The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood.

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.

Reporting Genetic Findings to Individual Research Participants: Guidelines From the Swiss Personalized Health Network

In 2017 the Swiss federal government established the Swiss Personalized Health Network (SPHN), a nationally coordinated data infrastructure for genetic research. The SPHN advisory group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was tasked with the creation of a recommendation to ensure ethically responsible reporting of genetic research findings to research participants in SPHN-funded studies. Following consultations with expert stakeholders, including geneticists, pediatricians, sociologists, university hospitals directors, patient representatives, consumer protection associations, and insurers, the ELSI advisory group issued its recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants" in May 2020. In this paper we outline the development of this recommendation and the provisions it contains. In particular, we discuss some of its key features, namely: (1) that participation in SPHN-funded studies as a research subject is conditional to accepting that medically relevant genetic research findings will be reported; (2) that a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) should be created to support researchers' decision-making processes about reporting individual genetic research findings; (3) that such Multidisciplinary Expert Panel will make case-by-case decisions about whether to allow reporting of genetic findings, instead of relying on a pre-defined list of medically relevant variants; (4) that research participants shall be informed of the need to disclose genetic mutations when applying for private insurance, which may influence individual decisions about participation in research. By providing an account of the procedural background and considerations leading to the SPHN recommendation on "Reporting actionable genetic findings to research participants," we seek to promote a better understanding of the proposed guidance, as well as to contribute to the global dialog on the reporting of genetic research findings.

Informed Consent for Genetic and Genomic Research

Genetic research often utilizes or generates information that is potentially sensitive to individuals, families, or communities. For these reasons, genetic research may warrant additional scrutiny from investigators and governmental regulators, compared to other types of biomedical research. The informed consent process should address the range of social and psychological issues that may arise in genetic research. This article addresses a number of these issues, including recruitment of participants, disclosure of results, psychological impact of results, insurance and employment discrimination, community engagement, consent for tissue banking, and intellectual property issues. Points of consideration are offered to assist in the development of protocols and consent processes in light of contemporary debates on a number of these issues. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

KCNQ1 and Long QT Syndrome in 1/45 Amish: The Road From Identification to Implementation of Culturally Appropriate Precision Medicine

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

In population-based research exome sequencing, the path from variant discovery to return of results is not well established. Variants discovered by research exome sequencing have the potential to improve population health.

Ethical challenges of precision cancer medicine

Amongst common diseases, cancer is often both a leader in self-regulatory policy, or the field for contentious ethical issues such as the patenting of the BRCA1/2 genes. With the advent of genomic sequencing technologies, achieving precision cancer medicine requires prospective norms due to the large and varied sources of data involved. Here, we discuss the ethical and legal aspects of the policy debate around the relevant topics in precision cancer medicine: the return of incidental findings and sequencing raw data to patients, the communication of genetic results to patients' relatives, privacy and communication risks with concomitant oversight strategies, patient participation and consent models. We present the arguments and empirical data supporting specific policy solutions delineating still contested areas. What type of consent and oversight are required to acquire genomic data or to access it where desired, either by the participant/patient or third-party researchers? Most of the raw sequencing data is still uninterpretable and the variants revealed subject to reinterpretation over time. No doubt the ethical challenges of precision cancer medicine are a prototype of what's to come for other diseases. They are also paradigmatic for regulatory and ethical questions of the translational endeavors since the two worlds - basic science and patient care - are governed by different ethical and legal principles that need to be reconciled in precision cancer medicine.

Clinical Genetic Screening in Adult Patients with Kidney Disease

Expanded accessibility of genetic sequencing technologies, such as chromosomal microarray and massively parallel sequencing approaches, is changing the management of hereditary kidney diseases. Genetic causes account for a substantial proportion of pediatric kidney disease cases, and with increased utilization of diagnostic genetic testing in nephrology, they are now also detected at appreciable frequencies in adult populations. Establishing a molecular diagnosis can have many potential benefits for patient care, such as guiding treatment, familial testing, and providing deeper insights on the molecular pathogenesis of kidney diseases. Today, with wider clinical use of genetic testing as part of the diagnostic evaluation, nephrologists have the challenging task of selecting the most suitable genetic test for each patient, and then applying the results into the appropriate clinical contexts. This review is intended to familiarize nephrologists with the various technical, logistical, and ethical considerations accompanying the increasing utilization of genetic testing in nephrology care.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Moving Genomics to Routine Care

Background:

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) costs are falling, yet, outside oncology, this information is seldom used in adult clinics. We piloted a rapid WGS (rWGS) workflow, focusing initially on estimating power for a feasibility study of introducing genome information into acute cardiovascular care.

Methods:

A prospective implementation study was conducted to test the feasibility and clinical utility of rWGS in acute cardiovascular care. rWGS was performed on 50 adult patients with acute cardiovascular events and cardiac arrest survivors, testing for primary and secondary disease-causing variants, cardiovascular-related pharmacogenomics, and carrier status for recessive diseases. The impact of returning rWGS results on short-term clinical care of participants was investigated. The utility of polygenic risk scores to stratify coronary artery disease was also assessed.

Results:

Pathogenic variants, typically secondary findings, were identified in 20% (95% CI, 11.7–34.3). About 60% (95% CI, 46.2–72.4) of participants were carriers for one or more recessive traits, most commonly inHFEandSERPINA1genes. Although 64% (95% CI, 50.1–75.9) of participants carried at least one pharmacogenetic variant of cardiovascular relevance, these were actionable in only 14% (95% CI, 7–26.2). Coronary artery disease prevalence among participants at the 95th percentile of polygenic risk score was 88.2% (95% CI, 71.8–95.7).

Conclusions:

We demonstrated the feasibility of rWGS integration into the inpatient management of adults with acute cardiovascular events. Our pilot identified pathogenic variants in one out of 5 acute vascular patients. Integrating rWGS in clinical care will progressively increase actionability.

GENETIC DUTIES

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.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

Beyond medically actionable results: an analytical pipeline for decreasing the burden of returning all clinically significant secondary findings

Genomic sequencing advances have increased the potential to identify secondary findings (SFs). Current guidelines recommend the analysis of 59 medically actionable genes; however, patient preferences indicate interest in learning a broader group of SFs. We aimed to develop an analytical pipeline for the efficient analysis and return of all clinically significant SFs. We developed a pipeline consisting of comprehensive gene lists for five categories of SFs and filtration parameters for prioritization of variants in each category. We applied the pipeline to 42 exomes to assess feasibility and efficiency. Comprehensive lists of clinically significant SF genes were curated for each category: (1) 90 medically actionable genes and 28 pharmacogenomic variants; (2) 17 common disease risk variants; (3) 3166 Mendelian disease genes, (4) 7 early onset neurodegenerative disorder genes; (5) 688 carrier status results. Analysis of 42 exomes using our pipeline resulted in a significant decrease (> 98%) in variants compared to the raw analysis (13,036.56 ± 59.72 raw variants/exome vs 161.32 ± 7.68 filtered variants/exome), and aided in time and costs savings for the overall analysis process. Our pipeline represents a critical step in overcoming the analytic challenge associated with returning all clinically relevant SFs to allow for its routine implementation in clinical practice.

Partially automated whole-genome sequencing reanalysis of previously undiagnosed pediatric patients can efficiently yield new diagnoses

To investigate the diagnostic and clinical utility of a partially automated reanalysis pipeline, forty-eight cases of seriously ill children with suspected genetic disease who did not receive a diagnosis upon initial manual analysis of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) were reanalyzed at least 1 year later. Clinical natural language processing (CNLP) of medical records provided automated, updated patient phenotypes, and an automated analysis system delivered limited lists of possible diagnostic variants for each case. CNLP identified a median of 79 new clinical features per patient at least 1 year later. Compared to a standard manual reanalysis pipeline, the partially automated pipeline reduced the number of variants to be analyzed by 90% (range: 74%-96%). In 2 cases, diagnoses were made upon reinterpretation, representing an incremental diagnostic yield of 4.2% (2/48, 95% CI: 0.5–14.3%). Four additional cases were flagged with a possible diagnosis to be considered during subsequent reanalysis. Separately, copy number analysis led to diagnoses in two cases. Ongoing discovery of new disease genes and refined variant classification necessitate periodic reanalysis of negative WGS cases. The clinical features of patients sequenced as infants evolve rapidly with age. Partially automated reanalysis, including automated re-phenotyping through CNLP, has the potential to identify molecular diagnoses with reduced expert labor intensity.

Informed Consent in the Genomics Era

Informed consent, the process of gathering autonomous authorization for a medical intervention or medical research participation, is a fundamental component of medical practice. Medical informed consent assumes decision-making capacity, voluntariness, comprehension, and adequate information. The increasing use of genetic testing, particularly genomic sequencing, in clinical and research settings has presented many new challenges for clinicians and researchers when obtaining informed consent. Many of these challenges revolve around the need for patient comprehension of sufficient information. Genomic sequencing is complex-all of the possible results are too numerous to explain, and many of the risks and benefits remain unknown. Thus, historical standards of consent are difficult to apply. Alternative models of consent have been proposed to increase patient understanding, and several have empirically demonstrated effectiveness. However, there is still a striking lack of consensus in the genetics community about what constitutes informed consent in the context of genomic sequencing. Multiple approaches are needed to address this challenge, including consensus building around standards, targeted use of genetic counselors in nongenetics clinics in which genomic testing is ordered, and the development and testing of alternative models for obtaining informed consent.

Changes in genetic variant results over time in pediatric cardiomyopathy and electrophysiology

Genetic testing for cardiac disorders continues to change. Our objective was to assess trends in variant classification in pediatric arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy. We conducted a retrospective review of patients tested for genetic arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy disorders from 2006-2017. Variants were classified by CLIA laboratories. Trends were assessed by the Spearman correlation. There were 914 variants in 583 patients from 337 families. The total number of tests ordered increased over time, accelerating after 2012. There was a strong positive correlation between the average number of genes tested per panel and year of testing (r = .97, p < .001) and a weak correlation between the year and a decrease in the percentage of clinically actionable variants (r = -.20, p = .005). By 2011, VUS represented >50% of variants reported on panels. Over 12 years, 203 genes were interrogated; one or more variants were reported in 91 of 203 genes (45%). 32% of patients had at least one clinically actionable variant; 28% had at least one VUS. Reclassification is an important long-term issue, with 21.5% variants changing clinical interpretation. We observed an increase over time in three areas: total number of tests ordered, average number of genes/panel, and percentage of VUS. Providers may need to interpret results from 90 + genes, and ongoing education is critical. Due to their specific training in test result interpretation, we recommend the inclusion of a genetic counselor in pediatric electrophysiology and cardiomyopathy teams.

Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations

The lack of data on perspectives of racial and ethnic minority populations regarding family disclosure of individual research results (IRR) hinders the development of return of IRR policies and practices that are meaningful and culturally appropriate in diverse populations. This research aims to uncover preferences regarding family disclosure of IRR and identify factors that may shape the preferences in three minority populations. Nine focus groups with 68 adult African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were willing to share IRR with relatives who elected to know and preferred a participant-driven (vs. researcher-driven) decision-making process. Privacy of personal information was deemed important, as were anticipated familial benefits from genetic information, except when improper use of the information was suspected. Factors influencing family disclosure decisions included the family's biological and emotional closeness, and participants' perceived mental preparedness of the relative. Family disclosure of IRR among racial and ethnic minority individuals is a complex decision-making process wherein issues of individual privacy are entangled with family dynamic and familial benefit considerations. These data suggest that policies surrounding family disclosure of IRR should carefully consider participant preferences and adopt a participant-driven approach.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years.

RESULTS

Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit.

CONCLUSION

Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

Pilot Study of Return of Genetic Results to Patients in Adult Nephrology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Actionable genetic findings have implications for care of patients with kidney disease, and genetic testing is an emerging tool in nephrology practice. However, there are scarce data regarding best practices for return of results and clinical application of actionable genetic findings for kidney patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We developed a return of results workflow in collaborations with clinicians for the retrospective recontact of adult nephrology patients who had been recruited into a biobank research study for exome sequencing and were identified to have medically actionable genetic findings.

RESULTS

Using this workflow, we attempted to recontact a diverse pilot cohort of 104 nephrology research participants with actionable genetic findings, encompassing 34 different monogenic etiologies of nephropathy and five single-gene disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as medically actionable secondary findings. We successfully recontacted 64 (62%) participants and returned results to 41 (39%) individuals. In each case, the genetic diagnosis had meaningful implications for the patients' nephrology care. Through implementation efforts and qualitative interviews with providers, we identified over 20 key challenges associated with returning results to study participants, and found that physician knowledge gaps in genomics was a recurrent theme. We iteratively addressed these challenges to yield an optimized workflow, which included standardized consultation notes with tailored management recommendations, monthly educational conferences on core topics in genomics, and a curated list of expert clinicians for patients requiring extranephrologic referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing the infrastructure to support return of genetic results in nephrology was resource-intensive, but presented potential opportunities for improving patient care.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_04_16_12481019.mp3.

Reanalysis and reclassification of rare genetic variants associated with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes

BACKGROUND

Accurate interpretation of rare genetic variants is a challenge for clinical translation. Updates in recommendations for rare variant classification require the reanalysis and reclassification. We aim to perform an exhaustive re-analysis of rare variants associated with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes, which were classified ten years ago, to determine whether their classification aligns with current standards and research findings.

METHODS

In 2010, the rare variants identified through genetic analysis were classified following recommendations available at that time. Nowadays, the same variants have been reclassified following current American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommendations.

FINDINGS

Our cohort included 104 cases diagnosed with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes and 17 post-mortem cases in which inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes was cause of death. 71.87% of variants change their classification. While 65.62% of variants were classified as likely pathogenic in 2010, after reanalysis, only 17.96% remain as likely pathogenic. In 2010, 18.75% of variants were classified as uncertain role but nowadays 60.15% of variants are classified of unknown significance.

INTERPRETATION

Reclassification occurred in more than 70% of rare variants associated with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. Our results support the periodical reclassification and personalized clinical translation of rare variants to improve diagnosis and adjust treatment.

FUNDING

Obra Social "La Caixa Foundation" (ID 100010434, LCF/PR/GN16/50290001 and LCF/PR/GN19/50320002), Fondo Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS PI16/01203 and FIS, PI17/01690), Sociedad Española de Cardiología, and "Fundacio Privada Daniel Bravo Andreu".

Return of Individual Research Results: A Guide for Biomedical Researchers Utilizing Human Biospecimens

The recent movement toward returning individual research results to study subjects/participants generates ethical and legal challenges for laboratories performing research on human biospecimens. The concept of an individual's interest in knowing the results of testing on their tissue is pitted against individual and systemic risks and an established legal framework regulating the performance of laboratory testing for medical care purposes. This article discusses the rationale for returning individual research results to subjects, the potential risks associated with returning these results, and the legal framework in the United States that governs testing of identifiable human biospecimens. On the basis of these considerations, this article provides recommendations for investigators to consider when planning and executing human biospecimen research, with the objective of appropriately balancing the interests of research subjects, the need for ensuring integrity of the research process, and compliance with US laws and regulations.

The role of genetics in cardiovascular disease: arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a heritable cardiomyopathy characterized by frequent ventricular arrhythmias and progressive ventricular dysfunction. Risk of sudden cardiac death is elevated in ACM patients and can be the presenting symptom particularly in younger individuals and athletes. This review describes current understanding of the genetic architecture of ACM and molecular mechanisms of ACM pathogenesis. We consider an emerging threshold model for ACM inheritance in which multiple factors including pathogenic variants in known ACM genes, genetic modifiers, and environmental exposures, particularly exercise, are required to reach a threshold for disease expression. We also review best practices for integrating genetics—including recent discoveries—in caring for ACM families and emphasize the utility of genotype for both management of affected individuals and predictive testing in family members.

Collapse

Pioneering Informed Consent for Return of Research Results to Breast Cancer Patients Facing Barriers to Implementation of Genomic Medicine: The Kenyan BRCA1/2 Testing Experience Using Whole Exome Sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Obtaining informed consent from study participants and disseminating the findings responsibly is a key principle required for ethically conducted clinical and genetic research. Reports from African researchers providing feedback on insights gained during the return of whole exome sequencing (WES) results to breast cancer patients treated in resource-limited settings is lacking.

AIM

The empirical process used to fill this gap in relation to BRCA1/2 variant detection using WES provided unique insights incorporated into a pathology-supported genetic testing algorithm for return of research results to Kenyan breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The Informed consent form approved by the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Kenya was adopted from a translational research study conducted in South Africa. Initially, the informed consent process was piloted in 16 Kenyan female patients referred for breast surgery, following a community-based awareness campaign. A total of 95 female and two male breast cancer patients were enrolled in the study from 2013 to 2016. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) results of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status were obtained from hospital records. DNA of patients with a family history of cancer was extracted from saliva and screened for pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes as the first step using WES.

RESULTS

Ten patients approached for participation in this study declined to sign the informed consent form. Data on IHC used as a proxy for molecular subtype were available in 8 of 13 breast cancer patients (62%) with a family history of cancer. Five BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain clinical significance were detected, as well as a pathogenic BRCA2 variant (c.5159C > A; S1720∗) in a female patient eligible for return of WES results.

CONCLUSION

Experience gained during the qualitative pilot phase was essential to overcome challenges associated with the translation of sophisticated genetic terms into native African languages. Detection of a pathogenic BRCA2 variant in a patient with familial breast cancer, frequently associated with hormone receptor-positive breast carcinoma as reported in this case, led to a high level of confidence on which to base risk management in future. Implementation of new technologies alongside standard pathology provides a practical approach to the application of genomic medicine in Africa.

Genetic Counseling and Genome Sequencing in Pediatric Rare Disease

Both genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES) have proven to be revolutionary in the diagnosis of pediatric rare disease. The diagnostic potential and increasing affordability make GS and ES more accessible as a routine clinical test in some centers. Herein, I review aspects of rare disease in pediatrics associated with the use of genomic technologies with an emphasis on the benefits and limitations of both ES and GS, complexities of variant classification, and the importance of genetic counseling. Indications for testing, the role of genetic counselors in genomic test selection, and the diagnostic potential of ES and GS in various pediatric multisystem disorders are discussed. The neonatal population represents an important cohort in pediatric rare disease. Rapid ES and GS in critically ill neonates can have an immediate impact on medical management and present unique genetic counseling challenges. This work includes reviews of recommendations for genetic counseling for families considering genome-wide sequencing, and issues of access to genetic counseling that affect clinical use and will necessitate implementation of innovative methods such as online decision aids. Finally, this work will also review the challenges of having a child with a rare disease, the impact of results from ES and GS on these families, and the role of various support agencies.

Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions

The evolving evidence base for the interpretation of variants identified in genetic and genomic testing has presented the genetics community with the challenge of variant reinterpretation. In particular, it is unclear whether an ethical duty of periodic reinterpretation should exist, who should bear that duty, and what its dimensions should be. Based on an analysis of the ethical arguments for and against a duty to reinterpret, we conclude that a duty should be recognized. Most importantly, by virtue of ordering and conducting tests likely to produce data on variants that cannot be definitively interpreted today, the health-care system incurs a duty to reinterpret when more reliable data become available. We identify four elements of the proposed ethical duty: data storage, initiation of reinterpretation, conduct of reinterpretation, and patient recontact, and we identify the parties best situated to implement each component. We also consider the reasonable extent and duration of a duty, and the role of the patient's consent in the process, although we acknowledge that some details regarding procedures and funding still need to be addressed. The likelihood of substantial patient benefit from a systematic approach to reinterpretation suggests the importance for the genetics community to reach consensus on this issue.

From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care

Health care is transitioning from genetics to genomics, in which single-gene testing for diagnosis is being replaced by multi-gene panels, genome-wide sequencing, and other multi-genic tests for disease diagnosis, prediction, prognosis, and treatment. This health care transition is spurring a new set of increased or novel liability risks for health care providers and test laboratories. This article describes this transition in both medical care and liability, and addresses 11 areas of potential increased or novel liability risk, offering recommendations to both health care and legal actors to address and manage those liability risks.

Six years' experience with LipidSeq: clinical and research learnings from a hybrid, targeted sequencing panel for dyslipidemias

BACKGROUND

In 2013, our laboratory designed a targeted sequencing panel, "LipidSeq", to study the genetic determinants of dyslipidemia and metabolic disorders. Over the last 6 years, we have analyzed 3262 patient samples obtained from our own Lipid Genetics Clinic and international colleagues. Here, we highlight our findings and discuss research benefits and clinical implications of our panel.

METHODS

LipidSeq targets 69 genes and 185 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) either causally related or associated with dyslipidemia and metabolic disorders. This design allows us to simultaneously evaluate monogenic-caused by rare single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) or copy-number variants (CNVs)-and polygenic forms of dyslipidemia. Polygenic determinants were assessed using three polygenic scores, one each for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

RESULTS

Among 3262 patient samples evaluated, the majority had hypertriglyceridemia (40.1%) and familial hypercholesterolemia (28.3%). Across all samples, we identified 24,931 unique SNVs, including 2205 rare variants predicted disruptive to protein function, and 77 unique CNVs. Considering our own 1466 clinic patients, LipidSeq results have helped in diagnosis and improving treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Our LipidSeq design based on ontology of lipid disorders has enabled robust detection of variants underlying monogenic and polygenic dyslipidemias. In more than 50 publications related to LipidSeq, we have described novel variants, the polygenic nature of many dyslipidemias-some previously thought to be primarily monogenic-and have uncovered novel mechanisms of disease. We further demonstrate several tangible clinical benefits of its use.

Ethical and Legal Considerations for the Inclusion of Underserved and Underrepresented Immigrant Populations in Precision Health and Genomic Research in the United States

There has been growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority populations, including immigrants, in genomic research and precision medicine. Achieving diversity has been difficult and has led some scholars to question whether the law is a help or a threat to the inclusion of underserved and underrepresented immigrant populations. In this commentary, I provide an overview of some of the many relevant legal issues affecting the inclusion of immigrants in genomic research and precision health initiatives, such as the All of Us ^SM Research Program. Development of research recruitment, retention, and data collection plans without also considering the legal and sociopolitical context within which such efforts are to be carried out is risky. Advancing health policy with a goal of eliminating health disparities (or, at a minimum, ensuring that health disparities are not exacerbated by genomic or precision health technologies) requires us to acknowledge the negative effects that immigration policy and criminal justice policy have on the involvement of immigrants in such research and on their health directly. I conclude that it is not a question of whether the law is a help or a threat but, rather, whether we collectively will prioritize authentic diversity and inclusion policies and also insist on compliance with the laws intended to ensure the human right of every individual - regardless of immigration status or national origin - to share in the advancement of science.

Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND

Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed.

METHODS

The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented.

RESULTS

Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03597165.

Recontacting patients for multigene panel testing in hereditary cancer: Efficacy and insights

In hereditary cancer, multigene panel testing is currently replacing older single-gene approaches. Patients whose tests were previously uninformative could benefit from updated testing. Research suggests that patients desire to be recontacted about updated genetic testing, but few studies have tested the efficacy of recontact efforts. This study investigated the outcomes of a recontact effort in a hereditary cancer clinic and explored the impact of four different recontact letters, randomized in a 2X2 factorial design. Patients who had negative genetic testing for single genes or conditions were mailed letters inviting them to schedule an appointment to discuss updated testing. Patients were randomized to receive one of four letters and each letter emphasized different implications of updated multigene genetic testing: (a) personal medical management implications, (b) implications for family members, (c) both personal and family implications or (d) a control letter. The proportion of patients who arrived for appointments was assessed approximately 7 months after mailing along with associations with patient demographics and type of letter received. Letters were mailed to 586 patients who had initial testing between 2001 and 2015. Most patients were white (78%) and female (97%) with private insurance (65%). At 7 months, 25 patients (4.3%, 95% CI: 2.6% to 5.9%) had arrived for an appointment. Older age was significantly associated with response rate (p = .01), while type of recontact letter was not (p = .54). This study suggests that recontacting patients about updated genetic testing by mail does not yield a large response. It also suggests that personal and/or familial implications do not seem to be significant factors that determine response rate. Nevertheless, results provide meaningful information for cancer clinics about the outcomes of recontact efforts via informational letter.

Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel

Background

Congenital hearing loss affects approximately 1–2 infants out of every 1000, with 50% of the cases resulting from genetic factors. Targeted gene panels have been widely used for genetic diagnosis of hearing loss. This study aims to reveal new diagnoses via reanalyzing historical data of a multigene panel, and exam the reasons for new diagnoses.

Methods

A total of 210 samples were enlisted, including clinical reports and sequencing data of patients with congenital/prelingual hearing loss who were referred to clinical genetic testing from October 2014 to June 2017. All variants listed on the original clinical reports were reinterpreted according to the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP). Expanded analysis of raw data were performed in undiagnosed cases.

Results

Re-analysis resulted in nine new diagnoses, improving the overall diagnostic rate from 39 to 43%. New diagnoses were attributed to newly published clinical evidence in the literature, adoption of new interpretation guidelines and expanded analysis range.

Conclusion

This work demonstrates benefits of reanalysis of targeted gene panel data, indicating that periodical reanalysis should be performed in clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-019-0531-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.