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

Navigating Genetic Testing in Nephrology: Options and Decision-Making Strategies

Technological advances such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) have enabled high-throughput assessment of the human genome, supporting the usage of genetic testing as a first-line tool across clinical medicine. Although individually rare, genetic causes account for end-stage renal disease in 10% to 15% of adults and 70% of children, and in many of these individuals, genetic testing can identify a specific etiology and meaningfully impact management. However, with numerous options for genetic testing available, nephrologists may feel uncomfortable integrating genetics into their clinical practice. Here, we aim to demystify the process of genetic test selection and highlight the opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration between nephrologists and genetics professionals, thereby supporting precision medicine for patients with kidney disease. We first detail the various clinical genetic testing modalities, highlighting their technical advantages and limitations, and then discuss indications for their usage. Next, we provide a generalized workflow for genetic test selection among individuals with kidney disease and illustrate how this workflow can be applied to genetic test selection across diverse clinical contexts. We then discuss key areas related to the usage of genetic testing in clinical nephrology that merit further research and approaches to investigate them.

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.

Variant reclassification and recontact research: A scoping review

Purpose

A primary challenge in clinical genetics is accurate interpretation of identified variants and relaying the information to patients and providers. Inconsistencies around handling variant reclassifications and notifying patients, combined with the lack of prescriptive guidelines on re-evaluation, reanalysis, and return of variants, has created practice challenges. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this research have not been characterized.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review of variant reclassification and recontact research (2013-2023) across subdisciplines of medical genetics. Of the 159 nonduplicate records screened, we summarize findings from 54 included research articles describing variant reclassification frequencies, outcomes, and stakeholder perspectives on recontact.

Results

The included articles reported on active reclassification (n = 20), passive reclassification (n = 13), stakeholder surveys (n = 11), qualitative interviews (n = 7), and reanalysis of published or ClinVar data (n = 3). On average, active and passive approaches yielded different reclassification frequencies-31% and 20%, respectively, which were considerably higher than ClinVar (<0.1%-6.4%). Despite a wealth of data on individual stakeholder perspectives and opinions on reclassification, recontact, and consensus on the need for standardization in this space, opinions differ on how to develop and implement standardized processes.

Conclusion

Many active reclassification studies reapplied standard variant classification guideline to previously reported variants-thus demonstrating the number of variants that would be successfully reclassified if reinterpretation and reanalysis were performed routinely. Research gaps identified include the need for understanding practices and opinions of nongenetics providers and engaging in deliberative democracy exercises to reach consensus on these issues.

ClinGen variant curation expert panel recommendations for classification of variants in GAMT, GATM and SLC6A8 for cerebral creatine deficiency syndromes

Cerebral creatine deficiency syndromes (CCDS) are inherited metabolic phenotypes of creatine synthesis and transport. There are two enzyme deficiencies, guanidinoacetate methyltransferase (GAMT), encoded by GAMT and arginine-glycine amidinotransferase (AGAT), encoded by GATM, which are involved in the synthesis of creatine. After synthesis, creatine is taken up by a sodium-dependent membrane bound creatine transporter (CRTR), encoded by SLC6A8, into all organs. Creatine uptake is very important especially in high energy demanding organs such as the brain, and muscle. To classify the pathogenicity of variants in GAMT, GATM, and SLC6A8, we developed the CCDS Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) in 2018, supported by The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded resource. We developed disease-specific variant classification guidelines for GAMT-, GATM-, and SLC6A8-related CCDS, adapted from the American College of Medical Genetics/Association of Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant interpretation guidelines. We applied specific variant classification guidelines to 30 pilot variants in each of the three genes that have variants associated with CCDS. Our CCDS VCEP was approved by the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group (SVI WG) and Clinical Domain Oversight Committee in July 2022. We curated 181 variants including 72 variants in GAMT, 45 variants in GATM, and 64 variants in SLC6A8 and submitted these classifications to ClinVar, a public variant database supported by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Missense variants were the most common variant type in all three genes. We submitted 32 new variants and reclassified 34 variants with conflicting interpretations. We report specific phenotype (PP4) using a points system based on the urine and plasma guanidinoacetate and creatine levels, brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) creatine level, and enzyme activity or creatine uptake in fibroblasts ranging from PP4, PP4_Moderate and PP4_Strong. Our CCDS VCEP is one of the first panels applying disease specific variant classification algorithms for an X-linked disease. The availability of these guidelines and classifications can guide molecular genetics and genomic laboratories and health care providers to assess the molecular diagnosis of individuals with a CCDS phenotype.

The Brain Gene Registry: a data snapshot

Monogenic disorders account for a large proportion of population-attributable risk for neurodevelopmental disabilities. However, the data necessary to infer a causal relationship between a given genetic variant and a particular neurodevelopmental disorder is often lacking. Recognizing this scientific roadblock, 13 Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Centers (IDDRCs) formed a consortium to create the Brain Gene Registry (BGR), a repository pairing clinical genetic data with phenotypic data from participants with variants in putative brain genes. Phenotypic profiles are assembled from the electronic health record (EHR) and a battery of remotely administered standardized assessments collectively referred to as the Rapid Neurobehavioral Assessment Protocol (RNAP), which include cognitive, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric assessments, as well as assessments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Co-enrollment of BGR participants in the Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen's) GenomeConnect enables display of variant information in ClinVar. The BGR currently contains data on 479 participants who are 55% male, 6% Asian, 6% Black or African American, 76% white, and 12% Hispanic/Latine. Over 200 genes are represented in the BGR, with 12 or more participants harboring variants in each of these genes: CACNA1A, DNMT3A, SLC6A1, SETD5, and MYT1L. More than 30% of variants are de novo and 43% are classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Mean standard scores on cognitive or developmental screens are below average for the BGR cohort. EHR data reveal developmental delay as the earliest and most common diagnosis in this sample, followed by speech and language disorders, ASD, and ADHD. BGR data has already been used to accelerate gene-disease validity curation of 36 genes evaluated by ClinGen's BGR Intellectual Disability (ID)-Autism (ASD) Gene Curation Expert Panel. In summary, the BGR is a resource for use by stakeholders interested in advancing translational research for brain genes and continues to recruit participants with clinically reported variants to establish a rich and well-characterized national resource to promote research on neurodevelopmental disorders.

Clinical variants paired with phenotype: A rich resource for brain gene curation

PURPOSE

Clinically ascertained variants are under-utilized in neurodevelopmental disorder research. We established the Brain Gene Registry (BGR) to coregister clinically identified variants in putative brain genes with participant phenotypes. Here, we report 179 genetic variants in the first 179 BGR registrants and analyze the proportion that were novel to ClinVar at the time of entry and those that were absent in other disease databases.

METHODS

From 10 academically affiliated institutions, 179 individuals with 179 variants were enrolled into the BGR. Variants were cross-referenced for previous presence in ClinVar and for presence in 6 other genetic databases.

RESULTS

Of 179 variants in 76 genes, 76 (42.5%) were novel to ClinVar, and 62 (34.6%) were absent from all databases analyzed. Of the 103 variants present in ClinVar, 37 (35.9%) were uncertain (ClinVar aggregate classification of variant of uncertain significance or conflicting classifications). For 5 variants, the aggregate ClinVar classification was inconsistent with the interpretation from the BGR site-provided classification.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of clinical variants that are novel or uncertain are not shared, limiting the evidence base for new gene-disease relationships. Registration of paired clinical genetic test results with phenotype has the potential to advance knowledge of the relationships between genes and neurodevelopmental disorders.

"There should be one spot that you can go:" BRCA mutation carriers' perspectives on cancer risk management and a hereditary cancer registry

Individuals who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants are recommended to have extensive cancer prevention screening and risk-reducing surgeries. Uptake of these recommendations is variable, and there remains room for improvement in the risk management of BRCA carriers. This paper explores female BRCA carriers' experiences with the current model of care and their perspectives on (and interest in) an inherited cancer registry. Findings can inform the development of a dedicated high-risk screening and management program for these patients. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered through a provincial descriptive survey and semi-structured qualitative interviews to assess BRCA carriers' opinions toward risk management services in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Survey (n = 69) and interview data (n = 15) revealed continuity and coordination challenges with the current system of care of high-risk individuals. Respondents suggested an inherited cancer registry would help identify high-risk individuals and provide a centralized system of risk management for identified carriers. Respondents identified concerns about the privacy of their registry data, including who could access it. Findings suggest BRCA carriers see great value in an inherited cancer registry. Specifically, participants noted it could provide a centralized system to help improve the coordination of burdensome, life-long risk management. Important patient concerns about protecting their privacy and their health data confidentiality must be addressed in patient and public information and informed consent documents about a registry.

Exploring the impact of the reclassification of a hereditary cancer syndrome gene variant: emerging themes from a qualitative study

The complexity of genetic variant interpretation means that a proportion of individuals who undergo genetic testing for a hereditary cancer syndrome will have their test result reclassified over time. Such a reclassification may involve a clinically significant upgrade or downgrade in pathogenicity, which may have significant implications for medical management. To date, few studies have examined the psychosocial impact of a reclassification in a hereditary cancer syndrome context. To address this gap, semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with eighteen individuals who had a BRCA1, BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome-related (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2) gene variant reclassified. The interviews were analysed utilising an inductive, qualitative approach and emergent themes were identified by thematic analysis. Variable levels of recall amongst participants were found. Common motivations for initial testing included a significant personal and/or family history of cancer and a desire to "find an answer". No individual whose uncertain result was upgraded reported negative psychosocial outcomes; most reported adapting to their reclassified result and appraised their genetic testing experience positively. However, individuals whose likely pathogenic/pathogenic results were downgraded reported feelings of anger, shock and sadness post reclassification, highlighting that additional psychosocial support may be required for some. Genetic counselling issues and recommendations for clinical practice are outlined.

Cancer patients' understandings of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical care

Genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) pose a growing challenge for patient communication and care in precision genomic medicine. To better understand patient perspectives of VUSs, we draw on qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 22 cancer patients and individuals with cancer family history who received a VUS result. The majority of patients did not recall receiving VUS results and those who remembered expressed few worries, while respondents who were tested because of a family history of cancer were more concerned about the VUS results. Personal characteristics, medical condition, family history, expectations prior to testing, and motivations for pursuing testing influence the ways patients came to terms with the uncertainty of the VUS result. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the findings to the debate on the responsibility of the patient in checking back for VUS reclassification and to implications for genetic counseling that emphasizes tailoring the pre- and post-test discussion of VUS as appropriate to the patients’ informational as well as emotional needs.

Views of Israeli healthcare professionals regarding communication of genetic variants of uncertain significance to patients

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever‐increasing diagnostic yield, communicating variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. We draw on qualitative analysis of semi‐structured interviews conducted in 2020 with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome‐wide sequencing to patients. Respondents described four main strategies of communicating VUSs to patients: preparing the patient pre‐test for uncertainty; adapting the level of detail to the patient's needs; upgrading versus downgrading the VUS; and following up on the possible reclassification of VUSs. These strategies were expressed differently by physicians and genetic counselors, varying according to their specialty and perception of the patient's situation. We discuss the strategic management and communication of uncertain genomic test results with patients in the context of meeting patients' expectations and working toward genetic causality through genomic narration and designation.

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.