Secondary findings from next generation sequencing: Psychological and ethical issues. Family and patient perspectives.

Access to active search for actionable secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a major psychological and ethical issue for genomic medicine. In this study, we analyzed the preferences of patients and their families regarding SF and identified the reporting procedures necessary for informed consent. We interviewed parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases potentially eligible for exome sequencing and patients affected by the diseases listed in the ACMG recommendations. Four focus groups (FG) were formed: parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases (FG1, n = 5); patients with hereditary cancers (FG2, n = 10); patients with hereditary cardiac conditions (FG3, n = 3); and patients with metabolic diseases (FG4, n = 3). Psychologists presented three broad topics for discussion: 1. Favorable or not to SF access, 2. Reporting procedures, 3. Equity of access. Discussions were recorded and analyzed using simplified Grounded Theory. Overall, 8 participants declared being favorable to SF because of the medical benefit (mainly FG1); 11 were unfavorable because of the psychological consequences (mainly FG2, FG3, FG4); 2 were ambivalent. The possibility of looking for SF in minors was debated. The 4 key information-based issues for participants ranked as follows: explanation of SF issues, autonomy of choice, importance of a reflection period, and quality of interactions between patients and professionals. Examining equity of access to SF led to philosophical discussions on quality of life. In conclusion, individual experience and life context (circumstances) were decisive in participants' expectations and fears regarding access to SF. Additional longitudinal studies based on actual SF disclosure announcements are needed to establish future guidelines.

A self-administered questionnaire to measure the painful symptoms of endometriosis: Results of a modified DELPHI survey of patients and physicians.

PURPOSE: To develop a questionnaire based on patients' verbal descriptors, to measure the painful symptoms of endometriosis. METHODS: We performed a two-round modified DELPHI procedure mixing endometriosis patients and physicians to select a set of statements to describe the painful symptoms of endometriosis. Each panelist rated each statement based on diagnosis validity and clarity. The clinicians were experts in endometriosis management selected from various geographic regions in France. Patients were women with surgically confirmed endometriosis who volunteered from a patient association and from the recruitment of the participating physicians. The first round questions were derived from words and phrases in narratives of pain by endometriosis patients. RESULTS: Overall, 76 experts were invited, and of these 56 (74%), comprising 33 patients and 23 gynecologists, responded to the first round questionnaire, and 40 (71.4%) to the second round. Among the 48 statements assessed in the first-round questionnaire, 11 were selected after completion of the two round DELPHI procedure. After discussion and rewording of some items, a total of 21 questions were selected during a final face-to-face meeting. The content of the final questionnaire is organized according to four dimensions: (i) spontaneous pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea, (ii) dyspareunia, (iii) painful bowel symptoms, (iv) and other symptoms. We also provide an English (UK) version produced using several steps of translation and back-translation. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire has content validity to measure the subjective experiences of patients with painful endometriosis and can provide a solid basis on which to develop an efficient patient-centered outcome to measure the painful symptoms in therapeutic or in diagnostic studies of endometriosis.