Decision making for health‐related research outcomes that alter diagnosis: A model from paediatric brain tumours.

Aims: The question of how to handle clinically actionable outcomes from retrospective research studies is poorly explored. In neuropathology, this problem is exacerbated by ongoing refinement in tumour classification. We sought to establish a disclosure threshold for potential revised diagnoses as determined by the neuro‐oncology speciality. Methods: As part of a previous research study, the diagnoses of 73 archival paediatric brain tumour samples were reclassified according to the WHO 2016 guidelines. To determine the disclosure threshold and clinical actionability of pathology‐related findings, we conducted a result‐evaluation approach within the ethical framework of BRAIN UK using a surrogate clinical multidisciplinary team (MDT) of neuro‐oncology specialists. Results: The MDT identified key determinants impacting decision‐making, including anticipated changes to patient management, time elapsed since initial diagnosis, likelihood of the patient being alive and absence of additional samples since cohort inception. Ultimately, none of our research findings were considered clinically actionable, largely due to the cohort's historic archival and high‐risk nature. From this experience, we developed a decision‐making framework to determine if research findings indicating a change in diagnosis require reporting to the relevant clinical teams. Conclusions: Ethical issues relating to the use of archival tissue for research and the potential to identify actionable findings must be carefully considered. We have established a structured framework to assess the actionability of research data relating to patient diagnosis. While our specific findings are most applicable to the pathology of poor prognostic brain tumour groups in children, the model can be adapted to a range of disease settings, for example, other diseases where research is dependent on retrospective tissue cohorts, and research findings may have implications for patients and families, such as other tumour types, epilepsy‐related pathology, genetic disorders and degenerative diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]