Changing interpretations, stable genes: responsibilities of patients, professionals, and policy makers in the clinical interpretation of complex genetic information

Except in rare mutation-inducing events, the primary sequence of an individual's somatic genome is static; however, the interpretations or risk predictions based on complex genetic tests now being introduced into the marketplace are rapidly changing. The reality of changing interpretations for stable test results creates questions for everyone involved in genetic testing including individuals, clinicians, laboratories, professional organizations, and regulators. Individuals should be aware that their relationship with laboratories providing genetic testing may be different from their relationship with their physician, especially in direct-to-consumer testing. Moreover, individuals may need to take the initiative to revisit their genetic test results periodically. Clinicians will need to learn how to read and interpret the results of complex genetic tests, remember that interpretations change over time, and understand when to refer patients to specialists and ask for second opinions and reinterpretation of genetic information. Testing laboratories should understand that they may be replacing the clinician as the direct contact for patients, and may have responsibility to inform clients of changes in test interpretation. At minimum, laboratories should make clear what their policies are regarding reinterpretation and allow tested individuals to seek outside interpretations of their genetic test results. Professional organizations and regulators have the responsibility to develop guidelines for clinicians, laboratories, and the general public. In the future, the interpretation of genetic tests may be relatively stable; until that time, the changing interpretation of static genetic test results will create an important set of professional and ethical challenges.

[1]  Francis S Collins,et al.  The genome gets personal--almost. , 2008, JAMA.

[2]  Simon C. Potter,et al.  Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls , 2007, Nature.

[3]  B. Godard,et al.  Expanding the physician's duty of care: a duty to recontact? , 2004, Medicine and law.

[4]  Susan E Hodge,et al.  Non-replication of association studies: “pseudo-failures” to replicate? , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  K. Hirschhorn,et al.  Duty to re-contact , 1999, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[6]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  On the synthesis and interpretation of consistent but weak gene-disease associations in the era of genome-wide association studies. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[7]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct‐to‐consumer marketing of genetic tests , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics.

[8]  K. Helzlsouer,et al.  Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues. , 2006, Ethics & medicine : a Christian perspective on issues in bioethics.

[9]  J. Fitzpatrick,et al.  The duty to recontact: attitudes of genetics service providers. , 1999, American journal of human genetics.

[10]  K. Offit Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? , 2008, JAMA.

[11]  Deanna Telner,et al.  Genetics education in medical school: a qualitative study exploring educational experiences and needs , 2008, Medical teacher.

[12]  W. Meschino,et al.  Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: the case in medical genetics. , 2001, American journal of medical genetics.

[13]  O. Brawley,et al.  Cancer Screening in the United States, 2008: A Review of Current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Cancer Screening Issues , 2008, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  B. Karlan,et al.  Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  W. Grody,et al.  ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations: Revisions 2007 , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.