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

The frequency of gene variant reclassification and its impact on clinical management in the inherited arrhythmia clinic

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing in the inherited arrhythmia clinic informs risk stratification, clinical management, and family screening. Periodic review of variant classification is recommended as supporting evidence accrues over time. However, there is limited reporting of real-world data on the frequency and impact of variant reclassification.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the burden of variant reclassification in our inherited arrhythmia clinic and the impact on clinical management.

METHODS

Genetic testing reports for patients referred to our clinic from 2004-2020 were reviewed. Reported variants were reinvestigated using ClinVar, VarSome, and a literature review. Classification was updated using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria and tested for association with arrhythmic events and modification of medical management.

RESULTS

We identified 517 patients (median age 37 years) who underwent gene panel testing. A variant of uncertain significance (VUS) was reported for 94 patients (18.2%) and more commonly identified when using large gene panels (P <.001). A total of 28 of 87 unique VUSs (32.2%) were reclassified to pathogenic/likely pathogenic (n = 11) or benign/likely benign (n = 17). Of 138 originally reported pathogenic variants, 7 (5.1%) lacked support using ACMG criteria. Variant reclassification was not associated with arrhythmic events; however, it did impact genotype-specific counseling and future therapeutic options.

CONCLUSION

In our large real-world patient cohort, we identify a clinically important proportion of both pathogenic variants and VUSs with evidence for reclassification. These findings highlight the need for informed pretest counseling, a regular structured review of variants reported in genetic testing, and the potential benefits to patients for supporting genotype-guided therapy.

Exploring the evolving roles of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors in the era of genomic medicine

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs (n = 80) and GCs (n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5-10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade.

Assessing management practices for variants of uncertain significance among genetic counselors in pediatrics

Increased utilization of genomic sequencing in pediatric medicine has increased the detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Periodic VUS reinterpretation can clarify clinical significance and increase diagnostic yield, highlighting the importance of systematic VUS tracking and reinterpretation. There are currently no standardized guidelines or established best practices for VUS management, and our understanding of how genetic counselors (GCs) track and manage VUS results for pediatric patients is limited. In this exploratory study, GCs in pediatric clinics in North America were surveyed about their VUS management practices. A total of 124 responses were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 115, 92.7%) of GCs reported that VUS management workflows were at the discretion of each individual provider in their workplace. Approximately half (n = 65, 52%) kept track of patient VUS results over time, and GCs with lower patient volumes were more likely to do so (p = 0.04). While 95% (n = 114) of GCs had requested VUS reinterpretation at least once, only 5% (n = 6) requested it routinely. Most (n = 80, 86%) GCs notified patients when a VUS was reclassified, although methods of recontact differed when the reclassification was an upgrade versus a downgrade. GCs who asked patients to stay in touch through periodic recontact or follow-up appointments were more likely to request VUS reinterpretation (p = 0.01). The most frequently reported barriers to requesting reinterpretation regularly were patients being lost to follow-up (n = 39, 33.1%), insufficient bandwidth (n = 27, 22.9%), and lack of standardized guidelines (n = 25, 21.2%). GCs had consistent overall practices around VUS management around investigation, disclosure, reinterpretation, and recontact, but specific methods used differed and were at the discretion of each provider. These results showcase the current landscape of VUS management workflows in pediatrics and the challenges associated with adopting more uniform practices. The study findings can help inform future strategies to develop standardized guidelines surrounding VUS management.

Breast Irradiation Is Well Tolerated in Carriers of a Pathogenic ATM Variant

PURPOSE

There are mixed and limited data regarding radiation therapy (RT) tolerance in carriers of a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) ATM variant. We investigated RT-related toxic effects in carriers of an ATM variant who received treatment for breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 71 patients treated with adjuvant RT for breast cancer who were carriers of a variant in ATM: 15 were classified as P/LP and 56 classified as variants of unknown significance (VUS). We additionally identified 205 consecutively treated patients during a similar timeframe who were either confirmed ATM wild type or had no prior genetic testing. RT plans were reviewed. Acute and chronic toxic effects were evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 criteria. Fisher's exact tests for count data were performed to compare toxic effects between the cohorts (P/LP vs VUS vs control). Wilcoxon rank-sum testing was performed to assess for differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The median toxicity follow-up was 19.4 months; median follow-up for the subcohorts was 13.3 months (P/LP), 12.6 months (VUS), and 23.3 months (control). There were no significant differences in radiation plan heterogeneity, receipt of a boost, or size of breast/chest wall planning target volume. There was greater use of hypofractionated RT in the control cohort (P = .023). After accounting for patient- and treatment-related factors that may affect toxic effects, we found no significant differences with respect to acute dermatitis, hyperpigmentation, moist desquamation, breast/chest wall pain, or breast edema. Additionally, we found no significant differences with respect to chronic breast/chest wall pain, induration, telangiectasia, or cosmetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

RT as part of the management of breast cancer was well tolerated in carriers of a P/LP ATM variant, with toxic effect profiles that were similar to those seen in patients without known ATM mutations. High rates of excellent or good cosmesis were observed in carriers of a P/LP ATM variant who underwent breast conservation.

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.

Application of next generation sequencing in cardiology: current and future precision medicine implications

Inherited cardiovascular diseases are highly heterogeneous conditions with multiple genetic loci involved. The application of advanced molecular tools, such as Next Generation Sequencing, has facilitated the genetic analysis of these disorders. Accurate analysis and variant identification are required to maximize the quality of the sequencing data. Therefore, the application of NGS for clinical purposes should be limited to laboratories with a high level of technological expertise and resources. In addition, appropriate gene selection and variant interpretation can result in the highest possible diagnostic yield. Implementation of genetics in cardiology is imperative for the accurate diagnosis, prognosis and management of several inherited disorders and could eventually lead to the realization of precision medicine in this field. However, genetic testing should also be accompanied by an appropriate genetic counseling procedure that clarifies the significance of the genetic analysis results for the proband and his family. In this regard, a multidisciplinary collaboration among physicians, geneticists, and bioinformaticians is imperative. In the present review, we address the current state of knowledge regarding genetic analysis strategies employed in the field of cardiogenetics. Variant interpretation and reporting guidelines are explored. Additionally, gene selection procedures are accessed, with a particular emphasis on information concerning gene-disease associations collected from international alliances such as the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC). In this context, a novel approach to gene categorization is proposed. Moreover, a sub-analysis is conducted on the 1,502,769 variation records with submitted interpretations in the Clinical Variation (ClinVar) database, focusing on cardiology-related genes. Finally, the most recent information on genetic analysis's clinical utility is reviewed.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants

With the growing use of genetic testing in medicine, the question of when genetic findings should be reinterpreted in light of new data has become inescapable. The generation of population and disease-specific data, development of computational tools, and new understandings of the relationship of specific genes to disorders can all trigger changes in variant classification that may have important implications for patients and the clinicians caring for them. This is a particular concern for patients from groups underrepresented in current reference datasets, since they have higher rates of uncertain findings. Here we identify the challenges to implementing a systematic approach to variant reinterpretation and propose solutions. In particular, we address (a) the infrastructure needed to support implementation of systematic variant reinterpretation, (b) the issues around obtaining consent from patients for reinterpretation, (c) the process for triggering reinterpretation, (d) pathways for the flow of reinterpreted data, (e) considerations for how to cover the costs of reinterpretation, and (f) practical issues related to implementation of processes and policies that address these issues, including the importance of a fixed duration during which there is an expectation that variants will be reinterpreted.

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

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.