What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review.

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the ACMG published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3,571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four interrelated concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication and, how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term 'incidental', while 'secondary' has broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.