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

Attitudes toward uncertain results from prenatal exome sequencing: a national survey among healthcare professionals working in the prenatal setting

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the attitudes of healthcare professionals (HPs) working in the prenatal setting toward uncertain results (UR) from prenatal exome sequencing (pES) in China.

Methods

We conducted a national survey among HPs working in the prenatal setting. UR in our study include variants of uncertain significance (VUS), variants with variable penetrance/expressivity (VVPE), and secondary findings unrelated to the indication for testing (SFs). A total of 285 questionnaires that met the inclusion criteria were collected. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.

Results

When performing the pre-test counseling, only 7.4% of HPs mentioned the possibility of VUS, 6.3% discussed the possibility of VVPE, and 7.4% introduced the SFs with parents with the option to not report these variants. In post-test counseling, 73.0-82.8% HPs discussed with the parents but did not make any recommendations for managing the pregnancy after reporting UR (73.0% for VUS, 82.8% for VVPE, 74.7% for SFs, respectively).

Conclusion

Most parents did not have the option of opting out of reporting UR from pES in pre-test counseling. UR did not influence the pregnancy recommendation made by most HPs. Establishing national guidelines for reporting UR from pES and developing strategies to improve counseling skills may help HPs manage UR.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.

Reclassification of Genetic Testing Results: A Case Report Demonstrating the Need for Structured Re-Evaluation of Genetic Findings

Rationale

Alport Syndrome (AS) is a progressive genetic condition characterized by chronic kidney disease (CKD), hearing loss, and eye abnormalities. It is caused by mutations in the genes COL4A3, COL4A4, and COL4A5. Heterozygous mutations in COL4A4 and COL4A3 cause autosomal dominant Alport Syndrome (ADAS), and a spectrum of phenotypes ranging from asymptomatic hematuria to CKD, with variable extra-renal features. In the past, heterozygous mutations in these genes were thought to be benign, however recent studies show that about 30% of patients can progress to CKD, and 15% can progress to end stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Presenting Concerns

We present a case of a woman who was noted to have microscopic hematuria pre-living kidney donation. Genetic testing revealed a heterozygous variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the COL4A4 gene. VUSs are medically nonactionable findings and data show that VUSs can be detected in 41% of all patients who undergo clinical genetic testing. VUSs frustrate clinicians and patients alike. Although they cannot be used in medical decision-making, data suggest that reanalysis can result in the reclassification of a VUS over time.

Diagnosis

Post-donation, the index patient had a higher than anticipated rise in serum creatinine, raising a concern for possible intrinsic kidney disease. Kidney biopsy was deemed high risk in the setting of a unilateral kidney thereby limiting possible diagnostic intervention to determine the cause of disease.

Intervention

Re-evaluation of prior genetic testing results and reassessment of the previously identified VUS in COL4A4 was performed 5-years post-donation. These analyses, along with the addition of new phenotypic data and extended pedigree data, resulted in the reclassification of the previously identified VUS to a likely pathogenic variant.

Outcomes

This case demonstrates the importance of structured, periodic re-evaluation of genetic testing results. With the ever-changing landscape of genetics in medicine, the interpretation of a VUS can be dynamic and therefore warrant caution in living kidney donor evaluations. Studies have shown that about 10% of VUSs can be upgraded to a pathogenic classification after an 18- to 36-month interval. Structured re-evaluation of genomic testing results has not yet been integrated into clinical practice and poses a unique challenge in living kidney donation.

Novel findings

This case report highlights the variability of the ADAS phenotype caused by pathogenic heterozygous variants in the type 4 collagen genes. It supports the nomenclature change from a benign hematuria phenotype to ADAS, particularly when additional risk factors such as proteinuria, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or glomerular basement membrane changes on kidney biopsy are present, or as in this case, evidence of disease in other family members.

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Comparing the frequency of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between ancestry groups in a paediatric epilepsy cohort

BACKGROUND

Studies indicate that variants of uncertain significance are more common in non-European populations due to lack of a diversity in population databases. This difference has not been explored in epilepsy, which is increasingly found to be genetic in paediatric populations, and has precision medicine applications. This study examines the differences in the frequency of uncertain next-generation sequencing (NGS) results among a paediatric epilepsy cohort between ancestral groups historically under-represented in biomedical research (UBR) and represented in biomedical research (RBR).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients with epilepsy seen at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC). One hundred seventy-eight cases met the following criteria: (1) visited any provider within the Pediatric Neurology Clinic at CUIMC, (2) had an ICD code indicating a diagnosis of epilepsy, (3) underwent NGS testing after March 2015 and (4) had self-reported ancestry that fit into a single dichotomous category of either historically represented or under-represented in biomedical research.

RESULTS

UBR cases had significantly higher rates of uncertain results when compared with RBR cases (79.2% UBR, 20.8% RBR; p value=0.002). This finding remained true after controlling for potential confounding factors, including sex, intellectual disability or developmental delay, epilepsy type, age of onset, number of genes tested and year of testing.

CONCLUSION

Our results add to the literature that individuals who are of ancestries historically under-represented in genetics research are more likely to receive uncertain genetic results than those of represented majority ancestral groups and establishes this finding in an epilepsy cohort.

Is there a duty to routinely reinterpret genomic variant classifications?

Multiple studies show that periodic reanalysis of genomic test results held by clinical laboratories delivers significant increases in overall diagnostic yield. However, while there is a widespread consensus that implementing routine reanalysis procedures is highly desirable, there is an equally widespread understanding that routine reanalysis of individual patient results is not presently feasible to perform for all patients. Instead, researchers, geneticists and ethicists are beginning to turn their attention to one part of reanalysis-reinterpretation of previously classified variants-as a means of achieving similar ends to large-scale individual reanalysis but in a more sustainable manner. This has led some to ask whether the responsible implementation of genomics in healthcare requires that diagnostic laboratories routinely reinterpret their genomic variant classifications and reissue patient reports in the case of materially relevant changes. In this paper, we set out the nature and scope of any such obligation, and analyse some of the main ethical considerations pertaining to a putative duty to reinterpret. We discern and assess three potential outcomes of reinterpretation-upgrades, downgrades and regrades-in light of ongoing duties of care, systemic error risks and diagnostic equity. We argue against the existence of any general duty to reinterpret genomic variant classifications, yet we contend that a suitably restricted duty to reinterpret ought to be recognised, and that the responsible implementation of genomics into healthcare must take this into account.

Rates and Classification of Variants of Uncertain Significance in Hereditary Disease Genetic Testing

Importance

Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are rampant in clinical genetic testing, frustrating clinicians, patients, and laboratories because the uncertainty hinders diagnoses and clinical management. A comprehensive assessment of VUSs across many disease genes is needed to guide efforts to reduce uncertainty.

Objective

To describe the sources, gene distribution, and population-level attributes of VUSs and to evaluate the impact of the different types of evidence used to reclassify them.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used germline DNA variant data from individuals referred by clinicians for diagnostic genetic testing for hereditary disorders. Participants included individuals for whom gene panel testing was conducted between September 9, 2014, and September 7, 2022. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes of interest were VUS rates (stratified by age; clinician-reported race, ethnicity, and ancestry groups; types of gene panels; and variant attributes), percentage of VUSs reclassified as benign or likely benign vs pathogenic or likely pathogenic, and enrichment of evidence types used for reclassifying VUSs.

Results

The study cohort included 1 689 845 individuals ranging in age from 0 to 89 years at time of testing (median age, 50 years), with 1 203 210 (71.2%) female individuals. There were 39 150 Ashkenazi Jewish individuals (2.3%), 64 730 Asian individuals (3.8%), 126 739 Black individuals (7.5%), 5539 French Canadian individuals (0.3%), 169 714 Hispanic individuals (10.0%), 5058 Native American individuals (0.3%), 2696 Pacific Islander individuals (0.2%), 4842 Sephardic Jewish individuals (0.3%), and 974 383 White individuals (57.7%). Among all individuals tested, 692 227 (41.0%) had at least 1 VUS and 535 385 (31.7%) had only VUS results. The number of VUSs per individual increased as more genes were tested, and most VUSs were missense changes (86.6%). More VUSs were observed per sequenced gene in individuals who were not from a European White population, in middle-aged and older adults, and in individuals who underwent testing for disorders with incomplete penetrance. Of 37 699 unique VUSs that were reclassified, 30 239 (80.2%) were ultimately categorized as benign or likely benign. A mean (SD) of 30.7 (20.0) months elapsed for VUSs to be reclassified to benign or likely benign, and a mean (SD) of 22.4 (18.9) months elapsed for VUSs to be reclassified to pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Clinical evidence contributed most to reclassification.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of approximately 1.6 million individuals highlighted the need for better methods for interpreting missense variants, increased availability of clinical and experimental evidence for variant classification, and more diverse representation of race, ethnicity, and ancestry groups in genomic databases. Data from this study could provide a sound basis for understanding the sources and resolution of VUSs and navigating appropriate next steps in patient care.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited.

METHODS

An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed.

RESULTS

Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time.

CONCLUSION

Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

The fertility of moral ambiguity in precision medicine

Although precision medicine cuts across a large spectrum of professions, interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial moral deliberation has yet to be widely enacted, let alone formalized in this field. In a recent research project on precision medicine, we designed a dialogical forum (i.e. 'the Ethics Laboratory') giving interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial stakeholders an opportunity to discuss their moral conundrums in concert. We organized and carried out four Ethics Laboratories. In this article, we use Simone de Beauvoir's concept of moral ambiguity as a lens to frame the participants' experience with fluid moral boundaries. By framing our approach through this concept we are able to elucidate irremediable moral issues that are collectively underexplored in the practice of precision medicine. Moral ambiguity accentuates an open and free space where different types of perspectives converge and can inform each other. Based on our study, we identified two dilemmas, or thematic interfaces, in the interdisciplinary moral deliberations which unfolded in the Ethics Laboratories: (1) the dilemma between the individual and the collective good; and (2) the dilemma between care and choice. Through our investigation of these dilemmas, we show how Beauvoir's concept of moral ambiquity not only serves as a fertile catalyst for greater moral awareness but, furthermore, how the concept can become an indispensable part of the practices of and the discourse about precision medicine.

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.

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.

Are We Ready for Whole Population Genomic Sequencing of Asymptomatic Newborns?

The introduction of genomic sequencing technologies into routine newborn screening programs in some form is not only inevitable but also already occurring in some settings. The question is therefore not "if" but "when and how" genomic newborn screening (GNBS) should be implemented. In April 2022, the Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics held a one-day symposium exploring ethical issues relating to the use of genomic sequencing in a range of clinical settings. This review article synthesises the panel discussion and presents both the potential benefits of wide-scale implementation of genomic newborn screening, as well as its practical and ethical issues, including obtaining appropriate consent, and health system implications. A more in-depth understanding of the barriers associated with implementing genomic newborn screening is critical to the success of GNBS programs, both from a practical perspective and also in order to maintain public trust in an important public health initiative.

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.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND

Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019.

RESULTS

In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

Negative Molecular Diagnostics in Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss: What Next?

Congenital hearing loss has an impact on almost every facet of life. In more than 50% of cases, a genetic cause can be identified. Currently, extensive genetic testing is available, although the etiology of some patients with obvious familial hearing loss remains unknown. We selected a cohort of mutation-negative patients to optimize the diagnostic yield for genetic hearing impairment. In this retrospective study, 21 patients (17 families) with negative molecular diagnostics for non-syndromic hearing loss (gene panel analysis) were included based on a positive family history with a similar type of hearing loss. Additional genetic testing was performed using a whole exome sequencing panel (WESHL panel v2.0) in four families with the strongest likelihood of genetic hearing impairment. In this cohort (n = 21), the severity of hearing loss was most commonly moderate (52%). Additional genetic testing revealed pathogenic copy number variants in the STRC gene in two families. In summary, regular re-evaluation of hearing loss patients with presumably genetic etiology after negative molecular diagnostics is recommended, as we might miss newly discovered deafness genes. The switch from gene panel analysis to whole exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing for the testing of congenital hearing loss seems promising.

VariantAlert: A web-based tool to notify updates in genetic variant annotations

The reinterpretation of variants based on updated annotations is part of the routine work of research laboratories: the more data is collected about a specific variant, the higher the probability to reinterpret its classification. To support this task, we developed VariantAlert, a web-based tool to help researchers and clinicians to be constantly informed about changes in variant annotations extracted from multiple sources. VariantAlert provides daily re-annotation of variants using external resources accessed through application programming interface, such as MyVariant.info providing in turn links to gnomAD, catalogue of somatic mutations In cancer (COSMIC), ClinVar, CIViC, and many others. Researchers and clinicians can submit one or more lists of variants. If a change is detected for the annotation of a variant due to the upgrade of the underlying resource (e.g., change in gnomAD allele frequency, presence in COSMIC database, change in ClinVar classification) the user is notified by email and updated annotations are stored on the web-site. VariantAlert is freely available at https://github.com/next-crs4/VariantAlert. Installation and deployment are easy thanks to the use of the Docker platform. A Makefile allows you to easily bootstrap VariantAlert. VariantAlert is also available as a web service at https://variant-alert.crs4.it/.

The social value of genomic sequencing for disadvantaged families facing rare disease

This study explores parental expectations and value-making processes in respect to pediatric clinical genomic sequencing for socially disadvantaged families. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic observations with parents of children with undiagnosed physical and/or intellectual differences seeking to find whether these differences have a genetic etiology, we explore expectations and parental assessments of the value of genomic sequencing within the context of an ongoing research study. We demonstrate how the value of sequencing to parents goes well beyond finding diagnostic results or receiving prescriptive guidance as to the best care and treatment of their child; instead, value is co-created by parents, clinicians, and genetic counsellors throughout the enrollment and return of results process. Parents in our study found that clinicians and genetic counsellors repeatedly reenforce that parents need to lower their expectations and be prepared to wait for genetic science to provide more definitive answers. At the same time, parents experience that clinical teams validate parents for having made a good choice in their undertaking of genomic sequencing and, no matter the result, that they are not to blame for their child's symptoms. The experience of many parents (although not all) is that genomic science reduces or removes their sense of guilt for their child's condition, providing a platform that affirms them as "good parents." Moreover, rather than being voiceless and isolated, socially disadvantaged parents who enter into diagnostic sequencing find themselves in a familial-biosocial framework wherein they are co-partners in a socially and biologically authoritative vision of the future.

Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum

While whole-genome and exome sequencing have transformed our collective understanding of genetics' role in disease pathogenesis, there are certain conditions and populations for whom DNA-level data fails to identify the underlying genetic etiology. Specifically, patients of non-White race and non-European ancestry are disproportionately affected by "variants of unknown/uncertain significance" (VUS), limiting the scope of precision medicine for minority patients and perpetuating health disparities. VUS often include deep intronic and splicing variants which are difficult to interpret from DNA data alone. RNA analysis can illuminate the consequences of VUS, thereby allowing for their reclassification as pathogenic versus benign. Here we review the critical role transcriptome analysis plays in clarifying VUS in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases.

Approach to the patient with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing

Establishing a genetic diagnosis may lead to major health benefits for the patient and their wider family, but is dependent on the accurate interpretation of test results. The processes of variant interpretation are by their nature imprecise such that the potential for uncertain test results (i.e., variant(s) of uncertain significance [VUS]) are an inevitable consequence of genomic testing. With an increased responsibility for diagnostic testing in the hands of the specialty physician (e.g., endocrinologist) rather than clinical geneticist, it is essential that they are familiar with the possible outcomes of testing including an understanding of the VUS category. While uncertainty is endemic to many aspects of clinical medicine, receiving a VUS result may pose a considerable challenge to both the clinician and the patient. In this article, a framework to support decision-making when confronted with a VUS variant is provided, focusing on the key components of the genetic testing pathway. This highlights the importance of assessing the VUS result in the context of the clinical presentation and genetic testing strategy, the value of multidisciplinary team working and ensuring good communication with the patient.

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

PURPOSE

The knowledge used to classify genetic variants is continually evolving, and the classification can change on the basis of newly available data. Although up-to-date variant classification is essential for clinical management, reproductive planning, and identifying at-risk family members, there is no consistent practice across laboratories or clinicians on how or under what circumstances to perform variant reinterpretation.

METHODS

We conducted exploratory focus groups (N = 142) and surveys (N = 1753) with stakeholders involved in the process of variant reinterpretation (laboratory directors, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, nongenetic providers, and patients/parents) to assess opinions on key issues, including initiation of reinterpretation, variants to report, termination of the responsibility to reinterpret, and concerns about consent, cost, and liability.

RESULTS

Stakeholders widely agreed that there should be no fixed termination point to the responsibility to reinterpret a previously reported genetic variant. There were significant concerns about liability and lack of agreement about many logistical aspects of variant reinterpretation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a need to (1) develop consensus and (2) create transparency and awareness about the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in variant reinterpretation. These data provide a foundation for developing guidelines on variant reinterpretation that can aid in the development of a low-cost, scalable, and accessible approach.

Reclassification of clinically-detected sequence variants: Framework for genetic clinicians and clinical scientists by CanVIG-UK (Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK)

PURPOSE

Variant classifications may change over time, driven by emergence of fresh or contradictory evidence or evolution in weighing or combination of evidence items. For variant classifications above the actionability threshold, which is classification of likely pathogenic or pathogenic, clinical actions may be irreversible, such as risk-reducing surgery or prenatal interventions. Variant reclassification up or down across the actionability threshold can therefore have significant clinical consequences. Laboratory approaches to variant reinterpretation and reclassification vary widely.

METHODS

Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK is a multidisciplinary network of clinical scientists and genetic clinicians from across the 24 Molecular Diagnostic Laboratories and Clinical Genetics Services of the United Kingdom (NHS) and Republic of Ireland. We undertook surveys, polls, and national meetings of Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK to evaluate opinions about clinical and laboratory management regarding variant reclassification.

RESULTS

We generated a consensus framework on variant reclassification applicable to cancer susceptibility genes and other clinical areas, which provides explicit recommendations for clinical and laboratory management of variant reclassification scenarios on the basis of the nature of the new evidence, the magnitude of evidence shift, and the final classification score.

CONCLUSION

In this framework, clinical and laboratory resources are targeted for maximal clinical effect and minimal patient harm, as appropriate to all resource-constrained health care settings.

Exome/Genome-Wide Testing in Newborn Screening: A Proportionate Path Forward

Population-based newborn screening (NBS) is among the most effective public health programs ever launched, improving health outcomes for newborns who screen positive worldwide through early detection and clinical intervention for genetic disorders discovered in the earliest hours of life. Key to the success of newborn screening programs has been near universal accessibility and participation. Interest has been building to expand newborn screening programs to also include many rare genetic diseases that can now be identified by exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS). Significant declines in sequencing costs as well as improvements to sequencing technologies have enabled researchers to elucidate novel gene-disease associations that motivate possible expansion of newborn screening programs. In this paper we consider recommendations from professional genetic societies in Europe and North America in light of scientific advances in ES/GS and our current understanding of the limitations of ES/GS approaches in the NBS context. We invoke the principle of proportionality—that benefits clearly outweigh associated risks—and the human right to benefit from science to argue that rigorous evidence is still needed for ES/GS that demonstrates clinical utility, accurate genomic variant interpretation, cost effectiveness and universal accessibility of testing and necessary follow-up care and treatment. Confirmatory or second-tier testing using ES/GS may be appropriate as an adjunct to conventional newborn screening in some circumstances. Such cases could serve as important testbeds from which to gather data on relevant programmatic barriers and facilitators to wider ES/GS implementation.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

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.

Artificial intelligence-assisted serial analysis of clinical cancer genomics data identifies changing treatment recommendations and therapeutic targets

PURPOSE

Given the pace of predictive biomarker and targeted therapy development, it is unknown if repeat annotation of the same next-generation sequencing data can identify additional clinically actionable targets that could be therapeutically leveraged. In this study, we sought to determine the predictive yield of serial re-analysis of clinical tumor sequencing data.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Using artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted variant annotation, we retrospectively re-analyzed sequencing data from 2,219 cancer patients from a single academic medical center at 3-month intervals totaling 9 months in 2020. The yield of serial re-analysis was assessed by the proportion of patients with improved strength of therapeutic recommendations.

RESULTS

1,775 patients (80%) had {greater than or equal to}1 potentially clinically actionable mutation at baseline, including 243 (11%) patients who had an alteration targeted by an FDA-approved drug for their cancer type. By month nine, the latter increased to 458 (21%) patients mainly due to a single pan-cancer agent directed against tumors with high tumor mutation burden. Within this timeframe, 67 new therapies became available and 45 were no longer available. Variant pathogenicity classifications also changed leading to changes in treatment recommendations for 124 patients (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial re-annotation of tumor sequencing data improved the strength of treatment recommendations (based on level of evidence) in a mixed cancer cohort and showed substantial changes in available therapies and variant classifications. These results suggest a role for repeat analysis of tumor sequencing data in clinical practice, which can be streamlined with AI support.

A Framework of Critical Considerations in Clinical Exome Reanalyses by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

Exome reanalysis is useful for providing molecular diagnoses for previously uninformative samples. However, challenges exist in implementing a practical solution for clinicians and laboratories. This study complements the current literature by providing practical considerations for patient-level and cohort-level reanalyses. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute assembled the Document Development Committee and an interpretation working group that developed the framework for reevaluation of exome-based data. We describe two distinct but complementary approaches toward exome reanalyses: clinician-initiated patient-level reanalysis, and laboratory-initiated cohort-level reanalysis. We highlight the advantages and constraints for both approaches, and provide a high-level conceptual guide for ordering clinicians and laboratories through the critical decision pathways. Because clinical exome sequencing continues to be the standard of care in genetics, exome reanalysis would be critical in increasing the overall diagnostic yield. A systematic guide will facilitate the efficient adoption of reevaluation of exome data for laboratories, health care professionals, genetic counselors, and clinicians.

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.

Fragmented responsibility: views of Israeli HCPs regarding patient recontact following variant reclassification

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever-increasing diagnostic yield, recontacting patients after reclassification of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. Although periodical reinterpretation of VUSs is highly desired, recontacting former patients with new classifications is commonly not fulfilled in practice. We draw on semi-structured interviews with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome-wide sequencing to patients. Findings show agreement that an individual health care professional cannot address the task of recontacting patients after re-classification, and that responsibility should be shared among the medical specialties, laboratory scientists, as well as patients. In the absence of established guidelines, many respondents suggested that the patient should be informed about reclassification during a follow-up contact but they disagreed who should be responsible for informing the patient. HCPs agreed that the solution to this challenge involves a centralized automated database that is accessible, continuously updated, and facilitates retrospective as well as prospective flagging of reclassification for patients who can benefit from this information. National and international policies providing concrete guidelines on the optimal way to recontact patients with new valuable genomic information are needed.

Solving patients with rare diseases through programmatic reanalysis of genome-phenome data

Reanalysis of inconclusive exome/genome sequencing data increases the diagnosis yield of patients with rare diseases. However, the cost and efforts required for reanalysis prevent its routine implementation in research and clinical environments. The Solve-RD project aims to reveal the molecular causes underlying undiagnosed rare diseases. One of the goals is to implement innovative approaches to reanalyse the exomes and genomes from thousands of well-studied undiagnosed cases. The raw genomic data is submitted to Solve-RD through the RD-Connect Genome-Phenome Analysis Platform (GPAP) together with standardised phenotypic and pedigree data. We have developed a programmatic workflow to reanalyse genome-phenome data. It uses the RD-Connect GPAP's Application Programming Interface (API) and relies on the big-data technologies upon which the system is built. We have applied the workflow to prioritise rare known pathogenic variants from 4411 undiagnosed cases. The queries returned an average of 1.45 variants per case, which first were evaluated in bulk by a panel of disease experts and afterwards specifically by the submitter of each case. A total of 120 index cases (21.2% of prioritised cases, 2.7% of all exome/genome-negative samples) have already been solved, with others being under investigation. The implementation of solutions as the one described here provide the technical framework to enable periodic case-level data re-evaluation in clinical settings, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics.

Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base

The practice of recontacting patients has a long history in medicine but emerged as an issue in genetics as the rapid expansion of knowledge and of testing capacity raised questions about whether, when and how to recontact patients. Until recently, the debate on recontacting has focussed on theoretical concerns of experts. The publication of empirical research into the views of patients, clinicians, laboratories and services in a number of countries has changed this. These studies have filled out, and altered our view of, this issue. Whereas debates on the duty to recontact have explored all aspects of recontact practice, recent contributions have been developing a more nuanced view of recontacting. The result is a narrowing of the scope of the duty, so that a norm on recontacting focuses on the practice of reaching out to discharged patients. This brings into focus the importance of the consent conversation, the resource implications of this duty, and the role of the patient in recontacting.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings.

METHODS

Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction.

RESULTS

Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

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.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

Genetic testing for unexplained perinatal disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perinatal disorders include stillbirth, congenital structural anomalies, and critical illnesses in neonates. The cause of these is often unknown despite a thorough clinical workup. Genetic diseases cause a significant portion of perinatal disorders. The purpose of this review is to describe recent advances in genetic testing of perinatal disorders of unknown cause and to provide a potential diagnostic strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Exome and genome sequencing (ES and GS) have demonstrated that significant portions of perinatal disorders are caused by genetic disease. However, estimates of the exact proportion have varied widely across fetal and neonatal cohorts and most of the genetic diagnoses found in recent studies have been unique to individual cases. Having a specific genetic diagnosis provides significant clinical utility, including improved prognostication of the outcome, tailored therapy, directed testing for associated syndromic manifestations, referral to appropriate subspecialists, family planning, and redirection of care.

SUMMARY

Perinatal disorders of unknown cause, with nonspecific presentations, are often caused by genetic diseases best diagnosed by ES or GS. Prompt diagnosis facilitates improved clinical care. Improvements in noninvasive sampling, variant interpretation, and population-level research will further enhance the clinical utility of genetic testing.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/MOP/A61.

Is Gene-Size an Issue for the Diagnosis of Skeletal Muscle Disorders?

Human genes have a variable length. Those having a coding sequence of extraordinary length and a high number of exons were almost impossible to sequence using the traditional Sanger-based gene-by-gene approach. High-throughput sequencing has partly overcome the size-related technical issues, enabling a straightforward, rapid and relatively inexpensive analysis of large genes.

Several large genes (e.g. TTN, NEB, RYR1, DMD) are recognized as disease-causing in patients with skeletal muscle diseases. However, because of their sheer size, the clinical interpretation of variants in these genes is probably the most challenging aspect of the high-throughput genetic investigation in the field of skeletal muscle diseases.

The main aim of this review is to discuss the technical and interpretative issues related to the diagnostic investigation of large genes and to reflect upon the current state of the art and the future advancements in the field.

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.

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

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

GENETIC DUTIES

Most of our genetic information does not change, yet the results of our genetic tests might. Labs reclassify genetic variants in response to advances in genetic science. As a result, a person who took a test in 2010 could take the same test with the same lab in 2020 and get a different result. However, no legal duty requires labs or physicians to inform patients when a lab reclassifies a variant, even if the reclassification communicates clinically actionable information. This Article considers the need for such duties and their potential challenges. In so doing, it offers much-needed guidance to physicians and labs, who may face liability, and to courts, which will hear these cases.

Genetic testing for kidney disease of unknown etiology

In many cases of chronic kidney disease, the cause of disease remains unknown despite a thorough nephrologic workup. Genetic testing has revolutionized many areas of medicine and promises to empower diagnosis and targeted management of such cases of kidney disease of unknown etiology. Recent studies using genetic testing have demonstrated that Mendelian etiologies account for approximately 20% of cases of kidney disease of unknown etiology. Although genetic testing has significant benefits, including tailoring of therapy, informing targeted workup, detecting extrarenal disease, counseling patients and families, and redirecting care, it also has important limitations and risks that must be considered.