Clinician-Reported Impact of Germline Multigene Panel Testing on Cancer Risk Management Recommendations

Background

With increased adoption of multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer, management guidelines now include a wider range of predisposition genes. Yet little is known about whether MGPT results prompt changes to clinicians’ risk management recommendations and whether those recommendations adhere to guidelines.

Methods

We assessed cancer risk management recommendations made by clinicians ordering MGPT for hereditary cancer at a diagnostic laboratory using an internet-based survey. We received paired pre- and posttest responses for 2172 patients (response rate = 14.3%). Unpaired posttest responses were received in 168 additional patients with positive results. All tests were 2-sided.

Results

Clinicians reported a change in risk management recommendations for 76.6% of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, with changes to surveillance being most common (71.1%), followed by surgical (33.6%), chemoprevention (15.1%), and clinical trial (9.4%) recommendations. Clinicians recommended risk-reducing interventions more often for patients with pathogenic variants in high-risk than moderate-risk genes (P < .001), whereas surveillance recommendations were similar for high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Guideline adherence was high for surveillance (86.3%) and surgical (79.6%) recommendations. Changes to risk management recommendations occurred in 8.8% and 7.6% of patients with uncertain and negative results, respectively.

Conclusions

Clinicians report frequent changes to cancer risk management recommendations based on positive results in both high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Reported introduction of interventions in patients with inconclusive and negative results is rare and adherence to practice guidelines is high in patients with positive results, suggesting a low probability of harm resulting from MGPT.

Misattributed parentage identified through diagnostic exome sequencing: Frequency of detection and reporting practices

Access to genetic testing, namely, diagnostic exome sequencing (DES), has significantly improved, subsequently increasing the likelihood of discovering incidental findings, such as misattributed relationships and specifically misattributed parentage (MP). Until the recently published ACMG statement, there had been no consensus for laboratories and clinicians to follow when addressing such findings. Family-based genomic testing is valuable for accurate variant interpretation but has the potential to uncover misattributed familial relationships. Here, we present the first published data on the frequency of MP identified through DES at a clinical laboratory. We also investigated clinicians' decisions on how to proceed with analysis, reporting, and disclosure. A database of 6,752 families who underwent parent-proband ('trio') DES was retrospectively reviewed for molecular identification of MP and clinicians' MP disclosure decisions. Among 6,752 trios, 39 cases of MP were detected (0.58%). Non-paternity was detected in all cases, and in one instance, non-maternity was also identified. All clinicians decided to proceed by omitting the MP individual from the analysis. Clinicians chose to proceed with duo analysis (87.2%), modify information on the report (74.4%), and communicate MP results to the mother (71.8%), suggesting a trend toward not disclosing to the putative father or proband. The data show that trio DES involves a chance of detecting MP and that clinician disclosure practices do not appear to routinely include direct disclosure to the putative father. MP identified in our parent-proband trios sent in for DES is lower than the reported frequency of MP in the general population due in part to ascertainment bias as families with known or suspected MP are presumably less likely to pursue trio testing. These data may inform laboratory policies and clinician practices for addressing incidental findings such as MP.

Estimating the relative frequency of leukodystrophies and recommendations for carrier screening in the era of next-generation sequencing

Leukodystrophies are a heterogeneous group of heritable disorders characterized by abnormal brain white matter signal on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and primary involvement of the cellular components of myelin. Previous estimates suggest the incidence of leukodystrophies as a whole to be 1 in 7,000 individuals, however the frequency of specific diagnoses relative to others has not been described. Next generation sequencing approaches offer the opportunity to redefine our understanding of the relative frequency of different leukodystrophies. We assessed the relative frequency of all 30 leukodystrophies (associated with 55 genes) in more than 49,000 exomes. We identified a relatively high frequency of disorders previously thought of as very rare, including Aicardi Goutières Syndrome, TUBB4A-related leukodystrophy, Peroxisomal biogenesis disorders, POLR3-related Leukodystrophy, Vanishing White Matter, and Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease. Despite the relative frequency of these conditions, carrier-screening laboratories regularly test only 20 of the 55 leukodystrophy-related genes, and do not test at all, or test only one or a few, genes for some of the higher frequency disorders. Relative frequency of leukodystrophies previously considered very rare suggests these disorders may benefit from expanded carrier screening.

When moments matter: Finding answers with rapid exome sequencing

Background

When time is of the essence in critical care cases, a fast molecular diagnosis is often necessary to help health care providers quickly determine best next steps for treatments, prognosis, and counseling of their patients. In this paper, we present the diagnostic rates and improved quality of life for patients undergoing clinical rapid exome sequencing.

Methods

The clinical histories and results of 41 patients undergoing rapid exome sequencing were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Clinical rapid exome sequencing identified a definitive diagnosis in 13/41 (31.7%) and other relevant findings in 17 of the patients (41.5%). The average time to verbal report was 7 days; to written report was 11 days.

Conclusions

Our observations demonstrate the utility and effectiveness of rapid family‐based diagnostic exome sequencing in improving patients care.

Clinical diagnostic exome sequencing in dystonia: Genetic testing challenges for complex conditions

Patients with dystonia are particularly appropriate for diagnostic exome sequencing (DES), due to the complex, diverse features and genetic heterogeneity. Personal and family history data were collected from test requisition forms and medical records from 189 patients with reported dystonia and available family members received for clinical DES. Of them, 20.2% patients had a positive genetic finding associated with dystonia. Detection rates for cases with isolated and combined dystonia were 22.4% and 25.0%, respectively. 71.4% of the cohort had co-occurring non-movement-related findings and a detection rate of 24.4%. Patients with childhood-onset dystonia trended toward higher detection rates (31.8%) compared to infancy (23.6%), adolescence (12.5%), and early-adulthood onset (16%). Uncharacterized gene findings were found in 6.7% (8/119) of cases that underwent analysis for genes without an established disease relationship. Patients with intellectual disability/developmental delay, seizures/epilepsy and/or multifocal dystonia were more likely to have positive findings (P = .0093, .0397, .0006). Four (2.1%) patients had findings in two genes, and seven (3.7%) had reclassification after the original report due to new literature, new clinical information or reanalysis request. Pediatric patients were more likely to have positive findings (P = .0180). Our observations show utility of family-based DES in patients with dystonia and illustrate the complexity of testing.

A retrospective review of multiple findings in diagnostic exome sequencing: half are distinct and half are overlapping diagnoses

PURPOSE

We evaluated clinical and genetic features enriched in patients with multiple Mendelian conditions to determine which patients are more likely to have multiple potentially relevant genetic findings (MPRF).

METHODS

Results of the first 7698 patients who underwent exome sequencing at Ambry Genetics were reviewed. Clinical and genetic features were examined and degree of phenotypic overlap between the genetic diagnoses was evaluated.

RESULTS

Among patients referred for exome sequencing, 2% had MPRF. MPRF were more common in patients from consanguineous families and patients with greater clinical complexity. The difference in average number of organ systems affected is small: 4.3 (multiple findings) vs. 3.9 (single finding) and may not be distinguished in clinic.

CONCLUSION

Patients with multiple genetic diagnoses had a slightly higher number of organ systems affected than patients with single genetic diagnoses, largely because the comorbid conditions affected overlapping organ systems. Exome testing may be beneficial for all cases with multiple organ systems affected. The identification of multiple relevant genetic findings in 2% of exome patients highlights the utility of a comprehensive molecular workup and updated interpretation of existing genomic data; a single definitive molecular diagnosis from analysis of a limited number of genes may not be the end of a diagnostic odyssey.

Quality of Clinician-Reported Cancer History When Ordering Genetic Testing

Purpose

Clinical history data reported on test requisition forms (TRFs) for hereditary cancer multigene panel testing (MGPT) are routinely used by genetic testing laboratories. More recently, publications have incorporated TRF-based clinical data into studies exploring yield of testing by phenotype and estimating cancer risks for mutation carriers. We aimed to assess the quality of TRF data for patients undergoing MGPT.

Patients and Methods

Ten percent of patients who underwent hereditary cancer MGPT between January and June 2015 at a clinical laboratory were randomly selected. TRF-reported cancer diagnoses were evaluated for completeness and accuracy for probands and relatives using clinical documents such as pedigrees and chart notes as the comparison standard in cases where these documents were submitted after the time of test order.

Results

TRF-reported cancer sites and ages at diagnosis were complete for > 90.0% of proband cancer diagnoses overall, and the completion rate was even higher (> 96.0%) for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and uterine cancers. When reported, these data were accurate on TRFs for > 99.5% of proband cancer sites and > 97.5% of proband ages at diagnosis. Cancer site and age at diagnosis data were also complete on the TRF for the majority of cancers among first- and second-degree relatives. Completeness decreased as relation to the proband became more distant, whereas accuracy remained high across all degrees of relation.

Conclusion

Data collected as part of cancer genetic risk assessment is completely and accurately reported on TRFs for the majority of probands and their close relatives and is comparable to information directly obtained from clinic notes, particularly for breast and other cancers commonly associated with hereditary cancer syndromes.