Preferences of Italian patients for return of secondary findings from clinical genome/exome sequencing
- PMID: 33142017
- DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1350
Preferences of Italian patients for return of secondary findings from clinical genome/exome sequencing
Abstract
Exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) is increasingly becoming routine in clinical genetic diagnosis, yet issues regarding how to disclose and manage secondary findings (SFs) remain to be addressed, and limited evidence is available on patients' preferences. We carried out semi-structured interviews with 307 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing to explore their preferences for return of SFs in the hypothetical scenario that their test would be performed using ES/GS. Participants were 254 females (82.7%) and 53 males (17.3%), aged 18-86 years; 73.9% (81.1% of those with lower education levels) reported no prior knowledge of ES/GS. Prior knowledge of ES/GS was more common among patients tested for Mendelian conditions (34.5%), compared to those undergoing cancer genetic testing (22.3%) or carrier screening (7.4%). Despite this reported lack of knowledge, most participants (213, 69.6%) stated they would prefer to be informed of all possible results. Reasons in favor of disclosure included wanting to be aware of any risks (168; 83.6%) and to help relatives (23; 11.4%), but also hope that preventive measures might become available in the future (10, 5%). Conversely, potential negative impact on quality of life was the commonest motivation against disclosure. Among 179 participants seen for cancer genetic counseling who were interviewed again after test disclosure, 81.9% had not heard about ES/GS in the meantime; however, the proportion of participants opting for disclosure of any variants was lower (116; 64.8%), with 36 (20.1%) changing opinion compared to the first interview. Based on these findings, we conclude that genetic counseling for ES/GS should involve enhanced education and decision-making support to enable informed consent to SFs disclosure.
Keywords: exome sequencing; genetic testing; genome sequencing; patient preferences; result disclosure; secondary findings.
© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Battistuzzi, L., Ciliberti, R., Bruno, W., & Turchetti, D. (2013). Communication of clinically useful next-generation sequencing results to at-risk relatives of deceased research participants: toward active disclosure? Gen-equip project view project CARESSES: Culture-aware robots and environmental sensor systems for Elde. Journal of Clinical Oncology.31, 4164-4165. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.1906
-
- Battistuzzi, L., Franiuk, M., Kasparian, N., Rania, N., Migliorini, L., & Varesco, L. (2019). A qualitative study on decision-making about BRCA1/2 testing in Italian women. European Journal of Cancer Care, 28(5), e13083. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13083
-
- Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 3rd Edition (pp. 233-252). Long Beach, CA: Allyn & Bacon and California State University.
-
- Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 13(6), 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba
-
- Biesecker, L. G. (2012). Opportunities and Challenges for the Integration of Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing into Clinical Practice: Lessons from the ClinSeq Project. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 393-398. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.78
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
