Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

BackgroundGenomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of...

Biobanks have come to be essential apparatuses of genetic and genomic research as they are seen as essential tools for translational medicine in particular. Various unique ethical and legal challenges arise in the course of biobanking as biobanks generate a range of ethical and legal challenges related to privacy, informed consent, control and ownership, withdrawal of samples, commercialization, genomic sovereignty, return of results, incidental findings, and research governance. These issues have generated much policy debate within the international world, and yet in South Africa, debates on the ethical and legal challenges posed by biobanks and biobank networks still remain alienated. According to Wolf, biobanks are the dominant part of a “biobank research system,” consisting of primary research also known as collection sites, the biobank, and secondary research sites that access biobank data or samples for further research. Therefore, incidental findings could arise at several points in a biobank-research system, that is, in primary research, biobank research, and secondary research. Within the South African context literature and guidance are sparse on the handling of significant incidental findings which are identified in biobank systems. How incidental findings should be handled as well as the role of biobanks in enabling this process, are well-founded concerns. Unresolved in South Africa, is how to manage incidental findings of potential health, reproductive, environmental and medicinal risk that are of particular importance to individual contributors. With a proposal for a national biobank in South Africa, it is apparent that researchers as well as clinicians are anticipated to access data from biobanks and to this end, laws, clear public guidance and regulations on the handling of incidental findings are indispensable.

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are expected to evaluate protocols planning the use of Next Generation Sequencing technologies (NGS), assuring that any genomic finding will be properly managed. As Canadian REBs play a central role in the disclosure of such results, we deemed it important to examine the views and experience of REB members on the return of aggregated research results, individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) in current genomic research. With this intent, we carried out a web-based survey, which showed that 59.7% of respondents viewed the change from traditional sequencing to NGS as more than a technical substitution, and that 77% of respondents agreed on the importance of returning aggregated research results, the most compelling reasons being the recognition of participants’ contribution and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. As for IRRs specifically, 50% of respondents were in favour of conveying such information, even when they only indicated the probability that a condition may develop. Current regulations and risk to participants were considered equally important, and much more than financial costs, when considering the return of IRRs and IFs. Respondents indicated that the financial aspect of offering genetic counseling was the least important matter when assessing it as a requisite. Granting agencies were named as mainly responsible for funding, while the organizing and returning of IRRs and IFs belonged to researchers. However, views in these matters differ according to respondents’ experience. Our results draw attention to the need for improved guidance when considering the organizational and financial aspects of returning genetic research results, so as to better fulfill the ethical and moral principles that are to guide such undertakings.

Human genetic and genomic research can yield information that may be of clinical relevance to the individuals who participate as subjects of the research. It has been common practice among researchers to notify participants during the informed consent process that no individual results will be disclosed, "incidental" or otherwise. However, as genetic information obtained in research becomes orders of magnitude more voluminous, increasingly accessible online, and more informative, this precedent may no longer be appropriate. There is not yet consensus on the responsibilities of researchers to disclose individual research results to research participants. Empirical research suggests that participants want to know individual research results. On the other hand, the increased resolution and power afforded by new genomic analyses may lead to findings of statistical, but not necessarily clinical, significance. This paper addresses the issues to be considered in deciding whether and how to disclose "incidental" findings or other findings of clinical significance that arise in the course of human genomic and genetic research. What research results should be offered, and what should not be offered? For which research should individual results be offered to research participants, when should they be offered, how, and to whom?

Over the past decade, managing the disclosure of findings of genomic research has been the subject of extensive scientific, ethical and legal commentary and is a major challenge for biobanks. To examine views of the general Australian public about the disclosure of individual research results (IRR) and incidental findings (IF) from biobank genomic research. A national computer assisted telephone interview was conducted amongst a representative sample of (n = 800) adult residents across each Australian State and Territory. The majority of the Australian general public would be interested in receiving IRR and IF if they allowed their blood/tissue to be used in research; 94.4% (n = 800) reported that they would like to receive 'specific information obtained from your sample that may be important to your health or treatment', and 83.4% their 'potential genetic risk of an inherited disease'. Although fewer desired to receive 'any IF that were not directly related to your (potential) diagnosed condition' (70.0%), most would still like to receive IF. A latent class analysis on the desire to receive (or not) all types of results revealed differences in preferences in the information they wished to receive. The majority of Australians desire to receive most information arising from research involving their tissue, including IRR and IF. Differences in the extent and type of information they desire to receive are noted. Biobanks must establish strategies to identify information needs of donors, assess research data and communicate with donors and donor families. Processes need to take account of differences in donor preferences and in the clinical or research context(s).

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

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings

The case against returning IRRs to donors While many accept the first conclusion, far fewer accept the second. Indeed, if anything, the trend has been explicitly to reject it. Increasingly, bioethical opinion and inter national policies are “converging towards an ethical duty to return individual genetic research results to subjects, provided there is proof of validity, significance and benefit” [3]. Citing a wide variety of ethical principles, this emerging consensus holds that there are at least some, if not many, situations in which it would be unethical not to disclose certain research findings. This claim has some intuitive appeal. Careful scrutiny, however, also reveals many weaknesses. Consider first, a ‘negative’ duty to return IRRs – that is, a duty to refrain from worsening the situation of others. Researchers have duties, for example, not to harm others and not to interfere with their ability to live according to their own values and preferences. However, such duties are fundamentally inapplicable in this context. While it may not make people better off, a policy of not returning IRRs can never, itself, make donors worse off. A donor’s prior health status, genetic profile and knowledge are left entirely unchanged – and, hence, neither improved nor worsened – by such a policy. Consider then, a second kind of moral obligation – a ‘positive’ duty – to return IRRs. Such duties require actively contributing to certain outcomes for others, such as by assisting or The issue of returning individual research results (IRRs) is important and contentious. Indeed, Science magazine calls this, “...the most pressing issue in genetics today” [1]. At stake are several significant concerns, including public trust in, and support for, biomedical research, the wise use of limited research resources and the ethical obligations of the research community. These concerns become even more complex and challenging with genetic biobank research. In this context, researchers must decide not only whether and how to share IRRs with donors, but also their relatives. After all, many genetic conditions have medical or personal significance for family members, and many ethical arguments for returning IRRs to donors might seem to extend to relatives as well [2]. This editorial briefly defends two important conclusions about these issues:

PurposeMuch information on parental perspectives on the return of individual research results (IRR) in pediatric genomic research is based on hypothetical rather than actual IRR. Our aim was to understand how the expected utility to parents who received IRR on their child from a genetic research study compared to the actual utility of the IRR received.MethodsWe conducted individual telephone interviews with parents who received IRR on their child through participation in the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research Gene Discovery Core (GDC) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH).ResultsFive themes emerged around the utility that parents expected and actually received from IRR: predictability, management, family planning, finding answers, and helping science and/or families. Parents expressing negative or mixed emotions after IRR return were those who did not receive the utility they expected from the IRR. Conversely, parents who expressed positive emotions were those who received as much or greater utility than expected.ConclusionsDiscrepancies between expected and actual utility of IRR affect the experiences of parents and families enrolled in genetic research studies. An informed consent process that fosters realistic expectations between researchers and participants may help to minimize any negative impact on parents and families.

Understanding participants' preferences for the return of individual research results (IRR) in genomic research may allow for the implementation of more beneficial result disclosure methods. We tested four preference-setting models through cognitive interviews of parents to explore how parents conceptualize the process of setting preferences and which disease characteristics they believe to be most important when deciding what results to receive on their child. Severity and preventability of a condition were highly influential in decision making and certain groups of research results were anticipated by participants to have negative psychological effects. These findings informed the development of an educational tool and preference-setting model that can be scaled for use in the return of IRR from large biobank studies.

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

BackgroundResearch ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.MethodsThis paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.ResultsWe advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.