Search

Population-based prospective studies, such as UK Biobank, are valuable for generating and testing hypotheses about the potential causes of human disease. We describe how UK Biobank's study design, data access policies, and approaches to statistical analysis can help to minimize error and improve the interpretability of research findings, with implications for other population-based prospective studies being established worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last two decades, the ability to sequence a person's genetic code has improved exponentially, while the cost of doing so has plummeted. As genome sequencing is used more widely, diagnoses are being found for people with previously unexplained rare disease, and this has raised hopes that such analysis might usefully be employed to detect and mitigate diseases as early as possible in the life course. However, research with adults by initiatives such as population biobanks should shake our confidence in our ability to make clear health predictions from a genetic code - in many cases, we are learning that the links between genomic variants and disease are far less strong than we once thought. The UK Newborn Genomes Programme aspires to sequence up to 200,000 babies at birth, and analyse their genomic data aiming to identify 'actionable genetic conditions which may affect their health in early years. This aims to ensure timely diagnosis, access to treatment pathways, and enable better outcomes and quality of life for babies and their families' (Genomics England, 2021). This is a laudable aim, but the path from obtaining genome sequences to enabling better outcomes will not be straightforward and illustrates many of the ethical challenges raised by the use of new genomic technologies. We focus particularly on the challenge of determining 'results' from the analysis of a genetic code, against a backdrop of promotional public discourses which tend to amplify best case scenarios from genome sequencing while minimising its potential to generate uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the article "When parents refuse: Resolving entrenched disagreements between parents and clinicians in situations of uncertainty and complexity" by J. Winters. It highlights a case where parents want to pursue a (particular) treatment for their child that clinicians do not feel is in the child's best interests. it states that the author's proposed tool manages disagreements between clinicians and parents where parents refuse treatment.

Genome sequencing is now a sufficiently mature and affordable technology for clinical use. Its application promises not only to transform clinicians' diagnostic and predictive ability, but also to improve preventative therapies, surveillance regimes, and tailor patient treatment to an individual's genetic make-up. However, as with any technological advance, there are associated fresh challenges. While some of the ethical, legal and social aspects resulting from the generation of data from genome sequencing are generic, several nuances are unique. Since the UK government recently announced plans to sequence the genomes of 100,000 Health Service patients, and similar initiatives are being considered elsewhere, a discussion of these nuances is timely and needs to go hand in hand with formulation of guidelines and public engagement activities around implementation of sequencing in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) commissioned this update of the 2002 guidance. The aim, as before, is to provide guidance on the appropriateness, method and frequency of screening for people at moderate and high risk from colorectal cancer. This guidance provides some new recommendations for those with inflammatory bowel disease and for those at moderate risk resulting from a family history of colorectal cancer. In other areas guidance is relatively unchanged, but the recent literature was reviewed and is included where appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and clinical activities are often portrayed as arising from different motivations and having different goals. This study sought to determine lay and professional understandings of research and clinical care within the translational subspecialty of cancer genetics. Fifty-nine lay research participants and 20 professional stakeholders were interviewed. Research and clinical care were described in similar ways by both groups of interviewees, who distinguished these activities according to their temporal orientation and focus. Stakeholders' accounts tended to focus upon the epistemological motivations underlying research activities, whereas research participants emphasized concrete goals, for example, finding a cure for cancer. We discuss the implications of these findings for informed consent. We argue that informed consent for research and clinical interventions should be redefined so that establishing potential research participants'/patients' understanding of the purpose of an intervention, why it is taking place, should be seen as secondary to confirming their understanding of its nature, namely, what will happen and the associated risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The publication of More Genes Direct by the Human Genetics Commission is a timely reminder of the potential impact that 'over-the-counter' genetic testing (that is, a direct genetic test without the need for a medical referral) may have on the NHS. This article considers the relevance of current genetic research on complex common diseases and how this might translate into risk estimates for developing conditions such as dementia, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. The implications for primary care include the need to understand the current limitations of genetic testing and its commercial application over the counter, and the importance of continuing to make risk assessments using family history. The authors recommend caution in the premature introduction of over-the-counter testing without a sound evidence base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Genethics Club was established in November 2001 in order to provide a national forum of ethics support for the profession of clinical genetics in the UK. The forum brings together health professionals, medical ethicists and lawyers and support is provided through detailed discussion of cases and sharing of good practice. Clinical genetics professionals had previously voiced concerns about making extremely difficult ethical decisions, with profound implications, in something of a vacuum. Professionals saw a lack of guidance in the area and lack of time for discussion of difficult cases as reasons for this. This paper describes the origins of the group and gives (anonymized) examples of some of the types of issues discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors support the confidentiality guidelines issued by the General Medical Council of Great Britain in 2009. The authors point out that the guidelines specifically mention the possibility of breaching a patient's confidentiality to share genetic information with relatives. Measures that can prevent serious harm to relatives are also elaborated in the said guidelines. The authors weighed the possible implications of a decision making requirement for health professionals.

The article presents an arguement against the four-staged process that aims to help health care professionals (HCPs) in treating critically ill children.

It is proposed that, through restriction to individuals delineated as high risk, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) might enable more efficient targeting of existing cancer screening programmes and enable extension into new age ranges and disease types. To address this proposition, we present an overview of the performance of PRS tools (ie, models and sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms) alongside harms and benefits of PRS-stratified cancer screening for eight example cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, pancreas, ovary, kidney, lung, and testicular cancer). For this modelling analysis, we used age-stratified cancer incidences for the UK population from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (2016–18) and published estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for current, future, and optimised PRS for each of the eight cancer types. For each of five PRS-defined high-risk quantiles (ie, the top 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1%) and according to each of the three PRS tools (ie, current, future, and optimised) for the eight cancers, we calculated the relative proportion of cancers arising, the odds ratios of a cancer arising compared with the UK population average, and the lifetime cancer risk. We examined maximal attainable rates of cancer detection by age stratum from combining PRS-based stratification with cancer screening tools and modelled the maximal impact on cancer-specific survival of hypothetical new UK programmes of PRS-stratified screening. The PRS-defined high-risk quintile (20%) of the population was estimated to capture 37% of breast cancer cases, 46% of prostate cancer cases, 34% of colorectal cancer cases, 29% of pancreatic cancer cases, 26% of ovarian cancer cases, 22% of renal cancer cases, 26% of lung cancer cases, and 47% of testicular cancer cases. Extending UK screening programmes to a PRS-defined high-risk quintile including people aged 40–49 years for breast cancer, 50–59 years for colorectal cancer, and 60–69 years for prostate cancer has the potential to avert, respectively, a maximum of 102, 188, and 158 deaths annually. Unstratified screening of the full population aged 48–49 years for breast cancer, 58–59 years for colorectal cancer, and 68–69 years for prostate cancer would use equivalent resources and avert, respectively, an estimated maximum of 80, 155, and 95 deaths annually. These maximal modelled numbers will be substantially attenuated by incomplete population uptake of PRS profiling and cancer screening, interval cancers, non-European ancestry, and other factors. Under favourable assumptions, our modelling suggests modest potential efficiency gain in cancer case detection and deaths averted for hypothetical new PRS-stratified screening programmes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Restriction of screening to high-risk quantiles means many or most incident cancers will arise in those assigned as being low-risk. To quantify real-world clinical impact, costs, and harms, UK-specific cluster-randomised trials are required. The Wellcome Trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How 'the patient' is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making in clinical practice. Patients are predominantly conceived in an individualised manner as autonomous and independent decision-makers. Fields such as genomic medicine highlight the inadequacies of this conceptualisation as patients are likely to have family members who may be directly affected by the outcome of tests in others. Indeed, professional guidance has increasingly taken a view that genetic information should, at times, be regarded as of relevance to families, rather than individuals. What remains absent from discussions is an understanding of how those living through/with genomic testing articulate, construct, and represent patienthood, and what such understandings might mean for practice, particularly ethical decision-making. Employing the notion of 'linked lives' from lifecourse theory, this article presents findings from a UK-based qualitative longitudinal study following the experiences of those affected by the process and outcomes of genomic testing. The article argues that there is a discord between lived experiences and individualised notions of 'the patient' common in conventional bioethics, with participants predominantly locating their own decision-making within the matrix of linked lives in which they are embedded. In the quest to gain 'answers', many took an intra or intergenerational view, connecting their own experiences to those of past generations through familial narratives around probable explanations, and/or hopes and expectations for the health of imagined future generations. The article argues that a re-imagining of 'the patient', that reflects the complex and shifting nature of patienthood, will be imperative as genomic medicine is mainstreamed. • How 'the patient' is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making. • Genomic medicine shows the shortcomings of individualised notions of 'the patient'. • Instead, a 'linked lives' lens highlights the ensembles of relationships affected. • Participants reported more collective inter/intra-generational views of patienthood. • Re-imagining patienthood beyond the individual is vital as genomics is mainstreamed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genetic testing to identify germline high-risk pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes is increasingly part of the breast cancer diagnostic pathway. Novel patient-centred pathways may offer opportunity to expand capacity and reduce turnaround time., Methods: We recruited 1140 women with unselected breast cancer to undergo germline genetic testing through the BRCA-DIRECT pathway (which includes a digital platform, postal saliva sampling and a genetic counsellor telephone helpline). Ahead of consenting to the test, participants were randomised to receive information about genetic testing digitally (569/1140, 49.9%) or via a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (571/1140, 50.1%)., Results: 1001 (87.8%) participants progressed to receive their pre-test information and consented to testing. The primary outcome, uptake of genetic testing, was higher amongst participants randomised to receive digital information compared with those randomised to a pre-test genetic counselling consultation (90.8% (95% CI: 88.5% to 93.1%) vs 84.7% (95% CI: 81.8% to 87.6%), p = 0.002, adjusted for participant age and site). Non-inferiority was observed in relation to patient knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction., Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that standardised, digital information offers a non-inferior alternative to conventional genetic counselling, and an end-to-end patient-centred, digital pathway (supported by genetic counselling hotline) could feasibly be implemented into breast oncology settings., Clinical Trial Registration: The study is registered with, and protocol available on, ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04842799)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Germline genetic testing affords multiple opportunities for women with breast cancer, however, current UK NHS models for delivery of germline genetic testing are clinician-intensive and only a minority of breast cancer cases access testing., Methods: We designed a rapid, digital pathway, supported by a genetics specialist hotline, for delivery of germline testing of BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (BRCA-testing), integrated into routine UK NHS breast cancer care. We piloted the pathway, as part of the larger BRCA-DIRECT study, in 130 unselected patients with breast cancer and gathered preliminary data from a randomised comparison of delivery of pretest information digitally (fully digital pathway) or via telephone consultation with a genetics professional (partially digital pathway)., Results: Uptake of genetic testing was 98.4%, with good satisfaction reported for both the fully and partially digital pathways. Similar outcomes were observed in both arms regarding patient knowledge score and anxiety, with <5% of patients contacting the genetics specialist hotline. All progression criteria established for continuation of the study were met., Conclusion: Pilot data indicate preliminary demonstration of feasibility and acceptability of a fully digital pathway for BRCA-testing and support proceeding to a full powered study for evaluation of non-inferiority of the fully digital pathway, detailed quantitative assessment of outcomes and operational economic analyses., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN87845055., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Reproductive carrier screening started in some countries in the 1970s for hemoglobinopathies and Tay-Sachs disease. Cystic fibrosis carrier screening became possible in the late 1980s and with technical advances, screening of an ever increasing number of genes has become possible. The goal of carrier screening is to inform people about their risk of having children with autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive disorders, to allow for informed decision making about reproductive options. The consequence may be a decrease in the birth prevalence of these conditions, which has occurred in several countries for some conditions. Different programs target different groups (high school, premarital, couples before conception, couples attending fertility clinics, and pregnant women) as does the governance structure (public health initiative and user pays). Ancestry-based offers of screening are being replaced by expanded carrier screening panels with multiple genes that is independent of ancestry. This review describes screening in Australia, Cyprus, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It provides an insight into the enormous variability in how reproductive carrier screening is offered across the globe. This largely relates to geographical variation in carrier frequencies of genetic conditions and local health care, financial, cultural, and religious factors., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent  agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.

In this paper, we present findings from a project involving 20 patients with rare diseases, or parents thereof, participating in the 100,000 genomes project (100 kG P). We explored their experiences of, and views about, the project, including why they took part, and their hopes and concerns about the future of genomic medicine. Patients who attended genetic clinics for testing were offered the opportunity to undergo the more extensive whole genome sequencing (WGS) if they agreed to take part in the 100 kG P. Once people had agreed, a specific additional appointment was organised for them. Taking part in the project therefore involved additional travel and appointments ('clinical labour'). We found that interviewees' decisions to participate in 100 kG P were based on interpersonal and institutional trust in the NHS, and on an investment in improving care for the future. Interviewees relied upon receiving good ongoing NHS care for managing their own or their child's rare disease, but they worried about what their relationships with NHS healthcare professionals would be like in future. A few participants worried about whether Genomics England's biorepository would remain protected and an asset of the NHS. To honour and foster participants' trust - which may easily be lost - and their clinical labour, we therefore recommend ongoing public engagement and consultation about how genomics is being integrated more widely across specialties (especially given current funding and staffing constraints in the NHS) within the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that 'tick-box' forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients'-and relatives'-interests.