Patient Decisions for Disclosure of Secondary Findings Identified from Clinical Diagnostic Exome Sequencing Gonzalez K 1, Shahmirzadi L 1, Palmaer E 1,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What Should You Know and Be Doing About Genome Privacy? Ellen Wright Clayton, MD, JD Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society Vanderbilt University.
Advertisements

Supported by grants from: National Human Genome Research Institute (ELSI) HG/AG (The REVEAL Study); National Institute on Aging AG (The MIRAGE.
Medical Genomics Promise, Peril and Price. Alison J Whelan M.D., FACP Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics Director of the Hereditary Cancer Clinic Washington.
“These data can inform policy discussion” Am J Hum Genet, October 3, 2013, 93:
Breast MR Imaging Workshop th September 2014 High-Risk Screening Evidence-based Clinical Indications for Breast MRI Dr. Muhamad Zabidi Ahmad, AMDI.
Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics Conference Newborn Screening: The Future Revolution Beth A. Tarini, MD, MS Assistant Professor Child.
Alzheimer disease Developed by Dr. June Carroll, Ms. Shawna Morrison and Dr. Judith Allanson Last updated April 2015.
ACMG Recommendation: All laboratories conducting clinical sequencing should seek and report expected pathogenic mutations for a short list of carefully.
“Influence of age on the management of heart failure: Findings from Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF)” Daniel E. Forman, MD; Christopher.
Hereditary Factors in Breast Cancer
The Genetics of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Patricia Tonin, PhD Associate Professor Depts. Medicine, Human Genetics & Oncology McGill University.
Breast Cancer Risk and Risk Assessment Models
Direct to Consumer Testing Issues. Types of tests being sold Diagnostic tests – identify specific conditions Carrier testing - identify those who carry.
19th century20th century 21st century (Flemming, 1882) Where is genetics headed?
The Pursuit of Better Medicines through Genetic Research Terri Arledge, DVM US Department Head Drug Development Genetics.
Issues in Genetic Testing: Real versus Not-so-Real Roberta A Pagon, MD Principal Investigator, GeneTests Professor, Pediatrics University of Washington.
Human Genetics Overview.
An Update in Genetics of Epilepsy
Introduction to Molecular Epidemiology Jan Dorman, PhD University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing
Background The 2 week wait referral system was designed to expedite the referral of patients, suspected to have cancer, from Primary to Secondary care.
An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome J.Berg et al. Genetics in Medicine Presented by Li Changjian.
Genetic Testing. What is Genetic Testing? Analysis of human DNA, chromosomes and/or proteins Analysis of human DNA, chromosomes and/or proteins Used to:
ELSI Challenges Associated with Clinical Applications of Exome Sequencing: preliminary results from a Systematic Literature Review Gabrielle Bertier, PhD.
Universiteit Maastricht Studium Generale Lecture Series April/May 2011 Ethical dilemmas in health care dr. Ron Berghmans, dr. Wybo Dondorp, dr. Jenny Slatman,
Epigenome 1. 2 Background: GWAS Genome-Wide Association Studies 3.
Chapter 13 Carrier Screening. Introduction Carrier screening involves testing of individuals for heterozygosity for genes that would produce significant.
Amber Ellis and Russell Brown
The Impact of Regional ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Systems of Care on the Use of Protocols and Quality Improvement Initiatives in Community Hospitals.
Providing Research Results to Participants David Shalowitz Department of Clinical Bioethics National Institutes of Health Pre-conference Program: Advanced.
SSHRC - ERA - SAGE Workshop Research on the Ethical, Legal and Societal Aspects of Human Genomics: North America Denise Avard PhD Director of Research.
Rachel Liao, PhD Coordinator of the Clinical Working Group and the BRCA Challenge demonstration project for the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health.
Private pay, physician ordered genetic testing Developed by Dr. Judith Allanson, Ms. Shawna Morrison and Dr. June Carroll Last updated November 2015.
Understanding Genetic Testing
Prostate Cancer There are roughly 240,000 cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, making it the most common cancer in males.
Copyright restrictions may apply JAMA Pediatrics Journal Club Slides: Intermittent vs Continuous Pulse Oximetry McCulloh R, Koster M, Ralston S, et al.
Ethics in Clinical Genetics and Genomics Key Knowledge Year 4 Medical Ethics and Law Thread Course, The Ethox Centre, University of Oxford.
What Percentage of Cancer is Considered to be Hereditary?
Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Familial Hypercholesterolemia Mutation Status, and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease Amit V. Khera, Hong-Hee Won, Gina.
Self-pay, expanded carrier screening Developed by Ms. Shawna Morrison, Dr. June Carroll, and Dr. Judith Allanson Last updated May 2016.
Date of download: 6/24/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: The Year in Cardiovascular Surgery J Am Coll Cardiol.
1 Copyright © 2012 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Copyright © 2008 by Mosby, Inc., an affiliate of Elsevier Inc. Chapter 11 Genomics in Public Health.
Date of download: 7/2/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Clinical Interpretation and Implications of Whole-Genome.
Challenges in interpreting and counseling of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) results Sara Taghizadeh PhD student of medical genetic in Genetics Research.
Shubhangi Arora1; Eden Haverfield2; Gabriele Richard2; Susanne B
Hereditary Cancer Predisposition: Updates in Genetic Testing
Navigating from Somatic Tumor Testing to Germline Genetic Testing
Monogenic Disorders Genetic Counselling
Week 5: Ethical, Legal & Social Issues in Applied Genomics
Secondary findings from Genome-wide Testing
Cases…. Susan M. Wolf, JD University of Minnesota
Mamarojo2 Ethical, legal and social issues in genomics
Making Sense of Uncertainty
WHY GENETIC COUNSELING IS IMPORTANT
Genetic Testing Result Means. Before Genetic Testing  The result of genetic testing can be life changing.  It is important for patients and their families.
Who in the room would offer BRCA1/2 testing to this patient Who in the room would offer BRCA1/2 testing to this patient? How might the medical management.
Precision Oncology Carolyn M. Hutter, PhD.
Content and Labeling of Tests Marketed as Clinical “Whole-Exome Sequencing” Perspectives from a cancer genetics clinician and clinical lab director Allen.
National Society of Genetic Counselors: Position Statements
Figure 1 The genomic nephrology workflow: genetic diagnosis and clinical application Figure 1 |The genomic nephrology workflow: genetic diagnosis and clinical.
Lorraine Hartles West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. doi: /nrclinonc
Evaluation of ACMG-Guideline-Based Variant Classification of Cancer Susceptibility and Non-Cancer-Associated Genes in Families Affected by Breast Cancer 
Figure Revised Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) diagnostic algorithm for the use of biomarkers and genetic testing Revised Niemann-Pick disease type.
Marilyn M. Li, Michael Datto, Eric J
Secondary Variants in Individuals Undergoing Exome Sequencing: Screening of 572 Individuals Identifies High-Penetrance Mutations in Cancer-Susceptibility.
Genomic Technologies and the New Era of Genomic Medicine
A Quality Improvement Project to Improve the Usage of Universal Lipid Screening Guidelines at a Federally Qualified Health Center in the Southern United.
The result of a genetic test is often not only useful to the child and his or her immediate family, but also to the extended family. However, not all people.
A person’s genome is his/her complete set of DNA
Six W’s of Genetic Testing
Presentation transcript:

Patient Decisions for Disclosure of Secondary Findings Identified from Clinical Diagnostic Exome Sequencing Gonzalez K 1, Shahmirzadi L 1, Palmaer E 1, Parra M 1, Chao E 1 1) Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA Background  Exome sequencing of a single individual for a clinical indication results in the identification of hundreds of variants unrelated to the disease of interest. 1 These variants are often referred to as “incidental” or “secondary findings”. 1 While the vast majority of these variants are likely benign polymorphisms or within clinically novel genes of which the function remains largely obscure, a small number (between roughly 1-5) of well-described disease-association mutations are detected (data in preparation).  Although secondary to the reason for testing, these variants may also have important clinical and medical significance for the patient including cancer risks, carrier status for recessive conditions, early and late onset diseases.  Currently, several professional groups provide recommendations for the return of these findings, however there is no standard accepted method for reporting. 2,3,4,5  Given the recent availability of testing, there is limited knowledge regarding the preferences of secondary findings of actual patients undergoing whole exome sequencing (WES) and the impact of disclosing these findings. 6  Herein, we provide empirical evidence of preference for secondary findings results disclosure based on the first 200 families referred to Ambry Genetics for WES. Reportable secondary alterations were defined as being HGMD or OMIM defined, well-established disease causing genes, and categorized as a mutation (variants of uncertain significance are not reported). Methods  Retrospective review of patient responses to Ambry’s Exome Sequencing Consent Form received from cohort of 200 individuals undergoing whole exome sequencing.  Data collected included age and preference for secondary results, categories A-D. Patients <18yo were automatically blinded to categories A-C [Table 1]. Take-Home Points  Secondary findings from whole exome sequencing may have important medical implications.  Of the first 200 patients to undergo exome sequencing at Ambry Genetics, 187 (93.5%) opted to receive one or more category of available secondary results.  Interestingly, 24 /162 parents/guardians of patients <18yo marked the consent form boxes for disclosure of results from categories A-C, despite our policy to not disclose these categories to minors.  Based on these findings, future efforts may be needed on a clinical level for how to best counsel and/or triage patients regarding results from secondary findings. References 1) Johnston JJ, et al. (2012) Secondary variants in individuals undergoing exome sequencing: screening of 572 individuals identifies high-penetrance mutations in cancer-susceptibility genes. AJHG, 91: )Green et al. (2012) Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med, 4(4):405–410. 3)Berg JS et al. (2012) An Informatics Approach to Analyzing the Incidentalopme. Genetics in Medicine, DOI: /gim /gim )Wolf et al., (2012). Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4): )Fabsitz, R.R. et al. (2010). Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Gene, 3: )Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, et al. (2008) Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11): Figure 3: Adult Patient’s Results Blinding Preferences TABLE 1 : Secondary Findings Categories Figure 1: Total Patients CATEGORYAVAILABLE TO: A)Recessive disease carrier statusAdults 1 B)Cancer predispositionAdults C) Late onset disease predisposition Adults D)Early-onset diseaseAdults and Children 2 1 Adults = >18 years old 2 Children = <18 years old Figure 2: Patient Decisions for Secondary Findings Disclosure by Category Results  Among the first 200 cases to arrive in the laboratory, there was a total of 162 children ( 18yo) [Figure 1].  187/200 (93.5%) patients chose to receive secondary results for one or more available categories. Of the children, 155/162 children (95.6%) opted to receive results for category D-early onset disease. 36/38 (94.7%) adults chose to receive category A,C and D results, and 35/38 (92.1%) adults chose to receive category B results [Figure 2].  A total of 13 patients (6.5%) chose to have one or more secondary finding blinded. 7 children chose to blind childhood-onset disease alterations. 6 adults chose to blind one or more secondary finding. Of the adults who chose to blind these findings, preferences were evenly scattered between categories A-D, with most (3 patients) choosing to blind category B-cancer predisposition [Figure 3].