Handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research in Japan: current state of research facilities and attitudes of investigators and the general population

Health Research Policy and Systems

Akira Akabayashi³  Eisuke Nakazawa³  Kyoko Takashima³  Shimon Tashiro¹  Yoshinori Hayashi⁴  Misao Fujita² 

[1] Office for Promoting Medical Research, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 142-8555, Japan;Uehiro Research Division for iPS Cell Ethics, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, The Kyoto Technoscience Center #3, 14, Yoshidakawara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8305, Japan;Department of Biomedical Ethics, The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan;College of Letters, Human Studies Program, Ritsumeikan University, 56-1 Toji-in Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8577, Japan

关键词: Questionnaires;    Neuroimaging;    Japan;    Investigators;    Incidental findings;    General population;   

Others  :  1177319
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-58

 received in 2014-03-20, accepted in 2014-09-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

To establish appropriate measures that deal with incidental findings (IFs), the neuroscience community needs to address various ethical issues. The current state of research facilities regarding IFs and investigator attitudes as well as potentially eligible research participants must be assessed prior to future discussions and before the development of policies and guidelines. To this end, we conducted two questionnaire surveys to clarify i) how IFs are addressed at neuroimaging research facilities in Japan and ii) the views of investigators and potential research participants regarding the handling of IFs.

Methods

Thirty-one principal investigators (PIs) involved in the Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences (SRPBS), a government-funded project, were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding ways IFs were handled at the facility. A total of 110 investigators engaged in SRPBS tasks, including 31 PIs who participated in the research facility survey and researchers conducting studies under the management of the PIs, and 500 individuals from the general public (i.e., general population) were asked to select the most appropriate way to deal with IFs in two scenarios, namely the medical school and humanities and social sciences department scenarios.

Results

More than 40% of PIs responded that they did not know or were unsure of what type of approach was employed to handle IFs at their research facilities. Nevertheless, they were willing to improve the current status if sufficient resources were provided. With regard to specialist involvement, 37.7% of investigators responded that it was appropriate to have a specialist check all images in the medical school scenario, whereas 13.3% responded that such involvement was appropriate in the humanities and social sciences department scenario. In contrast, 76.1% and 61.0% of the general population indicated that specialist involvement was appropriate in the medical school and humanities and social sciences department scenarios, respectively. These results show that expectations of the general population exceed those of investigators regarding measures to address IFs. Both investigators and the general population demanded more responsibility from PIs at medical institutions, compared to PIs at non-medical institutions.

Conclusions

Based on our preliminary results, we recommended that a licensed physician perform a screening test to appropriately examine clear abnormalities. These recommendations were implemented by the SRPBS as guidelines for handling IFs in national research projects in Japan.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Fujita et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, Fletcher JG, Georgieff MK, Hammerschmidt D, Hudson K, Illes J, Kapur V, Keane MA, Koenig BA, Leroy BS, McFarland EG, Paradise J, Parker LS, Terry SF, Van Ness B, Wilfond BS: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:219-248.
• [2]Illes J, Chin VN: Bridging philosophical and practical implications of incidental findings in brain research. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:298-304.
• [3]Illes J, Kirschen MP, Edwards E, Stanford LR, Bandettini P, Cho MK, Ford PJ, Glover GH, Kulynych J, Macklin R, Michael DB, Wolf SM: Ethics. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science 2006, 311:783-784.
• [4]Kirschen MP, Jaworska A, Illes J: Subjects’ expectations in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 23:205-209.
• [5]Kumra S, Ashtari M, Anderson B, Cervellione KL, Kan L: Ethical and practical considerations in the management of incidental findings in pediatric MRI studies. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006, 45:1000-1006.
• [6]Wolf SM, Paradise J, Caga-anan C: The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers’ duties. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:361-383.
• [7]Hayashi Y: Ethical issues of handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research: clarifying and discussing some points. Appl Ethics 2010, 4:29-43. (In Japanese)
• [8]Lawrenz F, Sobotka S: Empirical analysis of current approaches to incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:249-255.
• [9]Illes J, Kirschen MP, Karetsky K, Kelly M, Saha A, Desmond JE, Raffin TA, Glover GH, Atlas SW: Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 20:743-747.
• [10]Royal JM, Peterson BS: The risks and benefits of searching for incidental findings in MRI research scans. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:305-314.
• [11]Richardson HS: Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:256-270.
• [12]Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S: Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:271-279.
• [13]Milstein AC: Research malpractice and the issue of incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:356-360.
• [14]Illes J, Kirschen MP, Edwards E, Bandettini P, Cho MK, Ford PJ, Glover GH, Kulynych J, Macklin R, Michael DB, Wolf SM, Grabowski T, Seto B: Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research. Neurology 2008, 70:384-390.
• [15]Underwood E: When a brain scan bears bad news. Science 2012, 338:455.
• [16]The National Core for Neuroethics: New Documentation for the Management of Incidental Findings. [http://neuroethics.med.ubc.ca/new-documentation-for-the-management-of-incidental-findings/ webcite]
• [17]The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology: The Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences. [http://brainprogram.mext.go.jp/ webcite] (In Japanese)
• [18]The Japan Neuroscience Society: Guidelines for Ethical Issues of Non-Invasive Research on Human Brain Function. [http://www.jnss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/rinri.pdf webcite] (In Japanese)
• [19]Sakura O, Fukushi T: Neuroethics: towards communicative relation among neuroscience and public. J Jpn Assoc Bioethics 2007, 17:18-27. (In Japanese)
• [20]Fujita M: Views among researchers, and the position of institutions, regarding the handling of incidental findings in research using brain images. In Brain Science Research and Ethics; Collection. Edited by Akabayashi A. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo; 2011:46-61. In Japanese
• [21]Deslauriers C, Bell E, Palmour N, Pike B, Doyon J, Racine E: Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010, 5:49-66.
• [22]Cooke R, Peel E, Shaw RL, Senior C: The neuroimaging research process from the participants’ perspective. Int J Psychophysiol 2007, 63:152-158.
• [23]Shaw RL, Senior C, Peel E, Cooke R, Donnelly LS: Ethical issues in neuroimaging health research: an IPA study with research participants. J Health Psychol 2008, 13:1051-1059.
• [24]JMA Research Institute Inc [http://www.jmar.co.jp/ webcite] (In Japanese)
• [25]Mamourian A: Incidental findings on research functional MR images: should we look. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004, 25:520-522.
• [26]Booth TC, Jackson A, Wardlaw JM, Taylor SA, Waldman AD: Incidental findings found in ‘healthy’ volunteers during imaging performed for research: current legal and ethical implications. Br J Radiol 2010, 83:456-465.
• [27]Pickard JD, Gillard JH: Guidelines reduce the risk of brain-scan shock. Nature 2005, 435:17.
• [28]Ulmer S, Jensen UR, Jansen O, Mehdorn HM, Schaub J, Deuschl G, Siebner HR: Impact of incidental findings on neuroimaging research using functional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30:E55.
• [29]Shoemaker JM, Holdsworth MT, Aine C: A practical approach to incidental findings in neuroimaging research. Neurology 2011, 77:2123-2127.
• [30]Ross K: When volunteers are not healthy. EMBO Rep 2005, 6:1116-1119.
• [31]Hayashi Y: Researcher’s obligations to handle incidental findings and their implications. J Jpn Assoc Bioethics 2010, 21:22-29. (In Japanese)
• [32]Illes J, Rosen AC, Huang L, Goldstein RA, Raffin TA, Swan G, Atlas SW: Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology 2004, 62:888-890.
• [33]Illes J: ‘Pandora’s box’ of incidental findings in brain imaging research. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2006, 2:60-61.
• [34]Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C: The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982, 5:319-329.
• [35]Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW: Twenty-five years of therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 2008, 38:5-6.
• [36]Rangel EK: The management of incidental findings in neuro-imaging research: framework and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2010, 38:117-126.
• [37]Hayashi Y, Fujita M, Takashima K, Tashiro S, Akabayashi A: Recommendations. In The Management of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research. Edited by Akabayashi A. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo; 2012:1-27. In Japanese