Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms

Vears, Danya F. ; Niemiec, Emilia LU orcid ; Howard, Heidi Carmen LU and Borry, Pascal (2018) In European Journal of Human Genetics 26(12). p.1743-1751
Abstract

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some... (More)

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
European Journal of Human Genetics
volume
26
issue
12
pages
1743 - 1751
publisher
Nature Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • pmid:30143804
  • scopus:85052939503
ISSN
1018-4813
DOI
10.1038/s41431-018-0239-7
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
4781c9ad-ce20-403d-8d6d-eb41cfd19b93
date added to LUP
2020-12-03 14:14:38
date last changed
2024-07-11 04:18:55
@article{4781c9ad-ce20-403d-8d6d-eb41cfd19b93,
  abstract     = {{<p>There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.</p>}},
  author       = {{Vears, Danya F. and Niemiec, Emilia and Howard, Heidi Carmen and Borry, Pascal}},
  issn         = {{1018-4813}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{12}},
  number       = {{12}},
  pages        = {{1743--1751}},
  publisher    = {{Nature Publishing Group}},
  series       = {{European Journal of Human Genetics}},
  title        = {{Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0239-7}},
  doi          = {{10.1038/s41431-018-0239-7}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}