Opt‐in for secondary findings as part of diagnostic whole‐exome sequencing: Real‐life experience from an international diagnostic laboratory

BACKGROUND Discussion about the risks and benefits of offering secondary findings as part of genome-wide diagnostics lacks real-life data. We studied the opt-in decisions of patients/families referred to whole exome study (WES) in Blueprint Genetics (BpG), a genetic testing company with customers in over 70 countries to receive secondary findings. Based on the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommendations for reporting secondary findings, BpG offered testing of specific actionable genes without additional charge for specimens submitted to WES diagnostics. METHODS Individuals could opt-in for a secondary findings analysis by using a separate electronic consent form. Data from BpG database of electronic consent forms was used for the analysis. RESULTS During the selected study period there were 3263 WES referrals, from which 2012 were index patients. About half of the individuals (50.4%) opted in to receiving secondary findings. Of patients who opted in, a secondary finding was detected for 2.7%, similar to other studies. We detected huge differences relating to opt-in between individuals from different countries; for instance, 90% of the 41 patients and their family members in Romania opted to receive secondary findings, while none of the 98 patients in Luxembourg chose that option. CONCLUSION Differences between sexes or between children and adults were small. This data offers one view to the interest of patients and family members to opt in to receiving secondary findings. Research is needed to understand the influence of factors like age, education etc. and possible participation in pre-test counseling to receiving/not receiving secondary findings.

[1]  T. Klein,et al.  ACMG SF v3.1 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). , 2022, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[2]  S. Metcalfe,et al.  Measuring physician practice, preparedness and preferences for genomic medicine: a national survey , 2021, BMJ Open.

[3]  W. Chung,et al.  ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  L. Leitsalu,et al.  Clinical genetics in transition—a comparison of genetic services in Estonia, Finland, and the Netherlands , 2021, Journal of Community Genetics.

[5]  A. Clarke,et al.  Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics , 2020, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  K. Ormond,et al.  Informed Consent in the Genomics Era. , 2020, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine.

[7]  Magalie S Leduc,et al.  Frequency of genomic incidental findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants , 2020, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  G. Marchant,et al.  From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care , 2020, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[9]  C. Wright,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing , 2019, BMJ.

[10]  M. Bitner-Glindzicz,et al.  Opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[11]  A. Clarke,et al.  Ethics in genetic counselling , 2018, Journal of Community Genetics.

[12]  S. Schicktanz,et al.  Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services , 2018, BMC medical ethics.

[13]  H. Teare,et al.  Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors—a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[14]  G. Henderson,et al.  The who, what and why of research participants’ intentions to request a broad range of secondary findings in a diagnostic genomic sequencing study , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  J. Kaye,et al.  Returning Results in Biobank Research: Global Trends and Solutions. , 2017, Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers.

[16]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  Joshua L. Deignan,et al.  A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratories , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  M. Pletcher,et al.  Economic evidence on identifying clinically actionable findings with whole-genome sequencing: a scoping review , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[19]  Bale,et al.  Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[21]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. , 2016, American journal of human genetics.