Revealing the results of whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing in research and clinical investigations: some ethical issues.

The introduction of new sequencing technologies whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) that are much less finely targeted than previous genetic tests has resulted in ethical debate about what should be done with clinically significant findings that may arise during the sequencing process. In this piece we argue that, in addition to whether the finding has been intentionally sought or arises incidentally, the ethical issues concerning what should be done with WES and WGS findings are also influenced by whether sequencing occurs in a clinical or research setting. We argue that decisions about the disclosure of WGS and WES findings generated in the clinical context are much less ethically contentious than decision making about the feedback of research results. We conclude by calling for greater transparency about the purpose of sample collection, more explicit protocols for transitioning between research and clinical contexts and patients and research participants to be warned of the potential for incidental findings to be generated, their potential significance and the actions that might be taken as a result.

Conceptual issues for screening in the genomic era - time for an update?

BACKGROUND: Screening tests are ubiquitous in modern medicine; however a consensus view on the criteria that distinguish screening from clinical testing remains strangely elusive. although numerous definitions of screening have been suggested, there is considerable variation amongst them, leading to confusion and disagreement amongst clinicians and public health professionals alike. In light of developments in genomics, the question of what screening entails is becoming increasingly pressing. METHODS: We evaluated the concepts underlying definitions of screening versus clinical testing and investigated their ethical implications. RESULTS: We suggest that just two key concepts underlie screening: first, screening tests are performed in asymptomatic individuals and, second, they are generally offered to individuals who otherwise believe themselves to be healthy (with respect to the disease being screened for). all the other characteristics commonly invoked to describe screening - including the systematic use of rapid tests for risk stratification within a particular population - can be better categorised as either practical requirements or by-products of screening programmes rather than screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasise the need to differentiate between opportunistic screening and clinical testing because of the differing prior probability of disease and thus the differing ethical burden of responsibility placed upon the physician in each scenario. Physicians need to appreciate the shifting moral burden placed upon them in relation to reactive clinical testing versus proactive screening, and the different legal obligations that may ensue.

Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready?

We are entering an era in which the cost of clinical whole-genome and targeted sequencing tests is no longer prohibitive to their application. However, currently the infrastructure is not in place to support both the patient and the physicians that encounter the resultant data. Here, we ask five experts to give their opinions on whether clinical data should be treated differently from other medical data, given the potential use of these tests, and on the areas that must be developed to improve patient outcome.

Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about?

The number of genetic tests available direct-to-consumer has burgeoned over the last few years, prompting numerous calls for tighter regulation of these services. However, there is a lack of consensus about the most appropriate and achievable level of regulation, particularly given the global nature of the market. By consideration of potential for direct and indirect harms caused by genetic susceptibility or genomic profiling tests, in this study we offer an overarching framework that we believe to be feasible for the regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests and likely to be relevant to other forms of predictive testing. We suggest that just five key requirements would adequately protect the consumer: a proportionate set of consent procedures; formal laboratory accreditation; evidence of a valid gene-disease association; appropriately qualified staff to interpret the test result; and consumer protection legislation to prevent false or misleading claims.

A new strategic phase for genomic medicine in UK health services.

In June 2009, the Science and Technology Committee of the UK House of Lords published a report on genomic medicine, based on expert evidence collected over an 18-month period. Crucially, the report signaled that the use of genomic medicine was at a crossroads, due to the rapid development of new technologies, and opened up opportunities across the whole of medicine and healthcare. This commentary responds to the report's call for a new health service strategy, including a new genetics White Paper from the Government, and suggests some of the important elements that need further consideration.

EuroGentest: DNA-based testing for heritable disorders in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: Regarding the recent attention to develop policies regarding the provision of clinical genetic testing services, access to, acceptance, utilisation and regulation of genetic services was investigated in selected European countries as well as one non-European country. METHODS: Data were collected on the basis of relevant international reports and sources accessible via the internet, from self- designed, internationally administered surveys and with the help of a panel of experts from European countries participating in several workshops as well as from National European Societies of Human Genetics. RESULTS: A selection of divergent health care systems was reviewed and compared (e.g. Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Serbia/Montenegro). For the evaluation of clinical validity and utility of genetic testing, background information was provided focussing on DNA-based testing for heritable disorders with a strong genetic component (usually due to the action of a single gene). CONCLUSIONS: There is great heterogeneity in genetic testing services among the countries surveyed. It is premature to mandate that genetic testing provided by clinical services meets professional standards regarding clinical validity and utility, because there is to date no consensus within the scientific community and among health care providers to what extent clinical validity and utility can and need to be assessed. Points to consider in the process of developing such standards are proposed.

Will genomics widen or help heal the schism between medicine and public health?

We discuss the "schism" between medicine and public health in light of advances in genomics and the expected evolution of health care toward personalized treatment and prevention. Undoubtedly, genomics could deepen the divide between the two worlds, but it also represents an important and perhaps unique opportunity for healing the schism, given the volume of new scientific discoveries and their potential applications in all areas of health and disease. We argue that the integration of genomics into health care and disease prevention requires a strong medicine-public health partnership in the context of a population approach to a translational research agenda that includes four overlapping areas: (1) a joint focus on prevention-a traditional public health concern but now a promise of genomics in the realm of individualized primary prevention and early detection, (2) a population perspective, which requires a large amount of population-level data to validate gene discoveries for clinical applications, (3) commitment to evidence-based knowledge integration with thousands of potential genomic applications in practice, and (4) emphasis on health services research to evaluate outcomes, costs, and benefits in the real world. A strong medicine-public health partnership in the genomics era is needed for the translation of all scientific discoveries for the benefit of population health.

HER2 status in breast cancer--an example of pharmacogenetic testing.

The development of new drugs and associated pharmacogenetic tests will provide an increasing number of challenges to health care systems. In particular, how to evaluate their benefits, prioritize for commissioning purposes and implement a service to provide them in a timely manner. This paper presents an overview of HER2 testing for trastuzumab (Herceptin) treatment in breast cancer cases. Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization laboratory techniques are described and their HER2 testing performances are compared. Future options for the national provision of HER2 testing by the National Health Service in the UK are also discussed.

How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network.

The UK Department of Health supported the establishment of the UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) in 2002. The UKGTN is a collaborative network of NHS molecular genetic laboratories that offer tests for human single gene germ-line disorders. Its objective is to provide high quality and equitable services for patients and their families who require genetic advice, diagnosis and management. The UKGTN has developed a 'Gene Dossier' process to evaluate genetic tests and recommend which tests will be provided by the National Health Service. This paper describes the UKGTN organisation and the 'Gene Dossier' process. A brief review of the UKGTN genetic test evaluation experience is presented.

The evaluation of genetic tests.

Scientific advances in genetics and molecular biology have been very successful in advancing our knowledge of biological mechanisms in health and disease, and in catalysing a variety of technological innovations. The number of genetic tests available has consequently increased exponentially over the last few years. Their development has not been accompanied by processes and systems to evaluate these tests in a proper and formal manner to establish their clinical validity and utility. A framework for the evaluation of genetic tests has been developed. This paper reviews the current practice of genetic test evaluation, highlighting the limitations and future challenges in this area of public health.