TY - JOUR
T1 - Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes
T2 - the SFMPP recommendations
AU - Pujol, Pascal
AU - Vande Perre, Pierre
AU - Faivre, Laurence
AU - Sanlaville, Damien
AU - Corsini, Carole
AU - Baertschi, Bernard
AU - Anahory, Michèle
AU - Vaur, Dominique
AU - Olschwang, Sylviane
AU - Soufir, Nadem
AU - Bastide, Noëlle
AU - Amar, Sarah
AU - Vintraud, Michèle
AU - Ingster, Olivier
AU - Richard, Stéphane
AU - Le Coz, Pierre
AU - Spano, Jean Philippe
AU - Caron, Olivier
AU - Hammel, Pascal
AU - Luporsi, Elisabeth
AU - Toledano, Alain
AU - Rebillard, Xavier
AU - Cambon-Thomsen, Anne
AU - Putois, Olivier
AU - Rey, Jean Marc
AU - Hervé, Christian
AU - Zorn, Caroline
AU - Baudry, Karen
AU - Galibert, Virginie
AU - Gligorov, Joseph
AU - Azria, David
AU - Bressac-de Paillerets, Brigitte
AU - Burnichon, Nelly
AU - Spielmann, Marc
AU - Zarca, Daniel
AU - Coupier, Isabelle
AU - Cussenot, Olivier
AU - Gimenez-Roqueplo, Anne Paule
AU - Giraud, Sophie
AU - Lapointe, Anne Sophie
AU - Niccoli, Patricia
AU - Raingeard, Isabelle
AU - Le Bidan, Muriel
AU - Frebourg, Thierry
AU - Rafii, Arash
AU - Geneviève, David
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, European Society of Human Genetics.
PY - 2018/12/1
Y1 - 2018/12/1
N2 - In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients’ representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the “actionability” of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.
AB - In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients’ representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the “actionability” of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052492433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41431-018-0224-1
DO - 10.1038/s41431-018-0224-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 30089825
AN - SCOPUS:85052492433
SN - 1018-4813
VL - 26
SP - 1732
EP - 1742
JO - European Journal of Human Genetics
JF - European Journal of Human Genetics
IS - 12
ER -