions addressed their opinion towards an obligation to communicate results and related issues such as ownership of blood samples, privacy, therapeutic relationship, costs and implications for participants. Most researchers (74%) indicated that participants only have to be informed when results have implications for treatment or prevention. Researchers were generally not inclined to provide more feedback to patients as compared with healthy participants, nor were they inclined to provide feedback in return for participants' contribution to the biobank. Our results demonstrate major and significant differences in opinion about the feedback of individual results within the community of biobank researchers.     

Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation

This article examines public perceptions of biobanks in Europe using a multi-method approach combining quantitative and qualitative data. It is shown that public support for biobanks in Europe is variable and dependent on a range of interconnected factors: people''s engagement with biobanks; concerns about privacy and data security, and trust in the socio-political system, key actors and institutions involved in biobanks. We argue that the biobank community needs to acknowledge the impact of these factors if they are to successfully develop and integrate biobanks at a pan-European level.     

Personalized assent for pediatric biobanks

Pediatric biobanking is considered important for generating biomedical knowledge and improving (pediatric) health care. However, the inclusion of children’s samples in biobanks involves specific ethical issues. One of the main concerns is how to appropriately engage children in the consent procedure. We suggest that children should be involved through a personalized assent procedure, which means that both the content and the process of assent are adjusted to the individual child. In this paper we provide guidance on how to put personalized assent into pediatric biobanking practice and consider both the content and process of personalized assent. In the discussion we argue that the assent procedure itself is formative. Investing in the procedure should be a requirement for pediatric biobank research. Although personalized assent will require certain efforts, the pediatric (biobank) community must be aware of its importance. The investment and trust earned can result in ongoing engagement, important longitudinal information, and stability in/for the research infrastructure, as well as increased knowledge among its participants about research activity. Implementing personalized assent will both respect the child and support biobank research.     

Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks

Incidental findings (IFs) are acknowledged to be among the most important ethical issues to consider in biobank research. Genome-wide association studies and disease-specific genetic research might reveal information about individual participants that are not related to the research purpose, but may be relevant to those participants'' future health. In this article, we provide a synopsis of arguments for and against the disclosure of IFs in biobank research. We argue that arguments that do not distinguish between communications about pathogenic conditions and complex genetic risk for diseases fail, as preferences and decisions may be far more complex in the latter case. The principle of beneficence, for example, often supports the communication of incidentally discovered diseases, but if communication of risk is different, the beneficence of such communication is not equally evident. By conflating the latter form of communication with the former, the application of ethical principles to IFs in biobank research sometimes becomes too easy and frictionless. Current empirical surveys of people''s desire to be informed about IFs do not provide sufficient guidance because they rely on the same notion of risk communication as a form of communication about actual health and disease. Differently designed empirical research and more reflection on biobank research and genetic risk information is required before ethical principles can be applied to support the adoption of a reasonable and comprehensive policy for handling IFs.A much discussed problem associated with biobank research is the return to participants of incidental findings (IFs): ‘a finding concerning an individual research participant that has a potential health or reproductive importance and is discovered in the course of conducting research but is beyond the aims of the study.''¹ How should such information be handled ethically responsibly in genome-wide association studies and disease-specific genetic research?In this paper, we argue that the discussion up until now has neglected a distinction that should be held in the forefront of the discussion, especially concerning genetic biobank research: the distinction between an incidentally discovered disease and an incidentally discovered increased genetic risk for disease of unclear predictive value. Biobank research and rapidly increasing studies in genomics, proteomics, and nutrigenomics continue to identify many genes and biomarkers associated with risk of disease. Genetic testing for monogenic disorders are well established in health services, but little is yet known of the best way to handle complex risk information associated with multifactorial disorders in which the predictive importance of individual elements – genetic, epigenetic, or environmental – will differ for different individuals. The value of being informed about an incidentally discovered genetic risk (be it inherited or caused by a virus) is therefore much more difficult to ascertain than that for an incidentally discovered pathogenic condition revealed, for example, in a brain imaging study.The aim of this paper is to exhibit the absence of a distinction between disease and complex genetic risk for disease in the discussion, and to show how the arguments therefore fail to address the more complex kinds of IFs that increasingly arise in biobank research. Further research should be conducted before the arguments can be considered conclusive.Disease risks can be discovered also in imaging studies, of course, a blood vessel with thin walls can imply an increased risk for stroke. Our focus in this paper, however, is on genetic biobank research, where IFs increasingly concern multifactorial risks for disease having both genetic and environmental dimensions, which we believe introduce complications that so far have not been addressed.