GENETIC DUTIES

Overview

Journal William Mary Law Rev

Date 2023 Sep 1

PMID 37654734

Authors

Jessica L Roberts

Alexandra L Foulkes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Most of our genetic information does not change, yet the results of our genetic tests might. Labs reclassify genetic variants in response to advances in genetic science. As a result, a person who took a test in 2010 could take the same test with the same lab in 2020 and get a different result. However, no legal duty requires labs or physicians to inform patients when a lab reclassifies a variant, even if the reclassification communicates clinically actionable information. This Article considers the need for such duties and their potential challenges. In so doing, it offers much-needed guidance to physicians and labs, who may face liability, and to courts, which will hear these cases.

Citing Articles

UNLIMITED MEDICAL LIABILITY?.

Roberts J, Fowler L, Appelbaum P Emory Law J Online. 2023; 72.

PMID: 37655295 PMC: 10468648.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?.

Appelbaum P, Burke W, Parens E, Roberts J, Berger S, Chung W Ann Intern Med. 2023; 176(4):563-567.

PMID: 36972543 PMC: 10413009. DOI: 10.7326/M22-3682.

Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants.

Appelbaum P, Berger S, Brokamp E, Brown H, Burke W, Clayton E Genet Med. 2023; 25(5):100801.

PMID: 36748709 PMC: 10408279. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100801.

How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?.

Rashkin M, Kingham K, Lara-Otero K, Mckenna M, Villiers J, Worthington M J Genet Couns. 2022; 32(1):18-30.

PMID: 36260514 PMC: 10092710. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1638.

Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines.

Berger S, Appelbaum P, Siegel K, Wynn J, Saami A, Brokamp E Genet Med. 2022; 24(9):1878-1887.

PMID: 35767006 PMC: 10407574. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.06.002.

References

Carrieri D, Howard H, Benjamin C, Clarke A, Dheensa S, Doheny S . Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018; 27(2):169-182. PMC: 6336881. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0285-1. View

Kohane I, Masys D, Altman R . The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA. 2006; 296(2):212-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.2.212. View

Riley W . Health disparities: gaps in access, quality and affordability of medical care. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2013; 123:167-72. PMC: 3540621. View

Hunter A, Sharpe N, Mullen M, Meschino W . Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: the case in medical genetics. Am J Med Genet. 2001; 103(4):265-76. View

Mersch J, Brown N, Pirzadeh-Miller S, Mundt E, Cox H, Brown K . Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing. JAMA. 2018; 320(12):1266-1274. PMC: 6233618. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.13152. View

Rebbeck T, Couch F, Kant J, Calzone K, DeShano M, Peng Y . Genetic heterogeneity in hereditary breast cancer: role of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 1996; 59(3):547-53. PMC: 1914911. View

Amendola L, Jarvik G, Leo M, McLaughlin H, Akkari Y, Amaral M . Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 2016; 98(6):1067-1076. PMC: 4908185. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.03.024. View

Hirschhorn K, Fleisher L, Godmilow L, Howell R, Lebel R, McCabe E . Duty to re-contact. Genet Med. 2001; 1(4):171-2. DOI: 10.1097/00125817-199905000-00010. View

Haspel R, Saffitz J . Genomic oncology education: an urgent need, a new approach. Cancer J. 2014; 20(1):91-5. PMC: 3924419. DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000015. View

10.

Hall M, Olopade O . Disparities in genetic testing: thinking outside the BRCA box. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(14):2197-203. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.5889. View

11.

David K, Best R, Brenman L, Bush L, Deignan J, Flannery D . Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2018; 21(4):769-771. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0391-z. View

12.

Bal B . An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 467(2):339-47. PMC: 2628513. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0636-2. View

13.

Stevens Y, Senner G, Marchant G . Physicians' duty to recontact and update genetic advice. Per Med. 2017; 14(4):367-374. PMC: 5693364. DOI: 10.2217/pme-2017-0012. View

14.

Sacopulos M, Segal J . Limiting exposure to medical malpractice claims and defamatory cyber postings via patient contracts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 467(2):427-33. PMC: 2628519. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0619-3. View

15.

Wallace A . New challenges for BRCA testing: a view from the diagnostic laboratory. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 24 Suppl 1:S10-8. PMC: 5141576. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.94. View

16.

Friedman Ross L, Rothstein M, Clayton E . Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making. JAMA. 2013; 310(4):367-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.41700. View

17.

Roses A . Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature. 2000; 405(6788):857-65. DOI: 10.1038/35015728. View

18.

Lee J, Choudhry N, Wu A, Matlin O, Brennan T, Shrank W . Patient Use of Email, Facebook, and Physician Websites to Communicate with Physicians: A National Online Survey of Retail Pharmacy Users. J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 31(1):45-51. PMC: 4700007. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3374-7. View

19.

Letendre M, Godard B . Expanding the physician's duty of care: a duty to recontact?. Med Law. 2004; 23(3):531-9. View

20.

Lewis M, Gohagan J, Merenstein D . The locality rule and the physician's dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care. JAMA. 2007; 297(23):2633-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.23.2633. View