Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Robinson JO
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4842131 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Participants and Study Decliners' Perspectives About the Risks of Participating in a Clinical Trial of Whole Genome Sequencing.
Robinson Jill Oliver JO Carroll Thomas M TM Feuerman Lindsay Z LZ Perry Denise L DL Hoffman-Andrews Lily L Walsh Rebecca C RC Christensen Kurt D KD Green Robert C RC McGuire Amy L AL
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20160228 1
An increasing number of individuals are being recruited to whole genome sequencing (WGS) research. When asked hypothetically, the majority of the public express willingness to participate in this type of research, yet little is known about how many individuals will actually consent to research participation or what they perceive the risks to be. The MedSeq Project is a clinical trial exploring WGS in clinical care. We documented primary reason(s) for declining participation and reviewed audio-re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundClinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is being used in an expanding range of clinical settings. Most approaches to offering patients choices about learning CGES results classify results according to expert definitions of clinical actionability. Little is known about how patients conceptualize different categories of CGES results.MethodsThe MedSeq Project is a randomized controlled trial studying the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in primary care and cardiology. We surveyed 202 patient-participants about different kinds of WGS results and conducted qualitative interviews with 49 of these participants. Interview data were analyzed both inductively and deductively using thematic content analysis.ResultsParticipants demonstrated high levels of study understanding and genetic literacy. A small majority of participants wanted to learn all of their WGS results (n = 123, 61%). Qualitative data provided a deeper understanding of participants' perspectives about different types of WGS results. Participants did not have the same views about which WGS results would be actionable or upsetting to learn. They conceptualized variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in a variety of different ways. Many participants expressed optimism that the uncertainty associated with VUS results could be reduced over time.ConclusionsProposals to determine which WGS/CGES results to disclose by soliciting patient preferences may fail to appreciate the complex ways patients think about disease and the information WGS/CGES can produce. Our findings challenge prevailing methods of facilitating patient choice and assessing the benefits and harms related to the return of WGS/CGES results, which mostly rely on expert definitions of clinical utility to categorize the kinds of results patients can learn.
| S-EPMC6647021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomics and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have the capacity to greatly enhance knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology.The growth and availability of bench-top WGS analysers has facilitated the feasibility of genomics in clinical and public health microbiology.Given current resource and infrastructure limitations, WGS is most applicable to use in public health laboratories, reference laboratories, and hospital infection control-affiliated laboratories.As WGS represents the pinnacle for strain characterisation and epidemiological analyses, it is likely to replace traditional typing methods, resistance gene detection and other sequence-based investigations (e.g., 16S rDNA PCR) in the near future.Although genomic technologies are rapidly evolving, widespread implementation in clinical and public health microbiology laboratories is limited by the need for effective semi-automated pipelines, standardised quality control and data interpretation, bioinformatics expertise, and infrastructure.
| S-EPMC4389090 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background Sharing of participant-level clinical trial data has potential benefits, but concerns about potential harms to research participants have led some pharmaceutical sponsors and investigators to urge caution. Little is known about clinical trial participants' perceptions of the risks of data sharing. Methods We conducted a structured survey of 771 current and recent participants from a diverse sample of clinical trials at three academic medical centers in the United States. Surveys were distributed by mail (350 completed surveys) and in clinic waiting rooms (421 completed surveys) (overall response rate, 79%). Results Less than 8% of respondents felt that the potential negative consequences of data sharing outweighed the benefits. A total of 93% were very or somewhat likely to allow their own data to be shared with university scientists, and 82% were very or somewhat likely to share with scientists in for-profit companies. Willingness to share data did not vary appreciably with the purpose for which the data would be used, with the exception that fewer participants were willing to share their data for use in litigation. The respondents' greatest concerns were that data sharing might make others less willing to enroll in clinical trials (37% very or somewhat concerned), that data would be used for marketing purposes (34%), or that data could be stolen (30%). Less concern was expressed about discrimination (22%) and exploitation of data for profit (20%). Conclusions In our study, few clinical trial participants had strong concerns about the risks of data sharing. Provided that adequate security safeguards were in place, most participants were willing to share their data for a wide range of uses. (Funded by the Greenwall Foundation.).
| S-EPMC6057615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: While there is an increasing consensus that clinical trial results should be shared with trial participants, there is a lack of evidence on the most appropriate methods. The aim of this study is to use a patient and public involvement (PPI) approach to identify, develop and evaluate a patient-preferred method of receiving results of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypo-Thyroidism Trial (TRUST). Methods: This is a mixed methods study with three consecutive phases. Phase 1 iteratively developed a patient-preferred result method using semi-structured focus groups and a consensus-orientated-decision model, a PPI group to refine the method and adult literacy review for plain English assessment. Phase 2 was a single-blind parallel group trial. Irish TRUST participants were randomised to the intervention (patient-preferred method) and control group (standard method developed by lead study site). Phase 3 used a patient understanding questionnaire to compare patient understanding of results between the two methods. Results: Patients want to receive results of clinical trials, with qualitative findings indicating three key themes including 'acknowledgement of individual contribution', 'contributing for a collective benefit' and 'receiving accessible and easy to understand results'. Building on these findings, a patient-preferred method of receiving results was developed as described above. TRUST participants (n=101) were randomised to the intervention. The questionnaire response rate was 74% for the intervention group and 62% for the control group. There were no differences in patient understanding between the two methods. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct PPI with regard to the dissemination of results. The study identified and developed a patient-preferred method of receiving clinical trial results for older adults over 65 years. Although, in this study PPI did not influence patients' final understanding of results, it provides a record of the process of conducting PPI within the clinical trial setting.
| S-EPMC6973522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the implementation of a research project providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) to all pediatric cancer patients in Denmark (2016-2019), we sought to investigate healthcare professionals' views on WGS as it was actively being implemented in pediatric oncology.MethodsSemistructured interviews were carried out with pediatric oncologists, clinical geneticists, and research coordinating nurses (N = 17), followed by content analysis of transcribed interviews. Interviews were supplemented by ethnographic observations on Danish pediatric oncology wards. Additionally, questionnaires were distributed to healthcare professionals concerning when they found it appropriate to approach families regarding WGS. The response rate was 74%.ResultsHealthcare professionals see imbalances in doctor-patient relationship, especially the double role doctors have as clinicians and researchers. Some were concerned that it might not be possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from all families following diagnosis. Still, 94% of respondents found it acceptable to approach families during the first 4 weeks from the child's diagnosis. Views on the utility of WGS, treatment adaptation, and surveillance differed among interviewees.ConclusionOverall, healthcare professionals see dilemmas arising from WGS in the pediatric oncology clinic, and some advocate for further educational sessions with families and healthcare professionals. Despite concerns, healthcare professionals overwhelmingly supported early approach of families regarding WGS. Interviewees disagree on the benefits of surveillance based on genetic findings.
| S-EPMC7434747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is already being used in certain clinical and research settings, but its impact on patient well-being, health-care utilization, and clinical decision-making remains largely unstudied. It is also unknown how best to communicate sequencing results to physicians and patients to improve health. We describe the design of the MedSeq Project: the first randomized trials of WGS in clinical care.This pair of randomized controlled trials compares WGS to standard of care in two clinical contexts: (a) disease-specific genomic medicine in a cardiomyopathy clinic and (b) general genomic medicine in primary care. We are recruiting 8 to 12 cardiologists, 8 to 12 primary care physicians, and approximately 200 of their patients. Patient participants in both the cardiology and primary care trials are randomly assigned to receive a family history assessment with or without WGS. Our laboratory delivers a genome report to physician participants that balances the needs to enhance understandability of genomic information and to convey its complexity. We provide an educational curriculum for physician participants and offer them a hotline to genetics professionals for guidance in interpreting and managing their patients' genome reports. Using varied data sources, including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and review of clinical data, we measure the attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of physician and patient participants at multiple time points before and after the disclosure of these results.The impact of emerging sequencing technologies on patient care is unclear. We have designed a process of interpreting WGS results and delivering them to physicians in a way that anticipates how we envision genomic medicine will evolve in the near future. That is, our WGS report provides clinically relevant information while communicating the complexity and uncertainty of WGS results to physicians and, through physicians, to their patients. This project will not only illuminate the impact of integrating genomic medicine into the clinical care of patients but also inform the design of future studies.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01736566.
| S-EPMC4113228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IMPORTANCE:Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly applied in clinical medicine and is expected to uncover clinically significant findings regardless of sequencing indication. OBJECTIVES:To examine coverage and concordance of clinically relevant genetic variation provided by WGS technologies; to quantitate inherited disease risk and pharmacogenomic findings in WGS data and resources required for their discovery and interpretation; and to evaluate clinical action prompted by WGS findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:An exploratory study of 12 adult participants recruited at Stanford University Medical Center who underwent WGS between November 2011 and March 2012. A multidisciplinary team reviewed all potentially reportable genetic findings. Five physicians proposed initial clinical follow-up based on the genetic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Genome coverage and sequencing platform concordance in different categories of genetic disease risk, person-hours spent curating candidate disease-risk variants, interpretation agreement between trained curators and disease genetics databases, burden of inherited disease risk and pharmacogenomic findings, and burden and interrater agreement of proposed clinical follow-up. RESULTS:Depending on sequencing platform, 10% to 19% of inherited disease genes were not covered to accepted standards for single nucleotide variant discovery. Genotype concordance was high for previously described single nucleotide genetic variants (99%-100%) but low for small insertion/deletion variants (53%-59%). Curation of 90 to 127 genetic variants in each participant required a median of 54 minutes (range, 5-223 minutes) per genetic variant, resulted in moderate classification agreement between professionals (Gross ?, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.64), and reclassified 69% of genetic variants cataloged as disease causing in mutation databases to variants of uncertain or lesser significance. Two to 6 personal disease-risk findings were discovered in each participant, including 1 frameshift deletion in the BRCA1 gene implicated in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Physician review of sequencing findings prompted consideration of a median of 1 to 3 initial diagnostic tests and referrals per participant, with fair interrater agreement about the suitability of WGS findings for clinical follow-up (Fleiss ?, 0.24; P?<?001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this exploratory study of 12 volunteer adults, the use of WGS was associated with incomplete coverage of inherited disease genes, low reproducibility of detection of genetic variation with the highest potential clinical effects, and uncertainty about clinically reportable findings. In certain cases, WGS will identify clinically actionable genetic variants warranting early medical intervention. These issues should be considered when determining the role of WGS in clinical medicine.
| S-EPMC4119063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Disease-causing mutations and pharmacogenomic variants are of primary interest for clinical whole-genome sequencing. However, estimating genetic liability for common complex diseases using established risk alleles might one day prove clinically useful.We compared polygenic scoring methods using a case-control data set with independently discovered risk alleles in the MedSeq Project. For eight traits of clinical relevance in both the primary-care and cardiomyopathy study cohorts, we estimated multiplicative polygenic risk scores using 161 published risk alleles and then normalized them using the population median estimated from the 1000 Genomes Project.Our polygenic score approach identified the overrepresentation of independently discovered risk alleles in cases as compared with controls using a large-scale genome-wide association study data set. In addition to normalized multiplicative polygenic risk scores and rank in a population, the disease prevalence and proportion of heritability explained by known common risk variants provide important context in the interpretation of modern multilocus disease risk models.Our approach in the MedSeq Project demonstrates how complex trait risk variants from an individual genome can be summarized and reported for the general clinician and also highlights the need for definitive clinical studies to obtain reference data for such estimates and to establish clinical utility.
| S-EPMC4547452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although a standard genome-wide significance level has been accepted for the testing of association between common genetic variants and disease, the era of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) requires a new threshold. The allele frequency spectrum of sequence-identified variants is very different from common variants, and the identified rare genetic variation is usually jointly analyzed in a series of genomic windows or regions. In nearby or overlapping windows, these test statistics will be correlated, and the degree of correlation is likely to depend on the choice of window size, overlap, and the test statistic. Furthermore, multiple analyses may be performed using different windows or test statistics. Here we propose an empirical approach for estimating genome-wide significance thresholds for data arising from WGS studies, and we demonstrate that the empirical threshold can be efficiently estimated by extrapolating from calculations performed on a small genomic region. Because analysis of WGS may need to be repeated with different choices of test statistics or windows, this prediction approach makes it computationally feasible to estimate genome-wide significance thresholds for different analysis choices. Based on UK10K whole-genome sequence data, we derive genome-wide significance thresholds ranging between 2.5 × 10(-8) and 8 × 10(-8) for our analytic choices in window-based testing, and thresholds of 0.6 × 10(-8) -1.5 × 10(-8) for a combined analytic strategy of testing common variants using single-SNP tests together with rare variants analyzed with our sliding-window test strategy.
| S-EPMC4489336 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Whole exome and genome sequencing (WES/WGS) is now routinely offered as a clinical test by a growing number of laboratories. As part of the test design process each laboratory must determine the performance characteristics of the platform, test and informatics pipeline. This report documents one such characterization of WES/WGS. METHODS: Whole exome and whole genome sequencing was performed on multiple technical replicates of five reference samples using the Illumina HiSeq 2000/2500. The sequencing data was processed with a GATK-based genome analysis pipeline to evaluate: intra-run, inter-run, inter-mode, inter-machine and inter-library consistency, concordance with orthogonal technologies (microarray, Sanger) and sensitivity and accuracy relative to known variant sets. RESULTS: Concordance to high-density microarrays consistently exceeds 97% (and typically exceeds 99%) and concordance between sequencing replicates also exceeds 97%, with no observable differences between different flow cells, runs, machines or modes. Sensitivity relative to high-density microarray variants exceeds 95%. In a detailed study of a 129 kb region, sensitivity was lower with some validated single-base insertions and deletions "not called". Different variants are "not called" in each replicate: of all variants identified in WES data from the NA12878 reference sample 74% of indels and 89% of SNVs were called in all seven replicates, in NA12878 WGS 52% of indels and 88% of SNVs were called in all six replicates. Key sources of non-uniformity are variance in depth of coverage, artifactual variants resulting from repetitive regions and larger structural variants. CONCLUSION: We report a comprehensive performance characterization of WES/WGS that will be relevant to offering laboratories, consumers of genome sequencing and others interested in the analytical validity of this technology.
| S-EPMC4022392 | biostudies-literature