Duty to re-contact

Genetic Evaluation for Monogenic Disorders of Low Bone Mass and Increased Bone Fragility: What Clinicians Need to Know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to outline the principles of clinical genetic testing and to provide practical guidance to clinicians in navigating genetic testing for patients with suspected monogenic forms of osteoporosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heritability assessments and genome-wide association studies have clearly shown the significant contributions of genetic variations to the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Currently, over 50 monogenic disorders that present primarily with low bone mass and increased risk of fractures have been described. The widespread availability of clinical genetic testing offers a valuable opportunity to correctly diagnose individuals with monogenic forms of osteoporosis, thus instituting appropriate surveillance and treatment. Clinical genetic testing may identify the appropriate diagnosis in a subset of patients with low bone mass, multiple or unusual fractures, and severe or early-onset osteoporosis, and thus clinicians should be aware of how to incorporate such testing into their clinical practices.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders are the most prevalent chronic medical conditions encountered in pediatric primary care. In addition to identifying appropriate descriptive diagnoses and guiding families to evidence-based treatments and supports, comprehensive care for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders includes a search for an underlying etiologic diagnosis, primarily through a genetic evaluation. Identification of an underlying genetic etiology can inform prognosis, clarify recurrence risk, shape clinical management, and direct patients and families to condition-specific resources and supports. Here we review the utility of genetic testing in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and describe the three major testing modalities and their yields - chromosomal microarray, exome sequencing (with/without copy number variant calling), and FMR1 CGG repeat analysis for fragile X syndrome. Given the diagnostic yield of genetic testing and the potential for clinical and personal utility, there is consensus that genetic testing should be offered to all patients with global developmental delay, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder. Despite this recommendation, data suggest that a minority of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability have undergone genetic testing. To address this gap in care, we describe a structured but flexible approach to facilitate integration of genetic testing into clinical practice across pediatric specialties and discuss future considerations for genetic testing in neurodevelopmental disorders to prepare pediatric providers to care for patients with such diagnoses today and tomorrow.

Uncertainty in Genomics Impacts Precision Medicine

As exacting as genetic and genomic testing have become, health professionals continue to encounter uncertainty in their applications to medical practice. As examining the human genome at more refined levels increases, so is the likelihood of encountering uncertainty about the meaning of the information. The history of this concept informs how we might confront and deal with uncertainty, and what the future might hold. Precision medicine holds great promise for establishing more accurate diagnoses, directing specific therapy to patients who will most benefit from it, and avoiding treatments in patients who are most likely to suffer adverse consequences, or at best not benefit. But its application depends importantly on the proper interpretation of a person's genotype.

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

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

Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen)

Copy number analysis to detect disease-causing losses and gains across the genome is recommended for the evaluation of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or multiple congenital anomalies, as well as for fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. In the decade that this analysis has been in widespread clinical use, tremendous strides have been made in understanding the effects of copy number variants (CNVs) in both affected individuals and the general population. However, continued broad implementation of array- and next-generation sequencing-based technologies will expand the types of CNVs encountered in the clinical setting, as well as our understanding of their impact on human health. To assist clinical laboratories in the classification and reporting of CNVs, irrespective of the technology used to identify them, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following professional standards in collaboration with the NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) project. This update introduces a quantitative, evidence-based scoring framework; encourages the implementation of the 5-tier classification system widely used in sequence variant classification; and recommends “uncoupling” the evidence-based classification of a variant from its potential implications for a particular individual. These professional standards will guide the evaluation of constitutional CNVs and encourage consistency and transparency across clinical laboratories.

Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing.

Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe

Advances in genomic medicine are improving diagnosis and treatment of some health conditions, and the question of whether former patients should be recontacted is therefore timely. The issue of recontacting is becoming more important with increased integration of genomics in 'mainstream' medicine. Empirical evidence is needed to advance the discussion over whether and how recontacting should be implemented. We administered a web-based survey to genetic services in European countries to collect information about existing infrastructures and practices relevant to recontacting patients. The majority of the centres stated they had recontacted patients to update them about new significant information; however, there were no standardised practices or systems in place. There was also a multiplicity of understandings of the term 'recontacting', which respondents conflated with routine follow-up programmes, or even with post-test counselling. Participants thought that recontacting systems should be implemented to provide the best service to the patients and families. Nevertheless, many barriers to implementation were mentioned. These included: lack of resources and infrastructure, concerns about potential negative psychological consequences of recontacting, unclear operational definitions of recontacting, policies that prevent healthcare professionals from recontacting, and difficulties in locating patients after their last contact. These barriers are also intensified by the highly variable development (and establishment) of the specialties of medical genetics and genetic counselling across different European countries. Future recommendations about recontacting need to consider these barriers. It is also important to reach an 'operational definition' that can be useful in different countries.

The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes

PURPOSE

The reclassification of genetic variants poses a significant challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Variant review has resulted in the reclassification of variants of unknown significance as well as the reclassification of previously established pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants. These reclassifications have the potential to alter the clinical management of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes.

METHODS

Results were reviewed for 1694 patients seen for hereditary cancer evaluation between August 2012 and May 2017 to determine the frequency and types of variant reclassification. Patients with reclassifications with high potential for impact were monitored for alterations in organ surveillance, prophylactic surgery, and cascade testing.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-two variants were reclassified representing 124/1694 (7.3%) patients; 11.3% of reclassifications (16/142) had a high potential for clinical impact with 94% (15/16) altering clinical management of patients with 56% (9/16) changing multiple areas of management.

CONCLUSION

While reclassifications are rare, the impact on clinical management is profound. In many cases, patients with downgraded pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants had years of unnecessary organ surveillance and underwent unneeded surgical intervention. In addition, cascade testing misidentified those at risk for developing cancers, thereby altering the management across generations. The frequency and types of alterations to clinical management highlight the need for timely variant reclassification.

Recontacting in light of new genetic diagnostic techniques for patients with intellectual disability: Feasibility and parental perspectives

A higher diagnostic yield from new diagnostic techniques makes re-evaluation in patients with intellectual disability without a causal diagnosis valuable, and is currently only performed after new referral. Active recontacting might serve a larger group of patients. We aimed to evaluate parental perspectives regarding recontacting and its feasibility in clinical genetic practice. A recontacting pilot was performed in two cohorts of children with intellectual disability. In cohort A, parents were recontacted by phone and in cohort B by letter, to invite them for a re-evaluation due to the new technologies (array CGH and exome sequencing, respectively). Parental opinions, preferences and experiences with recontacting were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire, and the feasibility of this pilot was evaluated. 47 of 114 questionnaires were returned. In total, 87% of the parents believed that all parents should be recontacted in light of new insights, 17% experienced an (positive or negative) emotional reaction. In cohort A, approached by phone, 36% made a new appointment for re-evaluation, and in cohort B, approached by letter, 4% did. Most parents have positive opinions on recontacting. Recontacting might evoke emotional responses that may need attention. Recontacting is feasible but time-consuming and a large additional responsibility for clinical geneticists.

Recontacting in clinical practice: the views and expectations of patients in the United Kingdom

This paper explores the views and expectations of patients concerning recontacting in clinical practice. It is based on 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in the United Kingdom. The sample comprised patients or parents of patients: without a diagnosis; recently offered a test for a condition or carrier risk; with a rare condition; with a variant of unknown significance – some of whom had been recontacted. Participants were recruited both via the National Health Service (NHS) and through online, condition-specific support groups. Most respondents viewed recontacting as desirable, however there were different opinions and expectations about what type of new information should trigger recontacting. An awareness of the potential psychological impact of receiving new information led some to suggest that recontacting should be planned, and tailored to the nature of the new information and the specific situation of patients and families. The lack of clarity about lines of responsibility for recontacting and perceptions of resource constraints in the NHS tended to mitigate respondents’ favourable positions towards recontacting and their preferences. Some respondents argued that recontacting could have a preventative value and reduce the cost of healthcare. Others challenged the idea that resources should be used to implement formalised recontacting systems – via arguments that there are ‘more pressing’ public health priorities, and for the need for healthcare services to offer care to new patients.

Ethical considerations in genomic testing for hematologic disorders

As our technological capacities improve, genomic testing is increasingly integrating into patient care. The field of clinical hematology is no exception. Genomic testing carries great promise, but several ethical issues must be considered whenever such testing is performed. This review addresses these ethical considerations, including issues surrounding informed consent and the uncertainty of the results of genomic testing; the challenge of incidental findings; and possible inequities in access to and benefit from such testing. Genomic testing is likely to transform the practice of both benign and malignant hematology, but clinicians must carefully consider these core ethical issues in order to make the most of this exciting and evolving technology.

Physicians' duty to recontact and update genetic advice

This perspective addresses whether physicians have a duty to recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genomic information. Genetic information is unique compared with other medical data in that the underlying data do not appreciably change during the patients' lifetime, but the clinical significance of that information will continue to evolve. Based on relevant case law and guidelines, there is no general, established legal duty for physicians to affirmatively recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genetic information. However, integration of genomics into clinical practice is advancing quickly, and there may be limited, specific situations where a physician may have a duty to provide updated genetic information.

Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person’s care and responsibility for connected others.

Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

To ascertain whether and how recontacting occurs in the United Kingdom.

METHOD

A Web-based survey was administered online between October 2014 and July 2015. A link to the survey was circulated via an e-mail invitation to the clinical leads of the United Kingdom's 23 clinical genetics services, with follow-up with senior clinical genetics staff.

RESULTS

The majority of UK services reported that they recontact patients and their family members. However, recontacting generally occurs in an ad hoc fashion when an unplanned event causes clinicians to review a file (a "trigger"). There are no standardized recontacting practices in the United Kingdom. More than half of the services were unsure whether formalized recontacting systems should be implemented. Some suggested greater patient involvement in the process of recontacting.

CONCLUSION

This research suggests that a thorough evaluation of the efficacy and sustainability of potential recontacting systems within the National Health Service would be necessary before deciding whether and how to implement such a service or to create guidelines on best-practice models.Genet Med 18 9, 876-881.

Ethical and Legal Challenges Associated with Public Molecular Autopsies

There is a national movement supporting the retention and use of bio-specimens from deceased individuals for the purpose of genetic testing. This manuscript discusses the significance of postmortem genetic testing in the context of death determination by medical examiners (i.e., public molecular autopsies). We highlight distinctive concerns that are raised in the areas of consent, confidentiality, and return of results when genetic testing is performed as part of a public molecular autopsy. We believe our manuscript will contribute to the development of a robust ethical and legal framework for genetic testing in this context.

Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants.(1) In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next-generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever-increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprising representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and the College of American Pathologists to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP, and College of American Pathologists stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories, including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes, and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology-"pathogenic," "likely pathogenic," "uncertain significance," "likely benign," and "benign"-to describe variants identified in genes that cause Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classifying variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g., population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved laboratory, with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or the equivalent.

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice.

METHODS

We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review.

RESULTS

The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients.

CONCLUSION

To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.

ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing

Next-generation sequencing technologies have been and continue to be deployed in clinical laboratories, enabling rapid transformations in genomic medicine. These technologies have reduced the cost of large-scale sequencing by several orders of magnitude, and continuous advances are being made. It is now feasible to analyze an individual's near-complete exome or genome to assist in the diagnosis of a wide array of clinical scenarios. Next-generation sequencing technologies are also facilitating further advances in therapeutic decision making and disease prediction for at-risk patients. However, with rapid advances come additional challenges involving the clinical validation and use of these constantly evolving technologies and platforms in clinical laboratories. To assist clinical laboratories with the validation of next-generation sequencing methods and platforms, the ongoing monitoring of next-generation sequencing testing to ensure quality results, and the interpretation and reporting of variants found using these technologies, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following professional standards and guidelines.

Communicating new knowledge on previously reported genetic variants

Genetic tests often identify variants whose significance cannot be determined at the time they are reported. In many situations, it is critical that clinicians be informed when new information emerges on these variants. It is already extremely challenging for laboratories to provide these updates. These challenges will grow rapidly as an increasing number of clinical genetic tests are ordered and as the amount of patient DNA assayed per test expands; the challenges will need to be addressed before whole-genome sequencing is used on a widespread basis.

Information technology infrastructure can be useful in this context. We have deployed an infrastructure enabling clinicians to receive knowledge updates when a laboratory changes the classification of a variant. We have gathered statistics from this deployment regarding the frequency of both variant classification changes and the effects of these classification changes on patients. We report on the system's functionality as well as the statistics derived from its use.

Genet Med 2012:14(8):713–719

The legal risks of returning results of genomics research

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing "consensus," which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.

American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants

Genomic microarrays used to assess DNA copy number are now recommended as first-tier tests for the postnatal evaluation of individuals with intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, and/or multiple congenital anomalies. Application of this technology has resulted in the discovery of widespread copy number variation in the human genome, both polymorphic variation in healthy individuals and novel pathogenic copy number imbalances. To assist clinical laboratories in the evaluation of copy number variants and to promote consistency in interpretation and reporting of genomic microarray results, the American College of Medical Genetics has developed the following professional guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of copy number variation. These guidelines apply primarily to evaluation of constitutional copy number variants detected in the postnatal setting.

Changing interpretations, stable genes: responsibilities of patients, professionals, and policy makers in the clinical interpretation of complex genetic information

Except in rare mutation-inducing events, the primary sequence of an individual's somatic genome is static; however, the interpretations or risk predictions based on complex genetic tests now being introduced into the marketplace are rapidly changing. The reality of changing interpretations for stable test results creates questions for everyone involved in genetic testing including individuals, clinicians, laboratories, professional organizations, and regulators. Individuals should be aware that their relationship with laboratories providing genetic testing may be different from their relationship with their physician, especially in direct-to-consumer testing. Moreover, individuals may need to take the initiative to revisit their genetic test results periodically. Clinicians will need to learn how to read and interpret the results of complex genetic tests, remember that interpretations change over time, and understand when to refer patients to specialists and ask for second opinions and reinterpretation of genetic information. Testing laboratories should understand that they may be replacing the clinician as the direct contact for patients, and may have responsibility to inform clients of changes in test interpretation. At minimum, laboratories should make clear what their policies are regarding reinterpretation and allow tested individuals to seek outside interpretations of their genetic test results. Professional organizations and regulators have the responsibility to develop guidelines for clinicians, laboratories, and the general public. In the future, the interpretation of genetic tests may be relatively stable; until that time, the changing interpretation of static genetic test results will create an important set of professional and ethical challenges.

ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations: Revisions 2007

ACMG previously developed recommendations for standards for interpretation of sequence variations. We now present the updated revised recommendations. Here, we describe six interpretative categories of sequence variations: (1) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized cause of the disorder; (2) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which is expected to cause the disorder; (3) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which may or may not be causative of the disorder; (4) sequence variation is previously unreported and is probably not causative of disease; (5) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized neutral variant; and (6) sequence variation is previously not known or expected to be causative of disease, but is found to be associated with a clinical presentation. We emphasize the importance of appropriate reporting of sequence variations using standardized terminology and established databases, and of clearly reporting the limitations of sequence-based testing. We discuss follow-up studies that may be used to ascertain the clinical significance of sequence variations, including the use of additional tools (such as predictive software programs) that may be useful in variant classification. As more information becomes available allowing the interpretation of a new sequence variant, it is recommended that the laboratory amend previous reports and provide updated results to the physician. The ACMG strongly recommends that the clinical and technical validation of sequence variation detection be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory and interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or equivalent.

Patient preferences regarding recontact by cancer genetics clinicians

BACKGROUND

Ongoing advances in cancer genetics lead to new opportunities for early disease detection, predictive genetic testing and potential interventions. Limited information exists on patient preferences concerning recontact to provide updated information. We evaluated colon cancer genetics patient preferences concerning recontact about advances in medical genetics.

METHODS

Information was mailed to 851 individuals seen at the Colon Cancer Risk Assessment Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and to participants in a colon cancer gene testing study seen during an 8-year period. Information provided included description of advances in gene testing technology, discovery of MSH6 and MYH genes, detailed fact sheets and a survey of patient preferences for notification and potential uses of new information.

RESULTS

Most patients wanted an ongoing relationship with genetics providers (63%), reinitiated by genetics providers (65%) and contact only with information specifically relevant to them (51%). Most preferred personalized letters as the means of contact (55%). Reasons for and against recontact and circumstances in which individuals would pursue additional genetic testing were also tabulated. There were few statistically significant differences in the responses between clinic and study participants.

CONCLUSION

Patients evaluated in a colon cancer risk assessment clinic want updated information at a rate similar to those who participated in a colon cancer gene testing study. These findings have implications for the consultative nonlongitudinal nature of such clinics and suggest patient preferences for personally-tailored information could be labor intensive.

A Survey of Patients’ Experiences with the Cancer Genetic Counseling Process: Recommendations for Cancer Genetics Programs

In order to promote ongoing quality improvement of not only the Penn State Cancer Genetics Program, but also other cancer risk assessment programs throughout the country, we developed, piloted and conducted a survey to explore patient expectations, experiences, and satisfaction with the cancer genetic counseling process. The comprehensive survey was mailed to 340 eligible patients, 156 (45.9%) of whom returned the completed survey within the allotted time. Responses to closed-ended questions were tallied and open-ended questions were content analyzed. Major findings show that: (1) Patients were seeking cancer-related information and support throughout the cancer risk assessment process and were interested in participating in available research studies; (2) The setting in which patients are seen for cancer risk assessment may pose potential emotional ramifications; (3) Misperceptions regarding insurance discrimination and lack of insurance coverage persist; (4) Patients view the genetic counselor as responsible for updating them about new discoveries. Specific recommendations for cancer genetics programs are included.