Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling 4/2015

01-08-2015 | Original Research

Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing: Incorporation of the 2013 ACMG Recommendations into Current Practices of Genetic Counseling

Authors: Lacey A. Smith, Jessica Douglas, Alicia A. Braxton, Kate Kramer

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) March 2013 recommendations for reporting incidental findings (IFs) have influenced current practices of genetic counselors involved in utilizing whole exome sequencing (WES) for clinical diagnosis. An online survey was sent to all members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; members were eligible to participate if they currently offered WES for clinical diagnosis. Forty-six respondents completed the survey of whom 34 were in practice prior to the March 2013 ACMG recommendations. Half of respondents (N = 19, 54.9 %) in practice prior to March 2013 reported that the ACMG recommendations have had a significant impact on the content of their counseling sessions. Approximately half of respondents (N = 21, 45.5 %) report all IFs, regardless of patient age, while one third (N = 14, 30.4 %) consider factors such as age and parent preference in reporting IFs. Approximately 40 % (N = 18) of respondents reported that the testing laboratory’s policy for returning IFs has an influence on their choice of laboratory; of those, 72.2 % (N = 13) reported that the option to opt out of receiving reports of IFs has a significant influence on their choice of laboratory. A majority of respondents (N = 43, 93.5 %) found that most patients want to receive reports of IFs. However, respondents report there are patients who wish to decline receiving this information. This study querying genetic counselors identified benefits and challenges that the 2013 ACMG recommendations elicited. Some challenges, such as not having the option to opt out of IFs, have been addressed by the ACMG’s most recent updates to their recommendations. Further investigation into larger and more inclusive provider populations as well as patient populations will be valuable for the ongoing discussion surrounding IFs in WES.
Literature
go back to reference American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2013). Incidental findings in clinical genomics: A clarification. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2013). Incidental findings in clinical genomics: A clarification.
go back to reference American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2014). Member Statement: ACMG updates recommendation on “opt out” for genome sequencing return of results. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2014). Member Statement: ACMG updates recommendation on “opt out” for genome sequencing return of results.
go back to reference Ayuso, C., Millan, J. M., Mancheno, M., & Dal-Re, R. (2013). Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential consent and process. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 1054–1059.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Ayuso, C., Millan, J. M., Mancheno, M., & Dal-Re, R. (2013). Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential consent and process. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 1054–1059.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Bollinger, J., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 451–457.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bollinger, J., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 451–457.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Burke, W., Antommaria, A. H. M., Bennett, R., Botkin, J., Clayton, E. W., Henderson, G. E., Holm, I. A., et al. (2013). Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genetics in Medicine. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.113. Burke, W., Antommaria, A. H. M., Bennett, R., Botkin, J., Clayton, E. W., Henderson, G. E., Holm, I. A., et al. (2013). Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genetics in Medicine. doi:10.​1038/​gim.​2013.​113.
go back to reference Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., Biesecker, L. G., Dimmock, D. P., Evans, J. P., et al. (2012). Exploring concordance and discordance for return on incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 405–410. Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Berry, G. T., Biesecker, L. G., Dimmock, D. P., Evans, J. P., et al. (2012). Exploring concordance and discordance for return on incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 405–410.
go back to reference Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., McGuire, A. L., et al. (2013a). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 565–574.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., McGuire, A. L., et al. (2013a). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 565–574.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Green, R. C., Lupski, J. R., & Biesecker, L. G. (2013b). Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA, 310, 365–366.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Green, R. C., Lupski, J. R., & Biesecker, L. G. (2013b). Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional. JAMA, 310, 365–366.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Grove, M.E., Wolpert, M.N., Cho, M.K., Lee, S.S-J. & Ormond, K.E. (2014). Views of genetics professionals on the return of genomic results. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 531-538. Grove, M.E., Wolpert, M.N., Cho, M.K., Lee, S.S-J. & Ormond, K.E. (2014). Views of genetics professionals on the return of genomic results. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 531-538.
go back to reference Hufnagel, S. B., & Antommaria, A. H. (2014). Laboratory policies on reporting secondary findings in clinical whole exome sequencing: initial uptake of the ACMG’s recommendations. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 164A, 1328–1331.PubMedCrossRef Hufnagel, S. B., & Antommaria, A. H. (2014). Laboratory policies on reporting secondary findings in clinical whole exome sequencing: initial uptake of the ACMG’s recommendations. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 164A, 1328–1331.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Klitzman, R., Appelbaum, P. S., & Chung, W. (2013). Return of secondary genomic findings vs patient autonomy: implications for medical care. JAMA, 4, 369–370.CrossRef Klitzman, R., Appelbaum, P. S., & Chung, W. (2013). Return of secondary genomic findings vs patient autonomy: implications for medical care. JAMA, 4, 369–370.CrossRef
go back to reference National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2006). NSGC Code of Ethics. Adopted 1/92 by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.; Revised 12/04, 1/06. National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2006). NSGC Code of Ethics. Adopted 1/92 by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.; Revised 12/04, 1/06.
go back to reference National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2013) Media Statement: NSGC Responds to “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing” (March 2013). National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2013) Media Statement: NSGC Responds to “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing” (March 2013).
go back to reference Ormond, K. E., Wheeler, M. T., Hudgins, L., Klein, T. E., Butte, A. J., Altman, R. B., et al. (2010). Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet, 375, 1749–1751. Ormond, K. E., Wheeler, M. T., Hudgins, L., Klein, T. E., Butte, A. J., Altman, R. B., et al. (2010). Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet, 375, 1749–1751.
go back to reference Ritger, T., van Aart, C. J. A., Elting, M. W., Waisfisz, Q., Cornel, M. C., & Henneman, L. (2014). Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clinical Genetics, 85, 417–422.CrossRef Ritger, T., van Aart, C. J. A., Elting, M. W., Waisfisz, Q., Cornel, M. C., & Henneman, L. (2014). Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clinical Genetics, 85, 417–422.CrossRef
go back to reference Ross, L. F., Saal, H. M., David, K. L., Anderson, R. R., & American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2013). Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 234–245.PubMedCrossRef Ross, L. F., Saal, H. M., David, K. L., Anderson, R. R., & American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. (2013). Technical report: ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 234–245.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Shahmirzadi, L., Chao, E. C., Palmaer, E., Parra, M. C., Tang, S., & Farwell Gonzalez, K. D. (2014). Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 395–399.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Shahmirzadi, L., Chao, E. C., Palmaer, E., Parra, M. C., Tang, S., & Farwell Gonzalez, K. D. (2014). Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 395–399.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Spatz, E. S., & Spertus, J. A. (2012). Shared decision making: a path toward improved patient-centered outcome. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5, 664–666.CrossRef Spatz, E. S., & Spertus, J. A. (2012). Shared decision making: a path toward improved patient-centered outcome. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5, 664–666.CrossRef
go back to reference Wilson, J. (2005). To know or not to know? Genetic ignorance, autonomy, and paternalism. Bioethics, 19, 492–504.PubMedCrossRef Wilson, J. (2005). To know or not to know? Genetic ignorance, autonomy, and paternalism. Bioethics, 19, 492–504.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Yu, J.-H., Harrell, T. M., Jamal, S. M., Tabor, H. K., & Bamshad, M. J. (2014). Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 95, 77–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Yu, J.-H., Harrell, T. M., Jamal, S. M., Tabor, H. K., & Bamshad, M. J. (2014). Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 95, 77–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing: Incorporation of the 2013 ACMG Recommendations into Current Practices of Genetic Counseling
Authors
Lacey A. Smith
Jessica Douglas
Alicia A. Braxton
Kate Kramer
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9794-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Journal of Genetic Counseling 4/2015 Go to the issue