Secondary findings from next generation sequencing: Psychological and ethical issues. Family and patient perspectives.

Fiche publication

Date publication

juin 2019

Journal

European journal of medical genetics

Auteurs

Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr FAIVRE Laurence , Mme CRETIN Elodie

Tous les auteurs :
Houdayer F, Putois O, Babonneau ML, Chaumet H, Joly L, Juif C, Michon CC, Staraci S, Cretin E, Delanoue S, Charron P, Chassagne A, Edery P, Gautier E, Lapointe AS, Thauvin-Robinet C, Sanlaville D, Gargiulo M, Faivre L

Lien Pubmed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31265899

Résumé

Access to active search for actionable secondary findings (SF) in diagnostic practice is a major psychological and ethical issue for genomic medicine. In this study, we analyzed the preferences of patients and their families regarding SF and identified the reporting procedures necessary for informed consent. We interviewed parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases potentially eligible for exome sequencing and patients affected by the diseases listed in the ACMG recommendations. Four focus groups (FG) were formed: parents of patients with undiagnosed rare diseases (FG1, n = 5); patients with hereditary cancers (FG2, n = 10); patients with hereditary cardiac conditions (FG3, n = 3); and patients with metabolic diseases (FG4, n = 3). Psychologists presented three broad topics for discussion: 1. Favorable or not to SF access, 2. Reporting procedures, 3. Equity of access. Discussions were recorded and analyzed using simplified Grounded Theory. Overall, 8 participants declared being favorable to SF because of the medical benefit (mainly FG1); 11 were unfavorable because of the psychological consequences (mainly FG2, FG3, FG4); 2 were ambivalent. The possibility of looking for SF in minors was debated. The 4 key information-based issues for participants ranked as follows: explanation of SF issues, autonomy of choice, importance of a reflection period, and quality of interactions between patients and professionals. Examining equity of access to SF led to philosophical discussions on quality of life. In conclusion, individual experience and life context (circumstances) were decisive in participants' expectations and fears regarding access to SF. Additional longitudinal studies based on actual SF disclosure announcements are needed to establish future guidelines.