Informed consent for human genetic and genomic studies: a systematic review

As genetic and genomic studies grow in scale, there are ethical concerns related to the collection and use of genetic information. The emergence of large public databases potentially redefine the terms of participation in genetic and genomic research, and suggests the changing application of traditional ethical principles such as privacy or consent. For this study, we wanted to see whether such developments are reflected in the informed consent processes in human genetic and genomic studies. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the empirical studies that examined informed consent involving large genetic databases in human genetic and genomic studies, grouped the identified issues related to the different stakeholders (including subjects, researchers, and institutional review boards) and discussed the limitations and implications of these findings. Major themes related to the place of bioethical considerations, procured tissues, people involved, process of informed consent and study procedures. Frequently raised issues included confidentiality of participants, documentation of informed consent, public attitudes, future use of participant samples or data, and disclosure of results. Awareness and attention to these bioethical issues as well as assiduousness in managing these concerns in genetic/genomic research would further strengthen and safeguard the rights, safety and well‐being of genetic research participants.     

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives

Genetic tests have traditionally been offered by health professionals. However, genomic tests have been available direct to the consumer for the last decade, increasingly via the Internet. The aim of this systematic review was to ascertain the evidence concerning use of direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the consumer perspective. Primary research was identified using the search terms 'direct-to-consumer' and 'genomic or genetic' in six bibliographic databases and citation searching of findings. In all, 17 papers were reviewed: 3 qualitative and 14 quantitative. Findings indicate a low level of awareness of direct-to-consumer genomic testing and, because of the hypothetical nature of many studies, little evidence from users of such tests. Although potential users appear to be interested in information about their risks of developing common diseases, concerns were expressed about privacy of genetic risk information and the reliability of genomic tests. Consumers were anxious about the nature of the results. There appeared to be a preference to access genomic tests via a health professional, or to discuss the results and obtain advice from a health professional. Authors of only two papers recruited participants who had used direct-to-consumer tests and samples from the large quantitative studies were not representative of the population. These factors limit the value of the available evidence. However, we conclude that there is public interest in direct-to-consumer genomic tests, and that this is likely to result in an increased workload for a range of health professionals. We also consider that there are educational implications for both consumers and health professionals.     

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research

PurposeResearchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process.MethodsWe performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants.ResultsMost researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves.ConclusionThere is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.     

Analysis of state laws on informed consent for clinical genetic testing in the era of genomic sequencing

This article assesses the adequacy of informed consent to clinical genetic testing laws based on an examination of 15 states with institutions that had been involved in a National Institutes of Health-supported Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium project. We identified relevant statutory provisions through a legal search engine and included statutes that describe the informed consent requirements for clinical genetic testing and/or the protections for genetic material, information, or data. We found that statutory definitions were often limited in problematic ways, such as focusing only on variants known to be associated with disease or negative health effects or associated with asymptomatic disease. Some statutes required complex levels of detail if applied to genomic technologies and set confusing disclosure standards for current use and future access. Others had exceptions from informed consent requirements for future research use, limited requirements for the destruction of specimens as opposed to derived data, or linked key definitional components to the evolving concept of “identifiability.” Further reform and research are needed to ensure that state law protections advance as rapidly as the science they aspire to enable.     

Attitudes towards Genetic Information Delivered by High-Throughput Sequencing among Molecular Geneticists,Genetic Counselors,Medical Advisors and Students in France

High-throughput sequencing technologies performed in the clinical setting have the potential to reveal diverse genetic information. Whether it is initially targeted or unsolicited, strictly medical or not, or even information on a carrier status as part of preconception screening, access to genetic information needs to be managed. The aim of the current study was to gather potential attitudes of various stakeholders towards the sharing of genetic information from next-generation sequencing, and more specifically towards incidental findings, predictive findings, non-medical information and carrier status. Answers from a total number of 1631 individuals belonging to four different groups (45 molecular geneticists, 65 genetic counselors, 56 medical advisors to the state insurance plan, and 1465 university students) were collected through online questionnaires. Overall, the study reflects preferences towards the return of health risks related to serious diseases when effective treatment is available and information on reproductive risks. The importance of the perceived medical utility, both for disease prevention and treatment, was the main distinguishing feature. Attitudes from genetic health professionals were found more reluctant to receive a wide range of information. Hands-on experience with the practice of genetic testing is likely to influence perception of the utility of the genetic information that should be delivered. At the same time, perceptions of preconception genetic carrier screening brought out less differences between participants. Better understanding of the underlying interest in genomic information and thorough education on its value and usage are key elements to the adoption of future guidelines and policy that respect bioethical principles.     

Comparison of participant information and informed consent forms of five European studies in genetic isolated populations

Family-based research in genetically isolated populations is an effective approach for identifying loci influencing variation in disease traits. In common with all studies in humans, those in genetically isolated populations need ethical approval; however, existing ethical frameworks may be inadequate to protect participant privacy and confidentiality and to address participants'' information needs in such populations. Using the ethical–legal guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) as a template, we compared the participant information leaflets and consent forms of studies in five European genetically isolated populations to identify additional information that should be incorporated into information leaflets and consent forms to guarantee satisfactorily informed consent. We highlight the additional information that participants require on the research purpose and the reasons why their population was chosen; on the potential risks and benefits of participation; on the opportunities for benefit sharing; on privacy; on the withdrawal of consent and on the disclosure of genetic data. This research raises some important issues that should be addressed properly and identifies relevant types of information that should be incorporated into information leaflets for this type of study.     

Direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing: good,bad or benign?

Caulfield T, Ries NM, Ray PN, Shuman C, Wilson B. Direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign? A wide variety of genetic tests are now being marketed and sold in direct‐to‐consumer (DTC) commercial transactions. However, risk information revealed through many DTC testing services, especially those based on emerging genome wide‐association studies, has limited predictive value for consumers. Some commentators contend that tests are being marketed prematurely, while others support rapid translation of genetic research findings to the marketplace. The potential harms and benefits of DTC access to genetic testing are not yet well understood, but some large‐scale studies have recently been launched to examine how consumers understand and use genetic risk information. Greater consumer access to genetic tests creates a need for continuing education for health care professionals so they can respond to patients' inquiries about the benefits, risks and limitations of DTC services. Governmental bodies in many jurisdictions are considering options for regulating practices of DTC genetic testing companies, particularly to govern quality of commercial genetic tests and ensure fair and truthful advertising. Intersectoral initiatives involving government regulators, professional bodies and industry are important to facilitate development of standards to govern this rapidly developing area of personalized genomic commerce.     

Testing for inherited susceptibility to breast cancer: A survey of informed consent forms for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing

The identification of genetic mutations linked to breast cancer has made it possible to test for the genetic predisposition to this disease. However, though this test may provide certain benefits, there are also potential risks involved with the testing process, including social and economic considerations. In light of these potential risks, we sought to determine what information individuals are receiving in the informed decision making process. To learn the minimal amount of information the actual testees receive, we obtained 10 informed consent forms from seven different testing facilities. These testing centers include the major sources of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in the United States at this time. We analyzed the content of these forms by developing content categories and scoring them appropriately. We found all ten forms discussed in varying ways and to varying degrees the purpose of genetic testing, limitations of the test, implications of both positive and negative results, and confidentiality procedures; most, but not all, addressed various psychological and insurance risks. Overall, the forms demonstrated substantial variation in content and organization, underlining the need for more discussion and research on the purpose, nature, and effectiveness of informed consent forms for this type of genetic test. Am. J. Med. Genet. 75:82–87, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Genetic counselling and consent for tumour testing in HNPCC

Molecular pathological tests are performed on stored tumour material in order to identify individuals with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. We have previously identified that there is widespread use of this testing and now describe what counselling occurs prior to testing and the approaches in seeking consent. A respondent from every cancer genetic centre in UK offering microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry testing (n= 20, response rate = 100%) was interviewed in order to ascertain pre-test counselling and consent protocols. Individuals providing consent are not always seen in person prior to providing consent but few services had supporting written information. Nine (of 19) consent forms documented consent to perform genetic testing, while the majority (14/19) sought consent to release pathology samples to the genetic service. Less than half of the services routinely seek consent to test samples from a deceased individual. Concerns were raised about spousal consent when the implications of results are for blood relatives. The differences identified between genetic counselling for testing of tumour tissue and for germ-line genetic testing suggest that counselling protocols specific for somatic testing should be developed. The results are discussed in the context of a changing legal environment and anticipated growing demand for testing.     

Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) has improved the diagnostic rate of genomic disorders in pediatric populations, but can produce uncertain and unexpected findings. This article explores clinicians' perspectives and identifies challenges in effectively interpreting results and communicating with families about CMA. Responses to an online survey were obtained from 40 clinicians who had ordered CMA. Content included practice characteristics and perceptions, and queries about a hypothetical case involving uncertain and incidental findings. Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistical tests. Clinicians' comfort levels differed significantly for explaining uncertain, abnormal, and normal CMA results, with lowest levels for uncertain results. Despite clinical guidelines recommending informed consent, many clinicians did not consider it pertinent to discuss the potential for CMA to reveal information concerning biological parentage or predisposition to late‐onset disease, in a hypothetical case. Many non‐genetics professionals ordering CMA did not feel equipped to interpret the results for patients, and articulated needs for education and access to genetics professionals. This exploratory study highlights key challenges in the practice of genomic medicine, and identifies needs for education, disseminated practice guidelines, and access to genetics professionals, especially when dealing with uncertain or unexpected findings.     

Informed consent in genetic research

History demonstrates that, without adequate informed consent, research participants rights may be violated and their confidence in research as an enterprise undermined. If participants lose confidence in research, they may hesitate to participate in future research protocols. Without human participants to donate biological samples and participate in protocols, research will be difficult, if not impossible to conduct. Thus, appropriate informed consent protects both research participants and the enterprise of research itself. Informed consent principles in genetics not only help ensure the appropriateness of specific research protocols, but they also help support the continuation of all types of research on human participants. Most research involving human participants raises some issues fundamental to the informed consent process, such as whether potential participants truly understand the consequences of their participation in a study, and in which circumstances a person is competent to give consent. Advances in genetics are raising a new set of informed consent issues. The risks that may be involved in genetic research extend far beyond the standard considerations of immediate potential harm to study participants. Genetic information carries with it the possibility of uncovering a future propensity for a given illness. The disclosure of genetic information may lead to problems in obtaining health insurance, employment and/or housing discrimination, and to social and personal problems not only for participants, but also for their family members.     

Downsizing genomic medicine: Approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small

As we look to a time when whole-genome sequencing is integrated into patient care, it is possible to anticipate a number of ethical challenges that will need to be addressed. The most intractable of these concern informed consent and the responsible management of very large amounts of genetic information. Given the range of possible findings, it remains unclear to what extent it will be possible to obtain meaningful patient consent to genomic testing. Equally unclear is how clinicians will disseminate the enormous volume of genetic information produced by whole-genome sequencing. Toward developing practical strategies for managing these ethical challenges, we propose a research agenda that approaches multiplexed forms of clinical genetic testing as natural laboratories in which to develop best practices for managing the ethical complexities of genomic medicine. Genet Med 2011:13(3):191–194.     

Knowledge About Genetic Risk for Breast Cancer and Perceptions of Genetic Testing in a Sociodemographically Diverse Sample

Informed consent for genetic testing for breast–ovarian cancer susceptibility requires that women understand basic concepts about the inheritance of cancer susceptibility and the benefits and risks associated with genetic testing. Women awaiting routine medical services (N = 220) were surveyed about their knowledge of breast cancer and cancer genetics and their perceptions of genetic testing and personal risk. There were no racial differences in median income or mean level of education. Compared to Caucasian women, African American women knew significantly less about breast cancer and about genetic risk for breast cancer. African American women had different psychological, social, and economic concerns as evidenced by how they weighted the benefits and risks of genetic testing. This study is the first to assess several dimensions of informed consent for genetic testing among a sociodemographically diverse group. The findings should enable health professionals to target the African American and lower-income populations with the appropriate education and counseling.     

Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2

The perceived benefits and risks of genetic testing may vary between groups of individuals with different cultural, demographic, and family history features. This multicentre study examined the factors that influenced the decision to undergo genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Canadian Jewish women with breast cancer. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and distributed to 134 individuals enrolled in a research-based testing program for Ashkenazi women. The questionnaire assessed demographic, social, and family history parameters, and the influence of medical, family, social, psychological, and cultural/religious factors on decision making about genetic testing. Seventy-six percent of women completed the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of study participants had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The most important factors influencing the decision to undergo testing were a desire to contribute to research, potential benefit to other family members, curiosity, and the potential for relief if not found to be a carrier (endorsed by 87, 78, 70, and 60% of participants, respectively). The main perceived risks of undergoing genetic testing related to insurance discrimination, confidentiality, accuracy and interpretability of results, potential impact on marriage prospects for family members, and focus on the Jewish community (endorsed by 28, 24, 30, 17, and 14% of participants, respectively). This study provides novel information on the motivating factors for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in Canadian women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The focus on altruistic factors and those related to perceived psychological benefits of testing is notable.     

遗传病二代测序临床检测全流程规范化共识探讨(4)——检测报告解读和遗传咨询

临床基因检测的结果在遗传分析环节由数据解读人员整理成一份规范的基因检测报告,提供给临床医师及受检者(若受检者有智力障碍或者为未成年人,则检测报告提供给其父母或法定监护人)。检测报告的内容应遵循相关标准及/行业共识。临床医师将综合基因检测报告及临床指征进一步诊断其所患疾病。遗传咨询师应协助临床医师及受检者或其亲属.提供检测后的遗传咨询服务。在知情同意的前提下建立检测后的跟踪随访机制。数据应由临床医疗机构与第三方检测机构共享,补充的回访数据可以帮助进一步评估报告结果,因此检测机构应定期对既往的检测报告数据及后续的回访数据进行整理分析,并同新的分析结果同步提交给患者和医疗机构。所有涉及报告、遗传咨询、后续跟踪回访及分析结果更新的活动均应遵循相关的法律法规。     

Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: Stakeholder perspectives

PurposeComplex and sometimes controversial information must be conveyed during the consent process for participation in biorepositories, and studies suggest that consent documents in general are growing in length and complexity. As a first step toward creating a simplified biorepository consent form, we gathered data from multiple stakeholders about what information was most important for prospective participants to know when making a decision about taking part in a biorepository.MethodsWe recruited 52 research participants, 12 researchers, and 20 institutional review board representatives from Durham and Kannapolis, NC. These subjects were asked to read a model biorepository consent form and highlight sentences they deemed most important.ResultsOn average, institutional review board representatives identified 72.3% of the sentences as important; researchers selected 53.0%, and participants 40.4% (P = 0.0004). Participants most often selected sentences about the kinds of individual research results that might be offered, privacy risks, and large-scale data sharing. Researchers highlighted sentences about the biorepository's purpose, privacy protections, costs, and participant access to individual results. Institutional review board representatives highlighted sentences about collection of basic personal information, medical record access, and duration of storage.ConclusionThe differing mandates of these three groups can translate into widely divergent opinions about what information is important and appropriate to include a consent form. These differences could frustrate efforts to move simplified forms—for biobanking as well as for other kinds of research—into actual use, despite continued calls for such forms.     

The establishment of an ethical guideline for genetic testing through citizen consensus via the Internet in Taiwan

Background

With the rapid advance of genetics, the application of genetic testing has become increasingly popular. Test results have had a tremendous impact on individuals who receive the test and his or her family. The ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetic testing cannot be overlooked. The Internet is a potential tool for public engagement.

Objectives

This study aimed at establishing ethical guidelines for genetic testing in Taiwan through a participatory citizen consensus approach via the Internet.

Methods

The research method used was a citizen consensus conference modified by an Internet application and the Delphi technique. The citizen consensus conference is one of the public participation mechanisms. The draft ethical guidelines for genetic testing were written by an expert panel of 10. The Delphi technique was applied to a citizen panel recruited via the Internet until a consensus was reached. Our research population was restricted to people who had Internet access.

Results

Included in the citizen panel were 100 individuals. A total of 3 individuals dropped out of the process. The citizen panel was exposed to the issues through Internet learning and sharing. In all, 3 rounds of anonymous questionnaires were administered before a consensus was reached in terms of importance and feasibility. The result was ethical guidelines composed of 4 categories and 25 items. The 4 categories encompassed decision making (6 items), management of tissue samples (5 items), release of results (8 items), and information flow (6 items). On a scale of 1 to 10, the average (SD) importance score for the decision-making category was 9.41 (SD 0.58); for the management of tissue samples category, the average score was 9.62 (SD 0.49); for the release of results category, the average score was 9.34 (SD= 0.59); and for the information flow category, the average score was 9.6 (SD = 0.43). Exploratory analyses indicated that participants with higher education tended to attribute more importance to these guidelines.

Conclusions

The resulting recommended ethical guidelines had 4 categories and 25 items. We hope through the implementation of these guidelines that mutual trust can be established between health care profession and the general public with respect to genetic tests.     

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