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

Appropriate time interval to update ambiguous genetic diagnosis in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes

Genetic analysis identified the cause of the disease in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. A clinically actionable genetic diagnosis requires an accurate interpretation following the current guidelines. Practically half of the genetic diagnoses remain inconclusive due to the identification of variants of uncertain significance. An update can help shed light on uncertain results. No specific time frame has been set for updating an ambiguous diagnosis. We carried out an analysis of the available reclassification/reinterpretation data concerning genetic diagnosis in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. We aim to determine an appropriate interval for updating a conclusive classification. Genetic diagnoses achieved without following current guidelines should be updated immediately. An ambiguous result obtained following the current guidelines should be updated no more than 5 years after the first analysis. There are still questions to be resolved regarding the legal responsibility or who should assume the economic cost of updating a genetic diagnosis.

The expanding global genomics landscape: Converging priorities from national genomics programs

The global landscape of health genomics is expanding rapidly, with an increasing number of national and international initiatives, many of which are targeted toward accelerating the clinical implementation of genomic technologies and services in the context of local health systems. This includes a range of entities with different levels of maturity, funding sources, and strategies that focus on research and clinical priorities to varying degrees. While there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach, analysis of national genomics programs helps to identify common priority areas, barriers, and enablers. Here, we synthesize the converging priorities of several national genomics programs to highlight the importance of progressing genomics research and clinical implementation on a national scale.

Release of reclassified VUS results of now deceased patients to family members: Practices and opinions

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are commonly identified in genetic testing. The rate at which a VUS is reclassified depends on multiple factors. However, as the amount of time it might take for a VUS to be reclassified varies, some patients with a VUS genetic testing result might have passed away before the VUS is reclassified. A VUS that is reclassified after the patient's death has clinical implications for the deceased patient's family members. The disclosure of reclassified VUS results for a deceased patient has complex legal and ethical implications. There are no established guidelines on how the reclassified VUS result for a deceased patient should be disclosed to at-risk relatives. An online survey was sent to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGCs) to elicit practices and opinions regarding this issue. A total of 153 (4%) NSGC members completed the survey. Thirty-seven (24.2%) respondents reported having received a reclassified VUS for a deceased patient. Respondents were more likely to attempt disclosure if the variant was reclassified as pathogenic (93.5%) versus benign (76.5%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Respondents more often reported the impact on family members (85.5%) than the decedent's right to privacy (15.0%) as extremely important when considering disclosure to family members. A legal mechanism to allow disclosure to relatives was supported by 70.6% of respondents and 97.4% felt the issue was important enough to pursue if such a process was in place. Only 9.8% of respondents supported a legal requirement of consent before disclosing to family members when a VUS is reclassified after the patient has passed away. Our results indicate that there is no consensus for how these results should be handled and a mechanism for disclosure of reclassified results to family members is supported.

Rectifying or Reinforcing? The (In)Equity Implications of Recontacting Practices in Genomic Medicine

The practice of recontact in genomic medicine has the power to help rectify long-standing inequities in genetic testing. However, if not delivered systematically, recontacting practices also have the potential to reinforce these same inequities. Recontact, which occurs when contact between a clinician and patient is reinitiated after a relationship has ended, is often in search of or in response to updated interpretation or results. Currently, recontact is happening in a patient-driven and ad hoc manner, undermining its potential to benefit all patients. In this paper, the authors position justice as an additional argument in favor of systematic recontact and an argument against the predominantly patient-initiated model. They argue that patients from equity-deserving groups should be early beneficiaries of an emerging responsibility to recontact patients. The authors share illustrative clinical vignettes and propose role-specific and systems-level solutions to rightfully position recontact as a tool to promote a more equitable clinical genomics future.

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large.

RESULTS

Following incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.

CONCLUSION

The document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners.

Actionable Variants of Unknown Significance in Inherited Arrhythmogenic Syndromes: A Further Step Forward in Genetic Diagnosis

Background/Objectives: Inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes comprise a heterogenic group of genetic entities that lead to malignant arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Genetic testing has become crucial to understand the disease etiology and allow for the early identification of relatives at risk; however, it requires an accurate interpretation of the data to achieve a clinically actionable outcome. This is particularly challenging for the large number of rare variants obtained by current high-throughput techniques, which are mostly classified as of unknown significance. Methods: In this work, we present a new algorithm for the genetic interpretation of the remaining rare variants in order to shed light on their potential clinical implications and reduce the burden of unknown significance. Results: Our study illustrates the potential utility of our individualized comprehensive stepwise analyses focused on the rare variants associated with IAS, which are currently classified as ambiguous, to further determine their trends towards pathogenicity or benign traits. Conclusions: We advocate for personalized disease-focused population frequency data and family segregation analyses for all rare variants that remain ambiguous to further clarify their role. The current ambiguity should not influence medical decisions, but a potential deleterious role would suggest a closer clinical follow-up and frequent genetic data review for a more personalized clinical approach.

Reanalysis of genomic data in rare disease: current practice and attitudes among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services

Reanalyzing stored genomic data over time is highly effective in increasing diagnostic yield in rare disease. Automation holds the promise of delivering the benefits of reanalysis at scale. Our study aimed to understand current reanalysis practices among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services and explore attitudes towards large-scale automated re-analysis. We collected audit data regarding testing and reanalysis volumes, policies and procedures from all Australian diagnostic laboratories providing rare disease genomic testing. A genetic health professionals' survey explored current practices, barriers to reanalysis, preferences and attitudes towards automation. Between 2018 and 2021, Australian diagnostic laboratories performed over 25,000 new genomic tests and 950 reanalyses, predominantly in response to clinician requests. Laboratory and clinical genetic health professionals (N = 134) identified workforce capacity as the principal barrier to reanalysis. No specific laboratory or clinical guidelines for genomic data reanalysis or policies were identified nationally. Perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of automating reanalysis were positive, with professionals emphasizing clinical and workflow benefits. In conclusion, there is a large and rapidly growing unmet need for reanalysis of existing genomic data. Beyond developing scalable automated reanalysis pipelines, leadership and policy are needed to successfully transform service delivery models and maximize clinical benefit.

International policies guiding the selection, analysis, and clinical management of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A systematic review

Secondary findings (SFs) from genomic sequencing can have significant impacts on patient health, yet existing practices guiding their clinical investigation are inconsistent. We systematically reviewed existing SFs policies to identify variations and gaps in guidance. We cataloged and appraised international policies from academic databases (n = 5, inception-02/2022) and international human genetic societies (n = 64; inception-05/2022), across the continuum of SFs selection, analysis, and clinical management. We assessed quality using AGREE-II and interpreted results using qualitative description. Of the 63 SFs policies identified, most pertained to clinical management of SFs (98%; n = 62; primarily consent and disclosure), some guided SFs analysis (60%; n = 38), while fewer mentioned SFs selection (48%; n = 30). Overall, policies recommend (1) identifying clinically actionable, pathogenic variants with high positive predictive values for disease (selection), (2) bioinformatically filtering variants using evidence-informed gene lists (analysis), and (3) discussing with affected individuals the SFs identified, their penetrance, expressivity, medical implications, and management (clinical management). Best practices for SFs variant analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up (i.e., surveillance, treatment, etc.) were minimally described. Upon quality assessment, policies were highly rated for scope and clarity (median score, 69) but were limited by their rigor and applicability (median scores, 27 and 25). Our review represents a comprehensive international synthesis of policy guiding SFs across the continuum of selection, analysis, and clinical management. Our synthesis will help providers navigate critical decision points in SFs investigation, although significant work is needed to address gaps in SFs analysis, clinical validation, and follow-up processes and to support evidence-based practice.

Design and pilot results from the Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study

BACKGROUND

As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition.

METHODS

The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months.

RESULTS

The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122.

Research participants' perspectives about the return of uninformative genomic test results in a clinical research setting

The majority of genomic sequencing and microarray results are clinically uninformative, meaning that they do not suggest a need for any behavioral action or medical intervention. Prior studies have shown that recipients of uninformative genomic testing results ("uninformative results" hereafter) may incorrectly interpret them to imply a lowered risk of disease or false reassurance about future health risks. Few studies have examined how patients understand uninformative results when they are returned in a research setting, where there is wide variation in analytical specifications of testing, interpretation and reporting practices, and resources to support the return of results. We conducted cross-sectional interviews (N = 17) to explore how a subset of research participants in one genomics study at the National Institutes of Health reacted to and understood their uninformative test results, which were returned to them via a patient portal without genetic counseling. We found that most participants did not remember the details of the informed consent process, including the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" findings. Participants had questions about what genes were tested for and, in most cases, requested a list of the genes covered. Several participants incorrectly assumed that autosomal recessive carrier results would have been reported to them if detected. Some participants interpreted their uninformative results to mean that they could forgo prenatal testing, and participants had mixed expectations about whether their results might be reinterpreted in the future. These themes suggest that there are specific challenges to returning uninformative results in research settings. Educational supplements to uninformative test reports may be most useful if they contextualize results in relation to other types of clinical genetic or genomic testing that may be made available to research participants in their lifetimes.

Management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is an important cause of heart failure and arrhythmias, including sudden death, with a major impact on the healthcare system. Genetic causes and different phenotypes are now increasingly being identified for this condition. In addition, specific medications, such as myosin inhibitors, have been recently shown as potentially able to modify its symptoms, hemodynamic abnormalities and clinical course. Our article aims to provide a comprehensive outline of the epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the current era.

Experiences of pediatric cancer patients (age 12-18 years) with extensive germline sequencing for cancer predisposition: a qualitative study

This study explored the experiences and needs of adolescents, ranging from 12 to 18 years old, who have recently been diagnosed with cancer and participated in a nationwide germline genetic sequencing study within the context of pediatric oncology. The 21 adolescents in this qualitative interview study viewed genetic sequencing as an integral part of their cancer journey. They often characterized germline sequencing as "good-to-know" without specifying immediate utility. While the adolescents comprehended the significance of germline genetic sequencing, they were less focused on its potential long-term implications. Adolescents expressed a strong desire to be actively engaged in decisions related to genetics. They advocated for a participatory role in genetic decision-making from a young age onwards. They recommended that re-consent should be sought before re-analysis of their genetic data is performed and believe that patients should have the opportunity to provide (re-)consent once they reach adulthood. Moreover, the adolescents emphasized the importance of developing counseling materials that are not only concise but also visually attractive. In conclusion, this study underscores the positive perception that adolescents diagnosed with cancer hold regarding germline genetic sequencing. They articulate a strong interest in being actively involved in genetic decision-making. To address these articulated needs and preferences, we recommend the development of visually engaging counseling materials. These materials should effectively convey both the immediate and long-term implications of genetic sequencing, enabling adolescents with cancer to make informed decisions about genetic sequencing.

Reanalysis of genomic data, how do we do it now and what if we automate it? A qualitative study

Automating reanalysis of genomic data for undiagnosed rare disease patients presents a paradigm shift in how clinical genomics is delivered. We aimed to map the current manual and proposed automated approach to reanalysis and identify possible implementation strategies to address clinical and laboratory staff's perceived challenges to automation. Fourteen semi-structured interviews guided by a simplified process map were conducted with clinical and laboratory staff across Australia. Individual process maps were integrated into an overview of the current process, noting variation in service delivery. Participants then mapped an automated approach and were invited to discuss perceived challenges and possible supports to automation. Responses were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, linking to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework to identify theory-informed implementation strategies. Process mapping demonstrates how automation streamlines processes with eleven steps reduced to seven. Although participants welcomed automation, challenges were raised at six of the steps. Strategies to overcome challenges include embedding project champions, developing education materials, facilitating clinical innovation and quality monitoring tools, and altering reimbursement structures. Future work can build on these findings to develop context specific implementation strategies to guide translation of an automated approach to reanalysis to improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

Recontact to return new or updated PALB2 genetic results in the clinical laboratory setting

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to recontact individuals with clinically actionable test results identified through a retrospective research study and to provide a framework for laboratories to recontact patients.

METHODS

Genetic testing was conducted on 2977 individuals originally referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing that had a negative genetic test result. A gene panel was used to identify pathogenic variants in known or newly discovered genes that could explain the underlying cause of disease; however, analysis was restricted to PALB2 for the purposes of this study. A patient recontact decision tree was developed to assist in the returning of updated genetic test results to clinics and patients.

RESULTS

Novel clinically actionable pathogenic variants were identified in the PALB2 gene in 18 participants (0.6%), the majority of whom were recontacted with their new or updated genetic test results. Eight individuals were unable to be recontacted; five individuals had already learnt about their new or updated findings from genetic testing outside the context of this study; three individuals prompted cascade testing in family members; two individuals were deceased.

CONCLUSION

Novel pathogenic variants in PALB2 were identified in 18 individuals through retrospective gene panel testing. Recontacting these individuals regarding these new or updated findings had a range of outcomes. The process of conveying genomic results within this framework can be effectively accomplished while upholding patient autonomy, potentially leading to advantageous outcomes for patients and their families.

Development and utility of a clinical research informatics application for participant recruitment and workflow management for a return of results pilot trial in familial hypercholesterolemia in the Million Veteran Program

Objective

The development of clinical research informatics tools and workflow processes associated with re-engaging biobank participants has become necessary as genomic repositories increasingly consider the return of actionable research results.

Materials and Methods

Here we describe the development and utility of an informatics application for participant recruitment and enrollment management for the Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results Study, a randomized controlled pilot trial returning individual genetic results associated with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Results

The application is developed in Python-Flask and was placed into production in November 2021. The application includes modules for chart review, medication reconciliation, participant contact and biospecimen logging, survey recording, randomization, and documentation of genetic counseling and result disclosure. Three primary users, a genetic counselor and two research coordinators, and 326 Veteran participants have been integrated into the system as of February 23, 2023. The application has successfully handled 3367 task requests involving greater than 95 000 structured data points. Specifically, application users have recorded 326 chart reviews, 867 recruitment telephone calls, 158 telephone-based surveys, and 61 return of results genetic counseling sessions, among other available study tasks.

Conclusion

The development of usable, customizable, and secure informatics tools will become increasingly important as large genomic repositories begin to return research results at scale. Our work provides a proof-of-concept for developing and using such tools to aid in managing the return of results process within a national biobank.

The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research

The reanalysis of genomic sequencing results has the potential to provide results that are of considerable medical and personal importance to recipients. Employing interviews with forty-seven predominantly medically underserved families and ethnographic observations we argue that there is pressing need to standardize the approach taken to reanalysis. Our findings highlight that study participants were unclear as to the likelihood of reanalysis happening, the process of initiating reanalysis, and whether they would receive revised results. Their reflections mirror the lack a specific focus upon reanalysis within consent and results sessions as observed in clinical settings. Mechanisms need to be put into place that standardize the approach to reanalysis in research and in clinical contexts. This would enable clinicians and genetic counsellors to communicate clearly with research participants with respect to potential for reanalysis of results and the process of reanalysis. We argue that that the role of reanalysis is too important to be referred to in an ad-hoc manner. Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of the current process may increase health inequities given the likelihood that only those families who have the means to press for reanalysis are likely to receive it.

Parents' attitudes towards research involving genome sequencing of their healthy children: a qualitative study

With widespread genomic sequencing research efforts, there is increasing impetus to return results to participants. Parents of healthy children are increasingly asked to participate in genomic research, yet there are limited studies of parental expectations for the return of results amongst healthy children. We explored parental attitudes towards their healthy children's participation in genomic research and expectations for return of results. Data collection involved semi-structured telephone interviews with parents of healthy children participating in a primary care research network. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. A total of 26 parents were interviewed: 22 were female, 19 self-reported as White/European, and 20 were aged 30-39. Three themes emerged: (1) Reciprocity; Parents preferred to receive medically actionable, childhood-onset results and expected recontact overtime in exchange for their research participation. (2) Downstream impacts of testing; Parents expected future clinical benefits but were concerned about the risk of genetic discrimination. (3) Power and empowerment; Some parents felt empowered to take preventative action for their child and relatives, while others did not want to limit their child's autonomy. Considering these tensions may help to inform participant-centered approaches to optimize parental decision-making and participation, as well as maximize the utility of results.

Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Regulating scientific and technological uncertainty: The precautionary principle in the context of human genomics and AI

Considered in isolation, the ethical and societal challenges posed by genomics and artificial intelligence (AI) are profound and include issues relating to autonomy, privacy, equality, bias, discrimination, and the abuse of power, amongst others. When these two technologies are combined, the ethical, legal and societal issues increase substantially, become much more complex, and can be scaled enormously, which increases the impact. Adding to these complexities, both genomics and AI-enabled technologies are rife with scientific and technological uncertainties, which makes the regulation of these technologies not only challenging in itself, but also creates legal uncertainties. In science, the precautionary principle has been used globally to govern uncertainty, with the specific aim to prevent irreversible harm to human beings. The regulation of uncertainties in AI-enabled technologies is based on risk as set out in the AI Regulation that was recently proposed by the European Commission. However, when genomics and artificial intelligence are combined, not only do uncertainties double, but the current regulation of such uncertainties towards the safe use thereof for humans seems contradictory, considering the different approaches followed by science and technology in this regard. In this article, I explore the regulation of both scientific and technological uncertainties and argue that the application of the precautionary principle in the context of human genomics and AI seems to be the most effective way to regulate the uncertainties brought about by the combination of these two technologies.

Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan

Genetic testing advances have enabled the provision of previously unavailable information on the pathogenicity of genetic variants, frequently necessitating the recontact of former patients by clinicians. In Japan, national health insurance coverage was extended to BRCA1/2 testing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for patients who meet certain criteria in 2020, and conditions necessitating recontact were expected to increase. Studies and discussions regarding recontact have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe; however, in Japan, the national discussion around recontact remains undeveloped. We conducted a cross-sectional study by interviewing 73 facilities accredited by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer regarding the practice of recontacting patients at these facilities. Sixty-six facilities responded that they recontact patients, but only 17 facilities had a protocol for this. The most common reason for recontact was that it could benefit the patient. Facilities that did not recontact stated that they lacked the necessary personnel or services. Most facilities indicated that a recontact system should be implemented in their practice. The increased burden on too few medical personnel, unestablished systems, patient confusion, and the right not to know were cited as barriers to implementing recontact. Although developing recommendations on recontact would be useful for providing equitable healthcare in Japan, there is an urgent need to deepen the discussion on recontacting, as negative opinions about recontacting patients were observed.

Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Surrounding Biospecimen Research Conducted or Supported in the USA

Rapid and dramatic advances in molecular sequencing technology, as well as medical discoveries from genome-wide association and other precision medicine studies, have highlighted the longstanding ethical and legal challenges research biobanks consistently face. Whose authority is needed to conduct research with excised tissue, and how that authority may be exercised with respect and transparency, are central questions. This review article explores how scholars have addressed ethical and legal controversies such as the proper breadth and scope of consent for collection and future research use of biological specimens and data, the importance of disclosing individual research results and secondary findings, and collecting cadaver tissue from deceased persons. This article focuses on the legal and regulatory environment for conducting and/or supporting biospecimen research in the United States of America. It takes the position that proper biobank governance strategies, which ensure accountability and model respect toward biospecimen contributors, as well as transparency in communications between participants and researchers, reduce the likelihood of downstream legal disputes.

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

The process of interpreting genetic variants, in which experts use all available evidence to determine whether an identified variant is associated with a current or future disease, is both scientific and nevertheless subjective. In this paper, we summarize the existing evidence that any given variant could be reclassified and that such a reclassification could lead to harm. Furthermore, the racial gap in genetic databases could lead to a higher likelihood of harm for non-white patients. We also review recent legal analyses indicating it is unlikely that an individual who sues for restitution would be successful, especially in the absence of evidence of lab negligence. We then propose a compensation program for medical genetic tests to ensure that individuals who experience demonstrable harm due to a variant reclassification can be made whole financially. We conclude by discussing outstanding questions that must be answered for such a program to be feasible.

Assessment of the Needs of Nephrology Divisions to Implement Return of Clinically Significant Research Genetic Results: A Survey of Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) Investigators

Introduction

There is an increasing need to return genetic testing results to patients with kidney disease who were first genotyped on a research basis. Operationalizing this process in nephrology clinics is challenged by a limited number of genetic providers with whom to partner and a general lack of support services for all clinicians.

Methods

We administered a survey in March 2022 to assess the current ability and ongoing needs of nephrology divisions to return clinically significant research genetic results to patients and to implement clinical genetic testing. This survey was distributed to institutions within the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) as part of the planning process for return of research genetic results to participants with pathogenic variants in Mendelian nephrotic syndrome genes.

Results

Twenty-seven of 28 sites (96%) completed the survey. 59% (n = 16) of sites said they could handle return of research genetic results independently, with the rest expressing hesitation about the volume and complexity of patients and the limited resources and access to genetics services. 81% (n = 22) of these institutions did have a genetics clinic and 26% (n = 7) have a nephrology genetics clinic. However, 70% (n = 10) of these clinics have a waiting time over 1 month. 89% of divisions (n = 24) were conducting genetic testing and 96% of those (n = 23) used a kidney multi-gene panel. In 46% of divisions (n = 11), nephrologists were handling logistics of obtaining genetic testing samples themselves.

Conclusion

We identified specific areas of support needed for return of clinically significant genetic results from research studies. While the surveyed nephrologists were conducting genetic testing, there were limitations in the support services available. This survey will help guide other research studies that wish to return genetic results to participants and also highlight the need for increasing support to effectively operationalize genetic testing in nephrology clinics.

Clinical impact of rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies: a 5-year update

A proper interpretation of the pathogenicity of rare variants is crucial before clinical translation. Ongoing addition of new data may modify previous variant classifications; however, how often a reanalysis is necessary remains undefined. We aimed to extensively reanalyze rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies originally classified 5 years ago and its clinical impact. In 2016, rare variants identified through genetic analysis were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' recommendations. Five years later, we have reclassified the same variants following the same recommendations but including new available data. Potential clinical implications were discussed. Our cohort included 49 cases of inherited channelopathies diagnosed in 2016. Update show that 18.36% of the variants changed classification mainly due to improved global frequency data. Reclassifications mostly occurred in minority genes associated with channelopathies. Similar percentage of variants remain as deleterious nowadays, located in main known genes (SCN5A, KCNH2 and KCNQ1). In 2016, 69.38% of variants were classified as unknown significance, but now, 53.06% of variants are classified as such, remaining the most common group. No management was modified after translation of genetic data into clinics. After 5 years, nearly 20% of rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies were reclassified. This supports performing periodic reanalyses of no more than 5 years since last classification. Use of newly available data is necessary, especially concerning global frequencies and family segregation. Personalized clinical translation of rare variants can be crucial to management if a significant change in classification is identified.

Supporting undiagnosed participants when clinical genomics studies end

Many large research initiatives have cumulatively enrolled thousands of patients with a range of complex medical issues but no clear genetic etiology. However, it is unclear how researchers, institutions, and funders should manage the data and relationships with those participants who remain undiagnosed when these studies end. In this comment, we outline the current literature relevant to post-study obligations in clinical genomics research and discuss the application of current guidelines to research with undiagnosed participants.

Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings

The use of whole exome sequencing (WES) in medical research is increasing in South Africa (SA), raising important questions about whether and which individual genetic research results, particularly incidental findings, should be returned to patients. Whilst some commentaries and opinions related to the topic have been published in SA, there is no qualitative data on the views of professional stakeholders on this topic. Seventeen participants including clinicians, genomics researchers, and genetic counsellors (GCs) were recruited from the Western Cape in SA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed using the framework approach for data analysis. Current roadblocks for the clinical adoption of WES in SA include a lack of standardised guidelines; complexities relating to variant interpretation due to lack of functional studies and underrepresentation of people of African ancestry in the reference genome, population and variant databases; lack of resources and skilled personnel for variant confirmation and follow-up. Suggestions to overcome these barriers include obtaining funding and buy-in from the private and public sectors and medical insurance companies; the generation of a locally relevant reference genome; training of health professionals in the field of genomics and bioinformatics; and multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of upscaling the accessibility to and training of GCs, as well as upskilling of clinicians and genetic nurses for return of genetic data in collaboration with GCs and medical geneticists. Future research could focus on exploring the development of stakeholder partnerships for increased access to trained specialists as well as community engagement and education, alongside the development of guidelines for result disclosure.

Genome Alert!: A standardized procedure for genomic variant reinterpretation and automated gene-phenotype reassessment in clinical routine

PURPOSE

Retrospective interpretation of sequenced data in light of the current literature is a major concern of the field. Such reinterpretation is manual and both human resources and variable operating procedures are the main bottlenecks.

METHODS

Genome Alert! method automatically reports changes with potential clinical significance in variant classification between releases of the ClinVar database. Using ClinVar submissions across time, this method assigns validity category to gene-disease associations.

RESULTS

Between July 2017 and December 2019, the retrospective analysis of ClinVar submissions revealed a monthly median of 1247 changes in variant classification with potential clinical significance and 23 new gene-disease associations. Re-examination of 4929 targeted sequencing files highlighted 45 changes in variant classification, and of these classifications, 89% were expert validated, leading to 4 additional diagnoses. Genome Alert! gene-disease association catalog provided 75 high-confidence associations not available in the OMIM morbid list; of which, 20% became available in OMIM morbid list For more than 356 negative exome sequencing data that were reannotated for variants in these 75 genes, this elective approach led to a new diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Genome Alert! (https://genomealert.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/) enables systematic and reproducible reinterpretation of acquired sequencing data in a clinical routine with limited human resource effect.

Interpretation and actionability of genetic variants in cardiomyopathies: a position statement from the European Society of Cardiology Council on cardiovascular genomics

This document describes the contribution of clinical criteria to the interpretation of genetic variants using heritable Mendelian cardiomyopathies as an example. The aim is to assist cardiologists in defining the clinical contribution to a genetic diagnosis and the interpretation of molecular genetic reports. The identification of a genetic variant of unknown or uncertain significance is a limitation of genetic testing, but current guidelines for the interpretation of genetic variants include essential contributions from clinical family screening that can establish a de novo assignment of the variant or its segregation with the phenotype in the family. A partnership between clinicians and patients helps to solve major uncertainties and provides reliable and clinically actionable information.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Re-analysis of genomic data: An overview of the mechanisms and complexities of clinical adoption

Re-analyzing genomic information from a patient suspected of having an underlying genetic condition can improve the diagnostic yield of sequencing tests, potentially providing significant benefits to the patient and to the health care system. Although a significant number of studies have shown the clinical potential of re-analysis, less work has been performed to characterize the mechanisms responsible for driving the increases in diagnostic yield. Complexities surrounding re-analysis have also emerged. The terminology itself represents a challenge because "re-analysis" can refer to a range of different concepts. Other challenges include the increased workload that re-analysis demands of curators, adequate reimbursement pathways for clinical and diagnostic services, and the development of systems to handle large volumes of data. Re-analysis also raises ethical implications for patients and families, most notably when re-classification of a variant alters diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. This review highlights the possibilities and complexities associated with the re-analysis of existing clinical genomic data. We propose a terminology that builds on the foundation presented in a recent statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and describes each re-analysis process. We identify mechanisms for increasing diagnostic yield and provide perspectives on the range of challenges that must be addressed by health care systems and individual patients.

Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting

Germline genome sequencing (GS) holds great promise for cancer prevention by identifying cancer risk and guiding prevention strategies, however research evidence is mixed regarding patient preferences for receiving GS results. The aim of this study was to discern preferences for return of results by cancer patients who have actually undergone GS. We conducted a mixed methods study with a cohort of cancer probands (n = 335) and their genetic relatives (n = 199) undergoing GS in a research setting. Both groups completed surveys when giving consent. A subset of participants (n = 40) completed semi-structured interviews. A significantly higher percentage of probands thought people would like to be informed about genetic conditions for which there is prevention or treatment that can change cancer risk compared to conditions for which there is no prevention or treatment (93% [311] versus 65% [216]; p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for relatives (91% [180] versus 61% [121]; p < 0.001). Themes identified in the analysis of interviews were: (1) Recognised benefits of GS, (2) Balancing benefits with risks, (3) Uncertain results are perceived as unhelpful and (4) Competing obligations. While utility was an important discriminator in what was seen as valuable for this cohort, there was a variety of responses. In view of varied participant preferences regarding return of results, it is important to ensure patient understanding of test validity and identify individual choices at the time of consent to GS. The nature and value of the information, and a contextual understanding of researcher obligations should guide result return.

Reanalysis of eMERGE phase III sequence variants in 10,500 participants and infrastructure to support the automated return of knowledge updates

PURPOSE

The clinical genomics knowledgebase is dynamic with variant classifications changing as newly identified cases, additional population data, and other evidence become available. This is a challenge for the clinical laboratory because of limited resource availability for variant reassessment.

METHODS

Throughout the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics phase III program, clinical sites associated with the Mass General Brigham/Broad sequencing center received automated, real-time notifications when reported variants were reclassified. In this study, we summarized the nature of these reclassifications and described the proactive reassessment framework we used for the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics program data set to identify variants most likely to undergo reclassification.

RESULTS

Reanalysis of 1855 variants led to the reclassification of 2% (n = 45) of variants, affecting 0.6% (n = 67) of participants. Of these reclassifications, 78% (n = 35) were high-impact changes affecting reportability, with 8 variants downgraded from likely pathogenic/pathogenic to variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and 27 variants upgraded from VUS to likely pathogenic/pathogenic. Most upgraded variants (67%) were initially classified as VUS-Favor Pathogenic, highlighting the benefit of VUS subcategorization. The most common reason for reclassification was new published case data and/or functional evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the importance of periodic sequence variant reevaluation and the need for automated approaches to advance routine implementation of variant reevaluations in clinical practice.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

Return of Results Policies for Genomic Research: Current Practices & The Hearts in Rhythm Organization Approach

Research teams developing biobanks and/or genomic databases must develop policies for the disclosure and reporting of potentially actionable genomic results to research participants. Currently, a broad range of approaches to the return of results exist, with some studies opting for non-disclosure of research results while others follow clinical guidelines for the return of potentially actionable findings from sequencing. In this review, we describe current practices and highlight decisions a research team must make when designing a return of results policy, from informed consent to disclosure practices and clinical validation options. The unique challenges of returning incidental findings in cardiac genes, including reduced penetrance and the lack of clinical screening standards for phenotype-negative individuals are discussed. Lastly, the National Hearts in Rhythm Organization (HiRO) Registry approach is described to provide a rationale for the selective return of field-specific variants to those participating in disease-specific research. Our goal is to provide researchers with a resource when developing a return of results policy tailored for their research program, based on unique factors related to study design, research team composition and availability of clinical resources.

Management of amended variant classification laboratory reports by genetic counselors in the United States and Canada: An exploratory study

For the past two decades, the guidelines put forth by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) detailing providers' clinical responsibility to recontact patients have remained mostly unchanged, despite evolving variant interpretation practices which have yielded substantial rates of reclassification and amended reports. In fact, there is little information regarding genetic counselors' roles in informing patients of reclassified variants, or the process by which these amended reports are currently being handled. In this study, we developed a survey to measure current experiences with amended variant reports and preferences for ideal management, which was completed by 96 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada. All respondents indicated they were the individuals responsible for disclosing initial positive genetic testing results and any clinically actionable reclassified variant reports, and over half (56%) received at least a few amended variant reports each year. Nearly a quarter (20/87) of respondents reported having a standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing amended reports and all were very satisfied (12/20) or satisfied (8/20) with the SOP. Of those without a protocol, 76% (51/67) would prefer to have an SOP implemented. Respondents reported a preference for (1) laboratories to send amended variant reports directly to the genetic counselor or ordering physician through email or an online portal, and (2) notification to patients ideally occurring through a phone call. In the event that the original genetic counselor is inaccessible, respondents reported a preference for reports to be sent directly to another genetic counselor (36%) on the team or the clinic in general (27%). Information from this study provides insight into the current practices of genetic counselors as applied to amended reports and what improvements may increase the efficiency of the reporting process. Moreover, these results suggest a need for an updated statement addressing duty to recontact, specifically as it applies to amended variant reports.

Coexistence of Two Rare Genetic Variants in Canonical and Non-canonical Exons of SCN5A: A Potential Source of Misinterpretation

Primary cardiac channelopathies are a group of diseases wherein the role of DNA testing in aiding diagnosis and treatment-based decision-making is gaining increasing attention. However, in some cases, evaluating the pathogenicity of new variants is still challenging. We report an accurate multistage assessment of a rare genetic variant in the SCN5A gene using next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques and Sanger sequencing. Female sportsman (14 years old) underwent genetic counseling and DNA testing due to QT interval prolongation registered during ECG Holter monitoring. Genetic testing of the proband was performed in two independent laboratories. Primary DNA testing was performed by WES using the Ion Proton^TM System. Target panel sequencing of 11 genes was performed using PGM Ion Torrent. Search for variants in non-canonical and canonical exons 6 was performed by Sanger sequencing. The cascade familial screening and control re-sequencing were provided for proband with identified genetic variant p.S216L (g.38655290G>A, NM_198056.2:c.647C>T, and rs41276525) in the canonical exon 6 of the SCN5A gene after receiving data from another laboratory. Control Sanger and NGS sequencing revealed the absence p.S216L in the canonical exon 6 and confirmed the presence of p.S216L (g.38655522G>A, c.647C>T, and rs201002736) in the non-canonical exon 6 of the SCN5A gene. The identified variant was re-interpreted. The non-canonical transcripts of the exon 6 of the SCN5A gene is poorly represented in cardiac tissue (gnomAD). The detected variant was found in proband's healthy mother. The correct interpretation of genetic data requires close cooperation between clinicians and researchers. It can help to avoid financial costs and stress for proband's and families.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

DNA variant classification-reconsidering "allele rarity" and "phenotype" criteria in ACMG/AMP guidelines

Recent guidance suggested modified DNA variant pathogenicity assignments based on genome-wide allele rarity. Different a priori probabilities of pathogenicity operate where patients already have clinical diagnoses, and are found to have a very rare variant in a gene known to cause their disease, compared to predictive testing of a clinically unaffected individual. We tested new recommendations from the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group for ClinVar-listed, loss-of-function variants meeting the very strong evidence of pathogenicity criterion [PVS1] in genes for 3 specific diseases where causal gene identification can modify clinical care of an individual- Von Willebrand disease, cystic fibrosis and hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia. Across these diseases, current rules leave 20/1,278 (1.6%) of loss-of-function variants as variants of uncertain significance (VUS that may not be reported to clinicians), and 207/1,278 (17.2%) as likely pathogenic. Applying the new ClinGen rule enabling PVS1 and the allele rarity criterion PM2 to delineate likely pathogenicity still left 8/1,278 (0.9%) as VUS (reflecting non-PVS1 calls by the submitters), and the majority of null alleles meeting PVS1 as merely likely pathogenic. We favour an approach whereby, for PVS1 variants in patients who personally meet the phenotypic PP4 criterion for a disease where casual variants are commonly family-specific, that PM2 is upgraded to permit a pathogenic call. Of 1,278 ClinVar-listed frameshift, nonsense and canonical splice site variants that met PVS1 in the 3 conditions, 16.0% (204/1,278) would be newly designated as pathogenic, avoiding misinterpretation outside of clinical genetics communities. We suggest further discussion around variant assessment across different clinical applications, potentially guided by PP4 alerts to distinguish personal versus family phenotypic history.

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants

INTRODUCTION

Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants' (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP.

METHODS

A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants.

RESULTS

Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance.

CONCLUSION

Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

Clinical and laboratory reporting impact of ACMG-AMP and modified ClinGen variant classification frameworks in MYH7-related cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE

ClinGen provides gene-specific guidance for interpretation of sequence variants in MYH7. We assessed laboratory and clinical impact of reclassification by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) and ClinGen recommendations in 43 MYH7 variants reported by a diagnostic laboratory between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

Fifty-two proband reports containing MYH7 variants were reinterpreted by original ACMG-AMP and ClinGen guidelines. Evidence items were compared across schemes and reasons for classification differences recorded. Laboratory impact was assessed by number of recommended report reissues, and reclassifications coded as clinically "actionable" or "equivalent." Available pedigrees were reviewed to describe projected cascade impact.

RESULTS

ClinGen produced a higher proportion of diagnostic classifications (65% of variants) compared with ACMG-AMP (54%) and fewer variants of uncertain significance (30% versus 42%). ClinGen classification resulted in actionable changes in 18% of variants with equal upgrades and downgrades from original report. ClinGen's revisions to PM1 and PS4 contributed to classification differences in 21% and 19% of variants respectively. Each classification change per proband report impacted, on average, 3.1 cascade reports with a further 6.3 first- and second-degree relatives potentially available for genotyping per family.

CONCLUSION

ClinGen's gene-specific criteria provide expert-informed guidance for interpretation of MYH7 sequence variants. Periodic re-evaluation improves diagnostic confidence and should be considered by clinical and laboratory teams.

Integrating Somatic and Germline Next-Generation Sequencing Into Routine Clinical Oncology Practice

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is rapidly expanding into routine oncology practice. Genetic variations in both the cancer and inherited genomes are informative for hereditary cancer risk, prognosis, and treatment strategies. Herein, we focus on the clinical perspective of integrating NGS results into patient care to assist with therapeutic decision making. Five key considerations are addressed for operationalization of NGS testing and application of results to patient care as follows: (1) NGS test ordering and workflow design; (2) result reporting, curation, and storage; (3) clinical consultation services that provide test interpretations and identify opportunities for molecularly guided therapy; (4) presentation of genetic information within the electronic health record; and (5) education of providers and patients. Several of these key considerations center on informatics tools that support NGS test ordering and referencing back to the results for therapeutic purposes. Clinical decision support tools embedded within the electronic health record can assist with NGS test utilization and identifying opportunities for targeted therapy including clinical trial eligibility. Challenges for project and change management in operationalizing NGS-supported, evidence-based patient care in the context of current information technology systems with appropriate clinical data standards are discussed, and solutions for overcoming barriers are provided.

Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry

PURPOSE

Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process.

METHODS

GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them.

RESULTS

Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories.

CONCLUSION

Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.

How do non-geneticist physicians deal with genetic tests? A qualitative analysis

Genetic testing is accepted to be a common practice in many medical specialties. These genetic tests raise issues such as respect for basic rights, how to handle results and uncertainty and how to balance concerns for medical confidentiality with the rights of third parties. Physicians need help to deal with the rapid development of genomic medicine as most of them have received no specific training on the medical, ethical, and social issues involved. Analyzing how these professionals integrate genetic testing into the patient-provider relationship is essential to paving the way for a better use of genomics by all. We conducted a qualitative study comprising a series of focus groups with 21 neurologists and endocrinologists about their genetic testing practices in the western part of France. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed for major themes. We identified an automated care management procedure of genetic testing that affects patient autonomy. The simple fact of having a written consent cannot justify a genetic test given the stakes associated with the results. We also suggest orienting practices toward a systemic approach using a multidisciplinary team or network to provide resources for dealing with uncertainties in interpreting results or situations that require additional technical or clinical skills and, if necessary, to allow for joint consultations with both a geneticist and a non-geneticist medical specialist.

Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine

As genomic medicine expands, interest in how medical malpractice law will apply to such questions as whether and when to return new or updated genomic results has grown. Given that access to some genomic results (such as those pertaining to minors or those for which scientific interpretations are unsettled) is delayed for years, the “loss of chance” (LOC) doctrine is of particular potential relevance. Yet it has received relatively little attention among scholars of law and genomics. We performed legal research to determine the status of this malpractice doctrine across the United States and consider its potential applicability to genomic medicine. We further examined known genomic medicine malpractices to assess whether this doctrine had yet been invoked in that context. We identified a trend toward adoption of the LOC doctrine, finding 29 states (58%) have adopted, 15 states (30%) have rejected, and six states (12%) have deferred or not yet addressed the doctrine. Attempts to invoke or apply the doctrine in the known genomic medical malpractice cases were also found. While our findings do not provide cause for substantial concern, the availability of the LOC medical malpractice doctrine is a potentially important factor to consider when making programmatic decisions for genomic medicine. Future research examining whether liability risks posed by this doctrine prompt defensive medicine practices would be useful.

iVar, an Interpretation-Oriented Tool to Manage the Update and Revision of Variant Annotation and Classification

The rapid evolution of Next Generation Sequencing in clinical settings, and the resulting challenge of variant reinterpretation given the constantly updated information, require robust data management systems and organized approaches. In this paper, we present iVar: a freely available and highly customizable tool with a user-friendly web interface. It represents a platform for the unified management of variants identified by different sequencing technologies. iVar accepts variant call format (VCF) files and text annotation files and elaborates them, optimizing data organization and avoiding redundancies. Updated annotations can be periodically re-uploaded and associated with variants as historically tracked attributes, i.e., modifications can be recorded whenever an updated value is imported, thus keeping track of all changes. Data can be visualized through variant-centered and sample-centered interfaces. A customizable search function can be exploited to periodically check if pathogenicity-related data of a variant has changed over time. Patient recontacting ensuing from variant reinterpretation is made easier by iVar through the effective identification of all patients present in the database carrying a specific variant. We tested iVar by uploading 4171 VCF files and 1463 annotation files, obtaining a database of 4166 samples and 22,569 unique variants. iVar has proven to be a useful tool with good performance in terms of collecting and managing data from a medium-throughput laboratory.

Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.

METHODS

We exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.

RESULTS

Excluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.