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

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed.

METHODS

The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented.

RESULTS

Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?

Perceptions of genetic variant reclassification in patients with inherited cardiac disease

Interpretation of sequence variants is an ongoing challenge and new approaches aim to increase stringency. The reclassification of variants has the potential to alter medical management and elicit psychosocial consequences for patients. The perspective of patients with an inherited cardiac disease and a clinically significant variant reclassification was explored through semi-structured phone interviews. Participants were recruited from two specialized multidisciplinary centers in Canada and Australia. Qualitative analysis was performed through a thematic analysis approach. Fifteen participants were interviewed, including 9 (60%) with an inherited cardiomyopathy and 6 (40%) with an inherited arrhythmia syndrome. Six (40%) patients had a classification upgrade, while 9 (60%) had a downgrade. Four major themes emerged: (1) reactions towards the reclassified variant; (2) impact on decision-making; (3) perception of the reclassification process; and (4) improvement of the reclassification process. Many patients adjusted to the reclassification, however some misunderstood the implications, impacting their responses and decision-making. In conclusion, careful discussion with patients about uncertainty and the potential for reclassification are crucial to ensure a deeper understanding of the outcome of genetic testing and impact on families.

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential.

SUMMARY

Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.

Variant classification changes over time in BRCA1 and BRCA2

PURPOSE

To report BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) variant reassessments and reclassifications between 2012 and 2017 at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (AMDL) in Toronto, Canada, which provides BRCA1/2 testing for patients in Ontario, and to compare AMDL variant classifications with submissions in ClinVar.

METHODS

Variants were assessed using a standardized variant assessment tool based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology's guidelines and tracked in an in-house database. Variants were shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository and submitted to ClinVar for comparison against other laboratories.

RESULTS

AMDL identified 1209 BRCA1/2 variants between 2012 and 2017. During this period, 32.9% (398/1209) of variants were reassessed and 12.4% (150/1209) were reclassified. The majority of reclassified variants were downgraded (112/150, 74.7%). Of the reclassified variants, 63.3% (95/150) were reclassified to benign, 20.7% (31/150) to likely benign, 10.0% (15/150) to variant of uncertain significance, 2.0% (3/150) to likely pathogenic, and 4.0% (6/150) to pathogenic. Discordant ClinVar submissions were found for 40.4% (488/1209) of variants.

CONCLUSION

BRCA1/2 variants may be reclassified over time. Reclassification presents ethical and practical challenges related to recontacting patients. Data sharing is essential to improve variant interpretation, to help patients receive appropriate care based on their genetic results.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.