Susan M. Wolf

Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.

The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products

UNLABELLED Developments in nanomedicine are expected to provide solutions to many of modern medicines unsolved problems, so it is no surprise that the literature contains many articles discussing the subject. However, existing reviews tend to focus on specific sectors of nanomedicine or to take a very forward-looking stance and fail to provide a complete perspective on the current landscape. This article provides a more comprehensive and contemporary inventory of nanomedicine products. A keyword search of literature, clinical trial registries, and the Web yielded 247 nanomedicine products that are approved or in various stages of clinical study. Specific information on each was gathered, so the overall field could be described based on various dimensions, including FDA classification, approval status, nanoscale size, treated condition, nanostructure, and others. In addition to documenting the many nanomedicine products already in use in humans, this study identifies several interesting trends forecasting the future of nanomedicine. FROM THE CLINICAL EDITOR In this one of a kind review, the state of nanomedicine commercialization is discussed, concentrating only on nanomedicine-based developments and products that are either in clinical trials or have already been approved for use.

Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using “biobank” here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.Genet Med 2012:14(4):361–384

Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.Genet Med 15 11, 854–859.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 854–859. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.113

Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics

Returning genetic incidental findings without patient consent is misguided. Exome and whole-genome sequencing are rapidly moving into clinical application to aid diagnosis and treatment. However, a startling statement by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) may prove to be a stumbling block (1). Rather than reconfirming well-established principles of patient autonomy and informed consent that have long applied in medical genetics and in medical practice more broadly, ACMG recommends an abrupt change.

Incidental Findings in Imaging Research Evaluating Incidence, Benefit, and Burden

BACKGROUND Little information exists concerning the frequency and medical significance of incidental findings (IFs) in imaging research. METHODS Medical records of research participants undergoing a research imaging examination interpreted by a radiologist during January through March 2004 were reviewed, with 3-year clinical follow-up. An expert panel reviewed all IFs generating clinical action to determine medical benefit/burden on the basis of predefined criteria. The frequency of IFs that generated further clinical action was estimated by modality, body part, age, and sex, along with net medical benefit or burden. RESULTS Of 1426 research imaging examinations, 567 (39.8%) had at least 1 IF (1055 total). Risk of an IF increased significantly by age (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-1.7 per decade increase). Abdominopelvic computed tomography generated more IFs than other examinations (OR, 18.9 vs ultrasonography; 9.2% with subsequent clinical action), with computed tomography of the thorax and magnetic resonance imaging of the head next (OR, 11.9 and 5.9; 2.8% and 2.2% with action, respectively). Of the 567 examinations with an IF, 35 (6.2%) generated clinical action, resulting in clear medical benefit in 1.1% (6 of 567) and clear medical burden in 0.5% (3 of 567). Medical benefit/burden was usually unclear (26 of 567 [4.6%]). CONCLUSIONS Frequency of IFs in imaging research examinations varies significantly by imaging modality, body region, and age. Research imaging studies at high risk for generating IFs can be identified. Routine evaluation of research images by radiologists may result in identification of IFs in a high number of cases and subsequent clinical action to address them in a small but significant minority. Such clinical action can result in medical benefit to a small number of patients.

Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research.

A decade of empirical work in brain imaging, genomics, and other areas of research has yielded new knowledge about the frequency of incidental findings, investigator responsibility, and risks and benefits of disclosure. Straightforward guidance for handling such findings of possible clinical significance, however, has been elusive. In early work focusing on imaging studies of the brain, we suggested that investigators and institutional review boards must anticipate and articulate plans for handling incidental findings. Here we provide a detailed analysis of different approaches to the problem and evaluate their merits in the context of the goals and setting of the research and the involvement of neurologists, radiologists, and other physicians. Protecting subject welfare and privacy, as well as ensuring scientific integrity, are the highest priorities in making choices about how to handle incidental findings. Forethought and clarity will enable these goals without overburdening research conducted within or outside the medical setting.

The Law of Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Establishing Researchers' Duties

Research technologies can now produce so much information that there is significant potential for incidental findings (IFs). These are findings generated in research that are beyond the aims of the study. Current law and federal regulations offer no direct guidance on how to deal with IFs in research, nor is there adequate professional or institutional guidance. We advocate a defined set of researcher duties based on law and ethics and recommend a pathway to be followed in handling IFs in research. This article traces the underlying ethical and legal theories supporting researcher duties to manage IFs, including duties to develop a plan for management in the research protocol, to discuss the possibility of and management plan for IFs in the informed consent process, and to address, evaluate, and ultimately offer to disclose IFs of potential clinical or reproductive significance to research participants when they arise.

Addressing the Ethical Challenges in Genetic Testing and Sequencing of Children

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recently provided two recommendations about predictive genetic testing of children. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortiums Pediatrics Working Group compared these recommendations, focusing on operational and ethical issues specific to decision making for children. Content analysis of the statements addresses two issues: (1) how these recommendations characterize and analyze locus of decision making, as well as the risks and benefits of testing, and (2) whether the guidelines conflict or come to different but compatible conclusions because they consider different testing scenarios. These statements differ in ethically significant ways. AAP/ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using best interests of the child and recommends that, absent ameliorative interventions available during childhood, clinicians should generally decline to order testing. Parents authorize focused tests. ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using the interests of the child and other family members and recommends that sequencing results be examined for additional variants that can lead to ameliorative interventions, regardless of age, which laboratories should report to clinicians who should contextualize the results. Parents must accept additional analysis. The ethical arguments in these statements appear to be in tension with each other.