4.5 Article

Choices of incidental findings of individuals undergoing genome wide sequencing, a single center's experience

Journal

CLINICAL GENETICS
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 137-140

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12829

Keywords

decision making; genetic testing; medical ethics; informed choice; whole genome sequencing; whole exome sequencing

Funding

  1. Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin
  2. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome wide sequencing is an emerging clinical tool that may provide information on genetic variants that are not directly related to the patient's primary disorder. These incidental findings (IFs) may include information about conditions that can be treated and may also indicate conditions for which treatments are not currently available. Data is currently limited regarding what IFs an individual would want to disclose. This study reports on 305 individual choices for return of IFs that were completed at the Medical College of Wisconsin's clinical sequencing laboratory. Individuals were given access to five categories of IFs to select from: no incidental findings, untreatable childhood disorders, treatable adulthood disorders, untreatable adulthood disorders, and carrier of a disorder. Retrospective chart review was conducted and individual choices were recorded and analyzed. The majority of individuals (76.1%) selected every IF to be reported, 14.4% wanted a subset of the options, and 9.5% did not want any IFs reported. This study contributes to the limited data that demonstrates what an individual would actually choose when undergoing genetic sequencing. Furthermore, this data supports the opinion that individuals want and utilize the ability to choose the findings reported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available