Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants

The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members ( n = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs. Conclusions: APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.

Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to patient recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

At the Research-Clinical Interface

Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions.

Analytic Validation of Immunohistochemical Assays: A Comparison of Laboratory Practices Before and After Introduction of an Evidence-Based Guideline

Context.— Laboratories must demonstrate analytic validity before any test can be used clinically, but studies have shown inconsistent practices in immunohistochemical assay validation. Objective.— To assess changes in immunohistochemistry analytic validation practices after publication of an evidence-based laboratory practice guideline. Design.— A survey on current immunohistochemistry assay validation practices and on the awareness and adoption of a recently published guideline was sent to subscribers enrolled in one of 3 relevant College of American Pathologists proficiency testing programs and to additional nonsubscribing laboratories that perform immunohistochemical testing. The results were compared with an earlier survey of validation practices. Results.— Analysis was based on responses from 1085 laboratories that perform immunohistochemical staining. Of 1057 responses, 65.4% (691) were aware of the guideline recommendations before this survey was sent and 79.9% (550 of 688) of those have already adopted some or all of the recommendations. Compared with the 2010 survey, a significant number of laboratories now have written validation procedures for both predictive and nonpredictive marker assays and specifications for the minimum numbers of cases needed for validation. There was also significant improvement in compliance with validation requirements, with 99% (100 of 102) having validated their most recently introduced predictive marker assay, compared with 74.9% (326 of 435) in 2010. The difficulty in finding validation cases for rare antigens and resource limitations were cited as the biggest challenges in implementing the guideline. Conclusions.— Dissemination of the 2014 evidence-based guideline validation practices had a positive impact on laboratory performance; some or all of the recommendations have been adopted by nearly 80% of respondents.

Considerations for Implementation of Cancer Molecular Diagnostics Into Clinical Care

Physicians have provided personalized care with as much precision as possible for several centuries. However, increasingly sophisticated understanding of the human genome and of cancer biology has permitted identification of genetic and phenotypic distinctions that might permit development of new tumor biomarker tests for risk categorization, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, prediction, and monitoring. Both commercial and academic laboratories are offering tests for single analytes, panels of tests of single analytes, multiparameter assays coalesced into a signature, and total genomic, transcriptomic, or proteomic analyses. However, the absence of a consistent regulatory environment has led to marketing of assays without proven analytic validity or clinical utility. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval or clearance does not necessarily imply that use of the test will improve patient outcomes, and FDA discretion to permit laboratory-developed tests results in unknown benefit, or harm, of others. In this regard, a “bad tumor marker is as bad as a bad drug.” Caveat emptor is not a satisfactory approach to delivering high-quality care. Rather, adoption of tumor biomarker tests should be based on high levels of evidence generated in scientifically rigorous studies that demonstrate both analytical validity and clinical utility. Doing so will ensure that clinicians and patients are confident that a tumor biomarker test is likely to improve their outcomes.