Article

Incidental genetic findings in randomized clinical trials: recommendations from the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET)

National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. .
Genome Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.94). 01/2013; 5(1):7. DOI: 10.1186/gm411
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recommendations and guidance on how to handle the return of genetic results to patients have offered limited insight into how to approach incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials. This paper provides the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET) recommendations on incidental genetic findings in the context of clinical trials, and discusses the ethical and practical issues considered in formulating our recommendations. There are arguments in support of as well as against returning incidental genetic findings in clinical trials. For instance, reporting incidental findings in clinical trials may improve the investigator-participant relationship and the satisfaction of participation, but it may also blur the line between clinical care and research. The issues of whether and how to return incidental genetic findings, including the costs of doing so, should be considered when developing clinical trial protocols. Once decided, plans related to sharing individual results from the aim(s) of the trial, as well as incidental findings, should be discussed explicitly in the consent form. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other study-specific governing bodies should be part of the decision as to if, when, and how to return incidental findings, including when plans in this regard are being reconsidered.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Teri Manolio, Jan 12, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
158 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose:Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process.Methods:We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants.Results:Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves.Conclusion:There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.Genet Med advance online publication 24 October 2013Genetics in Medicine (2013); doi:10.1038/gim.2013.145.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 10/2013; 16. DOI:10.1038/gim.2013.145 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical cancer research today often includes testing the value of biomarkers to direct treatment and for drug development. However, the practical challenges of integration of molecular information into clinical trial protocols are increasingly appreciated. Inherent difficulties include evidence gaps in available biomarker data, a paucity of robust assay methods, and the design of appropriate studies within the constraints of feasible trial operations, and finite resources. Scalable and proportionate approaches are needed to systematically cope with these challenges. Therefore, we assembled international experts from three clinical trials organisations to identify the common challenges and common solutions. We present a practical risk-assessment framework allowing targeting of scarce resources to crucial issues coupled with a library of useful resources and a simple actionable checklist of recommendations. We hope that these practical methods will be useful for running biomarker-driven trials and ultimately help to develop biomarkers that are ready for integration in routine practice.
    The Lancet Oncology 04/2014; 15(4):e184-93. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70607-7 · 24.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genomic research-including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing-has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research-historically referred to as "incidental findings"-has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled-that is, whether incidental results should be returned and, if so, which ones. Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of "the procedures to be followed" in the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume-and indeed, many commentators have concluded-that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants. To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in-depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants' decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings.
    Hastings Center Report 07/2014; 44(4). DOI:10.1002/hast.328 · 1.08 Impact Factor