Search

Use of D NA markers in research that are used in law enforcement risks undermining public trust and participation.

The implementation of precision medicine and next-generation sequencing technologies in the field of oncology is a novel approach being more widely studied and used in cases of high-risk primary and recurrent malignancies. Leukemias are the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in children and the sixth most in adults. Relapsed leukemia represents a major component of the population that may benefit from genomic sequencing. However, ethical and analytic challenges arise when considering sequencing of biologic samples obtained from patients with relapsed leukemia following allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Blood from the recipient after transplantation would include donor-derived cells and thus, genomic sequencing of recipient blood will interrogate the donor germline in addition to the somatic genetic profile of the leukemia cells and the recipient germline. This is a situation for which the donor will not have typically provided consent and may be particularly problematic if actionable secondary or incidental findings related to the donor are uncovered. We present the challenges raised in this scenario and provide strategies to mitigate this risk., Competing Interests: Joerg KruegerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, SOBISpeakers' Bureau: NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Elizabeth A. StephensonConsulting or Advisory Role: Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes, Insulet CorporationResearch Funding: Bank of Montreal David AllanOther Relationship: Canadian Blood Services Patrick SullivanHonoraria: BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer David MalkinConsulting or Advisory Role: BayerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such 'opportunistic genomic screening' (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected 'secondary findings' be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical 'screening' framework, rather than as a form of 'good patient care'. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a 'fiduciary duty' to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient's informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

Purpose: Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using genome sequencing also reveals maternal copy-number variations (CNVs). Those CNVs can be clinically actionable or harmful to the fetus if inherited. CNVs in the DMD gene potentially causing dystrophinopathies are among the most commonly observed maternal CNVs. We present our experience with maternal DMD gene CNVs detected by NIPS., Methods: We analyzed the data of maternal CNVs detected in the DMD gene revealed by NIPS., Results: Of 26,123 NIPS analyses, 16 maternal CNVs in the DMD gene were detected (1/1632 pregnant women). Variant classification regarding pathogenicity and phenotypic severity was based on public databases, segregation analysis in the family, and prediction of the effect on the reading frame. Ten CNVs were classified as pathogenic, four as benign, and two remained unclassified., Conclusion: NIPS leverages CNV screening in the general population of pregnant women. We implemented a strategy for the interpretation and the return of maternal CNVs in the DMD gene detected by NIPS.

The BabySeq Project is a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and aimed at exploring the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of both healthy newborns and newborns who are sick. Infants were randomly assigned to receive standard of care or standard of care plus sequencing. The protocol and consent specified that only childhood-onset conditions would be returned. When 1 child was found to carry a BRCA2 mutation despite a negative family history, the research team experienced moral distress about nondisclosure and sought institutional review board permission to disclose. The protocol was then modified to require participants to agree to receive results for adult-onset-only conditions as a precondition to study enrollment. The BabySeq team asserted that their new protocol was in the child's best interest because having one's parents alive and well provides both an individual child benefit and a "family benefit." We begin with a short description of BabySeq and the controversy regarding predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. We then examine the ethical problems with (1) the revised BabySeq protocol and (2) the concept of family benefit as a justification for the return of adult-onset-only conditions. We reject family benefit as a moral reason to expand genomic sequencing of children beyond conditions that present in childhood. We also argue that researchers should design their pediatric studies to avoid, when possible, identifying adult-onset-only genetic variants and that parents should not be offered the return of this information if discovered unless relevant for the child's current or imminent health., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Introduction: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing., Methods and Analysis: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03597165., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Molecular pathology is becoming an increasingly important discipline in oncology as molecular tumor characteristics will increasingly determine targeted clinical cancer care. In recent years, many technological advances have taken place that contributed to the development of molecular pathology. However, attention to ethical aspects has been lagging behind as illustrated by the lack of publications or professional guidelines. Existing guidelines or publications on ethical aspects of DNA sequencing are mostly aimed at germline or tumor sequencing in clinical genetics or biomedical research settings. As a result, large differences have been demonstrated in the process of tumor sequencing analysis between laboratories. In this perspective we discuss the ethical issues to consider in molecular pathology by following the process of tumor DNA sequencing analysis from the preanalytical to postanalytical phase. For the successful and responsible use of DNA sequencing in clinical cancer care, several moral requirements must be met, for example, those related to the interpretation and returning of genetic results, informed consent, and the retrospective as well as future use of genetic data for biomedical research. Many ethical issues are new to pathology or more stringent than in current practice because DNA sequencing could yield sensitive and potentially relevant data, such as clinically significant unsolicited findings. The context of molecular pathology is unique and complex, but many issues are similar to those applicable to clinical genetics. As such, existing scholarship in this discipline may be translated to molecular pathology with some adaptations and could serve as a basis for guideline development. For responsible use and further development of clinical cancer care, we recommend that pathologists take responsibility for the adequate use of molecular analyses and be fully aware and capable of dealing with the diverse, complex, and challenging aspects of tumor DNA sequencing, including its ethical issues. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The use of genomic sequencing techniques is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream health care. However, there is a lack of agreement on how "incidental findings" (IFs) should be managed and a dearth of research on patient perspectives., Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were carried out with 31 patients undergoing genomic sequencing at a regional genetics service in England. Interviews explored decisions around IFs and were comparatively analyzed with published recommendations from the literature., Results: Thirteen participants opted to receive all IFs from their sequence, 12 accepted some and rejected others, while six participants refused all IFs. The key areas from the literature, (a) genotype/phenotype correlation, (b) seriousness of the condition, and (c) implications for biological relatives, were all significant; however, patients drew on a broader range of social and cultural information to make their decisions., Conclusion: This study highlights the range of costs and benefits for patients of receiving IFs from a genomic sequence. While largely positive views toward the dissemination of genomic data were reported, ambivalence surrounding genetic responsibility and its associated behaviors (e.g., duty to inform relatives) was reported by both IF decliners and accepters, suggesting a need to further explore patient perspectives on this highly complex topic area., (© 2018 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context., (© 2018 The Hastings Center.)

Background: Recent innovations in gene analysis technology have allowed for rapid and inexpensive sequencing of entire genomes. Thus, both conducting a study using whole genome sequencing (WGS) in a large population and the clinical application of research findings from such studies are currently feasible. However, to promote WGS studies, understanding and voluntary participation by the general public is needed. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the general public's attitude toward and understanding of WGS studies. The primary goal of our research is to investigate these issues and to discover how they relate to research participation in WGS studies., Methods: A survey of awareness regarding WGS and studies using WGS was conducted with a sample of 2000 or more participants using a self-administered questionnaire posted on the Internet between February 20 and 21, 2015. Prior to the survey, we briefly explained WGS and WGS study-related issues to the respondents in order to provide them with the minimum knowledge required to answer the questionnaire. We then conducted an analysis, including cross-classification., Results: For the question regarding interest in WGS, 46.6% of participants responded "Yes." 70.7% of all respondents said that they were interested in some kinds of findings that could be obtained from WGS studies. Regarding participation in WGS studies, 29.0% were interested in participating. The demographic factors significantly related to attitudes toward research participation were age, level of education, and employment status. The results also suggest that concerns about WGS have a positive effect on people's willingness to participate. Furthermore, it was shown that for people who were not interested in their gene-related information, concerns about WGS negatively impacted their willingness to participate. However, for people who were interested in their gene-related information, their concerns might not have impacted their willingness to participate., Discussion and Conclusions: This research has shown several key factors that affect the willingness of the general public for the participation to the WGS studies. One of the unexpected findings is that concerns toward WGS studies generally have positive effect on the peoples' attitude. It will be interesting to further investigate into the various types of concerns that people in different groups have about WGS.

The nature of next generation sequencing technologies (NGS) results in the generation of large amounts of data and the identification of numerous variants, for some of which the clinical significance may be difficult to ascertain based on our current knowledge. These Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS) may be identified in genes in which the function is known or unknown and which may or may not be related to the original rationale for sequencing the patient. Little is known about whether laboratories report VUS to clinicians and current guidelines issued by some of the most notable professional bodies do not provide specific recommendations on this point. To address this, 26 interviews were conducted with 27 laboratory personnel, representing 24 laboratories in Europe (12), Canada (5) and Australasia (7) in order to explore their reporting practices. Participants highlighted that the classification of variants is a real challenge despite the presence of classification guidelines. We identified variation in the reporting practices of VUS across the laboratories within the study. While some laboratories limit their reporting to variants that are pathogenic and thought to be causative of the phenotype, more commonly laboratories report VUS when they are identified in genes related to the clinical question. Some laboratories will also report VUS in candidate genes. VUS that are secondary findings are generally not reported. While it is unclear whether uniformity in reporting is desirable, exploring the perspectives of laboratory personnel undertaking these analyses are critical to ensure the feasibility of any future reporting recommendations., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

With rapidly declining costs, whole genome sequencing is becoming feasible for widespread use. Although cost-effectiveness is driving increased use of the technology, comprehensive recommendations on how to handle ethical dilemmas have yet to reach a consensus. In this article, Sam shares her experience of undergoing whole genome sequencing. Despite the deeply private nature of the test, the results do not solely belong to Sam; her identical twin sister, Arielle, shares virtually the same genome and received results without a formal consent process. This article explores their parallel experiences as a way of highlighting the controversial ethics of a private test with familial implications.

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been instrumental in the discovery of novel genes and mechanisms causing Mendelian diseases. While this technology is now being successfully applied in a number of clinics, particularly to diagnose patients with rare diseases, it also raises a number of ethical, legal and social issues. In order to identify what challenges were directly foreseen by technology users, we performed a systematic review of the literature. In this paper, we focus on recent publications related to the use of WES in the pediatric context and analyze the most prominent challenges raised by technology users. This is particularly relevant considering that a) most patients currently undergoing testing using WES to identify the genetic basis for rare diseases are children and b) their lack of capacity to consent for themselves makes them a vulnerable population and generates the need for specific ethical, legal and regulatory procedures. We identified key challenges that related to four main categories: (1) intake; (2) sequence production and analysis; (3) reporting of results and counseling considerations and (4) collaborative data interpretation and data sharing. We then contextualize these challenges in light of the recent recommendations and guidelines, published by professional societies that have significant potential to impact the field.

Providing ostensibly healthy individuals with personal results from whole-genome sequencing could lead to improved health and well-being via enhanced disease risk prediction, prevention, and diagnosis, but also poses practical and ethical challenges. Understanding how individuals react psychologically and behaviourally will be key in assessing the potential utility of personal whole-genome sequencing. We conducted an exploratory longitudinal cohort study in which quantitative surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted before and after personal results were returned to individuals who underwent whole-genome sequencing. The participants were offered a range of interpreted results, including Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes, pharmacogenomics, rare disease-associated variants, and ancestry. They were also offered their raw data. Of the 35 participants at baseline, 29 (82.9%) completed the 6-month follow-up. In the quantitative surveys, test-related distress was low, although it was higher at 1-week than 6-month follow-up (Z=2.68, P=0.007). In the 6-month qualitative interviews, most participants felt happy or relieved about their results. A few were concerned, particularly about rare disease-associated variants and Alzheimer's disease results. Two of the 29 participants had sought clinical follow-up as a direct or indirect consequence of rare disease-associated variants results. Several had mentioned their results to their doctors. Some participants felt having their raw data might be medically useful to them in the future. The majority reported positive reactions to having their genomes sequenced, but there were notable exceptions to this. The impact and value of returning personal results from whole-genome sequencing when implemented on a larger scale remains to be seen.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is more vulnerable to mutations and associated with many solid tumors. Through mtDNA sequencing, we can find useful information on the mutations implicated in diseases and can better define the impact of mitochondrial dysfunction on the process of carcinogenesis. In current article, we will discuss the current approaches of mtDNA sequencing and the challenges we should overcome, their applications in various cancers, and the potential bioethics problems we should face in the application of mtDNA sequencing in clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Recent technological advances have radically changed genetic testing from an expensive and burdensome undertaking to a rapid and less costly option for many purposes. The utility of "next-generation" sequencing has been found to establish the diagnosis for hundreds of genetic disorders, to assess pharmacogenomic variants, and to identify treatable targets within malignant neoplasms. The ready availability of genomic information has led to the question of whether there would be clinical benefit of sequencing the genome of individuals who are not seeking a diagnosis, that is, genomic screening in generally healthy people, to provide anticipatory insights for their health care. Little research has been conducted in this area. We examine the considerable unresolved scientific and ethical issues encountered when considering whole-genome sequencing of healthy people., (Copyright © 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Given public demand for genetic information, the potential to perform prenatal whole-genome sequencing (PWGS) non-invasively in the future, and decreasing costs of whole-genome sequencing, it is likely that OB/GYN practice will include PWGS. The goal of this project was to explore OB/GYNs' views on the ethical issues surrounding PWGS and their preparedness for counseling patients on its use., Methods: A national survey was administered to 2500 members of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists., Results: A total of 1114 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 45%). OB/GYNs are most concerned with ordering non-medical fetal genetic information, are worried about increasing parental anxiety, and feel it is appropriate to be directive when counseling parents about PWGS. Furthermore, most OB/GYNs have limited knowledge of genetics, rely heavily on genetic counselors and would like more guidance regarding the clinical adoption of PWGS., Conclusion: OB/GYNs do not completely accept or reject PWGS, but a substantial number have significant ethical and practical concerns. They are most concerned with issues that will directly affect their practices and interactions with patients, such as increasing parental anxiety and costs of care. Professional guidance would be instrumental in directing the adoption of PWGS and alleviating the ethical burden posed by PWGS on individual OB/GYNs. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA., (Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Parents' preferences for unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic whole-exome sequencing (WES) for their children remain largely unexplored. Our aim was to gain insight into parental considerations favoring acceptance/decline of UFs pertaining to their child. We conducted 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews with parents (n=34) of children with a developmental delay, aged <1 to 17 years, after consenting to WES, but before feedback of results. Key findings from our study were that all parents favored acceptance of UFs for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences and considerations diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier-status. Sometimes non-medical utility considerations (considerations of usefulness of knowing UFs, not rooted in (preventive) medical treatment or controls) were given in favor of disclosure of UFs. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason to withhold UFs at present, despite an unfavorable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. Some parents only preferred receiving UFs if these findings were directly related to their reasons for seeking a diagnosis. These findings are essential for developing morally responsible policy and for counseling. Further research should focus on whether considerations of non-medical utility alone can justify disclosure of UFs and whether reasons for seeking a diagnosis place further constraints on what UFs may be returned/withheld. How parents can be aided in contemplating different scenarios regarding their child's future development also deserves further inquiry.

The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are revolutionizing medical practice, facilitating more accurate, sophisticated and cost-effective genetic testing. NGS is already being implemented in the clinic assisting diagnosis and management of disorders with a strong heritable component. Although considerable attention has been paid to issues regarding return of incidental or secondary findings, matters of consent are less well explored. This is particularly important for the use of NGS in minors. Recent guidelines addressing genomic testing and screening of children and adolescents have suggested that as 'young children' lack decision-making capacity, decisions about testing must be conducted by a surrogate, namely their parents. This prompts consideration of the age at which minors can provide lawful consent to health-care interventions, and consequently NGS performed for diagnostic purposes. Here, we describe the existing legal approaches regarding the rights of minors to consent to health-care interventions, including how laws in the 28 Member States of the European Union and in Canada consider competent minors, and then apply this to the context of NGS. There is considerable variation in the rights afforded to minors across countries. Many legal systems determine that minors would be allowed, or may even be required, to make decisions about interventions such as NGS. However, minors are often considered as one single homogeneous population who always require parental consent, rather than recognizing there are different categories of 'minors' and that capacity to consent or to be involved in discussions and decision-making process is a spectrum rather than a hurdle.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are now routinely used for gene identification in Mendelian disorders. Setting up cost-efficient NGS projects and managing the large amount of variants remains, however, a challenging job. Here we provide insights in the decision-making processes before and after the use of NGS in gene identification studies. Genetic factors are thought to have a role in ~70% of all epilepsies, and a variety of inheritance patterns have been described for seizure-associated gene defects. We therefore chose epilepsy as disease model and selected 35 NGS studies that focused on patients with a Mendelian epilepsy disorder. The strategies used for gene identification and their respective outcomes were reviewed. High-throughput NGS strategies have led to the identification of several new epilepsy-causing genes, enlarging our knowledge on both known and novel pathomechanisms. NGS findings have furthermore extended the awareness of phenotypical and genetic heterogeneity. By discussing recent studies we illustrate: (I) the power of NGS for gene identification in Mendelian disorders, (II) the accelerating pace in which this field evolves, and (III) the considerations that have to be made when performing NGS studies. Nonetheless, the enormous rise in gene discovery over the last decade, many patients and families included in gene identification studies still remain without a molecular diagnosis; hence, further genetic research is warranted. On the basis of successful NGS studies in epilepsy, we discuss general approaches to guide human geneticists and clinicians in setting up cost-efficient gene identification NGS studies.

For patients with unexplained or undiagnosed conditions, genomic sequencing offers the hope of resolving unanswered questions. With the growth of clinical genomic sequencing, understanding factors that shape patients' hope for information could have important implications for developing patient education guidelines. Based on the goal-directed theory of hope, we investigated illness uncertainty as a form of motivation and subjective social status as a form of perceived resources to predict the amount and kinds of information that adult patients (N=191) and parents of pediatric patients (N=79) hoped to receive from diagnostic sequencing results. Participants were part of a larger longitudinal study on clinical genomic sequencing, but the current study focuses on their hopes for diagnostic sequencing results. Hopes for information were assessed through close-ended and open-ended responses. Findings from mixed methods analyses indicated that although patients and parents hoped to learn multiple kinds of information from diagnostic sequencing results, their hopes appeared to be influenced by their illness uncertainty and perceptions of their social and economic resources. These findings suggest that patients' illness uncertainty and perceived resources could be useful avenues for discussing patient hopes and educating patients about strengths and limitations of genomic sequencing.

An individual's health, genetic, or environmental-exposure data, placed in an online repository, creates a valuable shared resource that can accelerate biomedical research and even open opportunities for crowd-sourcing discoveries by members of the public. But these data become "immortalized" in ways that may create lasting risk as well as benefit. Once shared on the Internet, the data are difficult or impossible to redact, and identities may be revealed by a process called data linkage, in which online data sets are matched to each other. Reidentification (re-ID), the process of associating an individual's name with data that were considered deidentified, poses risks such as insurance or employment discrimination, social stigma, and breach of the promises often made in informed-consent documents. At the same time, re-ID poses risks to researchers and indeed to the future of science, should re-ID end up undermining the trust and participation of potential research participants. The ethical challenges of online data sharing are heightened as so-called big data becomes an increasingly important research tool and driver of new research structures. Big data is shifting research to include large numbers of researchers and institutions as well as large numbers of participants providing diverse types of data, so the participants' consent relationship is no longer with a person or even a research institution. In addition, consent is further transformed because big data analysis often begins with descriptive inquiry and generation of a hypothesis, and the research questions cannot be clearly defined at the outset and may be unforeseeable over the long term. In this article, we consider how expanded data sharing poses new challenges, illustrated by genomics and the transition to new models of consent. We draw on the experiences of participants in an open data platform-the Personal Genome Project-to allow study participants to contribute their voices to inform ethical consent practices and protocol reviews for big-data research., (© 2015 The Hastings Center.)

The technical developments leading to revolution in clinical genetic testing offer new approaches for patients with cancer. From one mutation or one gene approach the scale of genetic testing moved to whole exome or whole genome scale. It is well known that many tumours are genetically determined and they are part of familial tumour syndromes. In addition, some mutations indicate specific molecular targeted therapies. Although sampling and sample preparation are different for testing germline and somatic mutations, the technical background of the analysis is the same. The aim of clinical genetic testing is to identify patients who are carriers of disease-causing mutations or to test tumour tissue for the presence of genetic alterations which may be targets for therapeutic approaches. In this review the authors summarize novel possibilities offered by next-generation sequencing in clinical genetic testing of patients with endocrine tumours. In addition, the authors review recent guidelines on technical and ethical issues related to these novel methods.

Genomic sequencing is being rapidly introduced into pediatric clinical practice. The results of sequencing are distinctive for their complexity and subsequent challenges of interpretation for generalist and specialist pediatricians, parents, and patients. Pediatricians therefore need to prepare for the professionally responsible disclosure of sequencing results to parents and patients and guidance of parents and patients in the interpretation and use of these results, including managing uncertain data. This article provides an ethical framework to guide and evaluate the professionally responsible disclosure of the results of genomic sequencing in pediatric practice. The ethical framework comprises 3 core concepts of pediatric ethics: the best interests of the child standard, parental surrogate decision-making, and pediatric assent. When recommending sequencing, pediatricians should explain the nature of the proposed test, its scope and complexity, the categories of results, and the concept of a secondary or incidental finding. Pediatricians should obtain the informed permission of parents and the assent of mature adolescents about the scope of sequencing to be performed and the return of results., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The advent of new technologies has rekindled some hopes that it will be possible to identify genetic variants that will help to explain why individuals are different with respect to complex traits. At least one leader in the development of "whole genome sequencing"-the Chinese company BGI-has been quite public about its commitment to using the technique to investigate the genetics of intelligence in general and high intelligence in particular. Because one needs large samples to detect the small effects associated with small genetic differences in the sequence of those base pairs, to make headway with the new sequencing technologies, one also needs to enlist much larger numbers of study participants than geneticists have enrolled before. In an effort to increase the size of a sample, one team of researchers approached the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University. They wanted to gain access to records concerning participants in CTY's ongoing Study of Exceptional Talent, and they wanted to approach those individuals to see if they would be willing to share samples of their DNA. We agreed that CTY's dilemma about whether to give the researchers access to those records raised larger questions about the ethics of research into the genetics of intelligence, and we decided to hold a workshop at The Hastings Center that could examine those questions. Our purpose was to create what, borrowing from Sarah Richardson, we came to call a "transformative conversation" about research into the genetics of general cognitive ability-a conversation that would take a wide and long view and would involve a diverse group of stakeholders, including both people who have been highly critical of the research and people who engage in it. This collection of essays, which grew out of that workshop, is intended to provide an introduction to and exploration of this complex and important area., (© 2015 The Hastings Center.)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) will soon be used for clinically heterogeneous, inherited disorders and the increasing number of disease-causing genes reported. Diagnostic laboratories therefore need to decide which NGS methods they are going to invest in and how to implement them. We discuss here the challenges and opportunities of using targeted resequencing (TRS) panels for diagnosing monogenetic disorders. Of the different NGS approaches available, TRS panels offer the opportunity to sequence and analyze a limited set of predetermined target genes. At present, TRS panels offer better base-pair coverage, running times, costs and dataset handling than other NGS applications such as whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing. However, working with TRS panels also poses new challenges in variant interpretation, data handling and bioinformatic analyses. To optimize the analyses, TRS panel testing should be performed by bioinformaticians, clinicians and laboratory staff in close collaboration.

Advances in genomics have led to calls for developing population-based preventive genomic sequencing (PGS) programs with the goal of identifying genetic health risks in adults without known risk factors. One critical issue for minimizing the harms and maximizing the benefits of PGS is determining the kind and degree of control individuals should have over the generation, use, and handling of their genomic information. In this article we examine whether PGS programs should offer individuals the opportunity to selectively opt out of the sequencing or analysis of specific genomic conditions (the menu approach) or whether PGS should be implemented using an all-or-nothing panel approach. We conclude that any responsible scale-up of PGS will require a menu approach that may seem impractical to some, but that draws its justification from a rich mix of normative, legal, and practical considerations.

Next-Generation Sequencing has been used as a diagnostic tool in an increasing manner. Compared to conventional medical interventions, NGS, as a medical intervention, has its own special characteristics. NGS allows us to obtain a multitude of additional findings. However, their correct interpretation requires molecular biological expertise and is still unknown at the time of the sampling. These factors, when applying NGS, lead to a dynamic process of informational interference with the patients' rights. The physician-patient relationship that becomes successive, is loosened by involving non-physician researchers in the validation of the findings and by the fact that genetic data also gives information about the relatives of the patient. Moreover, dealing with risk information lays the burden on the patients and strengthens their responsibility. These challenges increase in international translational medicine and they demand solutions for the protection of the patients' rights.

With the recognition of genetic disorders in the newborn, there is the potential to offer new lifesaving therapies. For other conditions such as hypothyroidism in Down syndrome or hypercalemia in the 22q11 microdeltion syndrome, the early identification of an untreatable condition permits prompt screening for potential comorbid conditions. DNA testing for disorders and DNA-based screening are rapidly evolving. With new more powerful tests, there is an increasing ability to see into a potential future and change the outcome for newborns. However, there remain significant ethical and structural issues to be considered before routine implementation of DNA testing., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)