Search

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients' inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients' and clinicians' roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.

Like any new technology, rapid integration of genomic sequencing (GS) into the clinical setting can pose challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) using it to diagnose patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors across Europe, Australia and Canada to gain a better understanding of the issues they were experiencing when requesting GS and receiving reports from laboratories. There was a spectrum of interactions between genetic health professionals and laboratories. This ranged from those that almost exclusively request sequencing from the laboratory that is affiliated with their genetic service, to those who do not have access to exome sequencing 'in-house' and instead send patient samples to a selection of different external laboratories. In general, a closer interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory scientists increased the involvement of the clinicians in the analysis/interpretation process. This appeared to lead to fewer, but more clinically relevant variants being reported, and greater GHP satisfaction in what is reported. Our findings suggest that GHPs consider integration of clinical expertise into the analysis/interpretation process is critical to ensure that the variants reported are of high clinical significance to patients. They also highlight the importance of providing GHPs with training in report interpretation., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore attitudes of clinical and molecular geneticists about the implementation of multi-disease or expanded carrier screening (ECS) for monogenic recessive disorders., Design: Qualitative; semistructured interviews., Setting: In person or via Skype. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim., Participants: European clinical and molecular geneticists with expertise in carrier screening (N = 16)., Methods: Inductive content analysis was used to identify common content categories in the data., Results: Participants recognized important benefits of ECS, but they also identified major challenges, including limited benefit of ECS for most couples in the general population, lack of knowledge on carrier screening among nongenetic health care providers and the general public, potential negative implications of ECS for society, and limited economic resources. Participants favored an evidence-based approach to the implementation of population-wide ECS and were reluctant to actively offer ECS in the absence of demonstrable benefits. However, there was a consensus among the participants that ECS should be made available to couples who request the test. In addition, they believed ECS could be routinely offered to all people who use assisted reproduction., Conclusion: Although a limited ECS offer is practical, it also raises concerns over equality in access to screening. A comprehensive risk-benefit analysis is needed to determine the desirability of systematic population-wide ECS., (Copyright © 2017 AWHONN, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We previously identified a homozygous mutation in the Golgi SNAP receptor complex 2 gene (GOSR2) in six patients with progressive myoclonus epilepsy. To define the syndrome better we analysed the clinical and electrophysiological phenotype in 12 patients with GOSR2 mutations, including six new unrelated subjects. Clinical presentation was remarkably similar with early onset ataxia (average 2 years of age), followed by myoclonic seizures at the average age of 6.5 years. Patients developed multiple seizure types, including generalized tonic clonic seizures, absence seizures and drop attacks. All patients developed scoliosis by adolescence, making this an important diagnostic clue. Additional skeletal deformities were present, including pes cavus in four patients and syndactyly in two patients. All patients had elevated serum creatine kinase levels (median 734 IU) in the context of normal muscle biopsies. Electroencephalography revealed pronounced generalized spike and wave discharges with a posterior predominance and photosensitivity in all patients, with focal EEG features seen in seven patients. The disease course showed a relentless decline; patients uniformly became wheelchair bound (mean age 13 years) and four had died during their third or early fourth decade. All 12 cases had the same variant (c.430G>T, G144W) and haplotype analyses confirmed a founder effect. The cases all came from countries bounding the North Sea, extending to the coastal region of Northern Norway. 'North Sea' progressive myoclonus epilepsy has a homogeneous clinical presentation and relentless disease course allowing ready identification from the other progressive myoclonus epilepsies.