Understanding and interpretation of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) genetic test result by pediatric providers who do not specialize in genetics

Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

PURPOSE

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

METHODS

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

RESULTS

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Exploring Genetic Testing for Rare Disorders of Obesity: Experience and Perspectives of Pediatric Weight Management Providers

Background: This study describes experiences and perspectives of pediatric weight management (PWM) providers on the implementation of genetic testing for rare causes of obesity. Methods: Purposive and snowball sampling recruited PWM providers via email to complete a 23-question survey with multiple choice and open-ended questions. Analyses include descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test, and qualitative analysis. Results: Of the 55 respondents, 80% reported ordering genetic testing. Respondents were primarily physicians (82.8%) in practice for 11-20 years (42%), identified as female (80%), White (76.4%), and non-Hispanic (92.7%) and provided PWM care 1-4 half day sessions per week. Frequently reported patient characteristics that prompted testing did not vary by provider years of experience (YOE). These included obesity onset before age 6, hyperphagia, dysmorphic facies, and developmental delays. The number of patient characteristics that prompted testing varied by YOE (p = 0.03); respondents with 6-10 YOE indicated more patient characteristics than respondents with >20 YOE (mean 10.3 vs. mean 6.2). The reported primary benefit of testing was health information for patients/families; the primary drawback was the high number of indeterminate tests. Ethical concerns expressed were fear of increasing weight stigma, discrimination, and impact on insurance coverage. Respondents (42%) desired training and guidance on interpreting results and counseling patients and families. Conclusions: Most PWM providers reported genetic testing as an option for patient management. Provider training in genetics/genomics and research into provider and family attitudes on the genetics of obesity and the value of genetic testing are next steps to consider.

Exploring collaboration models between geneticists and intensivists for implementing rapid genome sequencing in critical care settings

The availability of rapid genome sequencing (rGS) for children in a critical-care setting is increasing. This study explored the perspectives of geneticists and intensivists on optimal collaboration and division of roles when implementing rGS in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). We conducted an explanatory mixed methods study involving a survey embedded within an interview with 13 genetics and intensive care providers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Geneticists endorsed higher confidence in performing a physical exam and interpreting/communicating positive results. Intensivists endorsed highest confidence in determining whether genetic testing was appropriate, communicating negative results, and consenting. Major qualitative themes that emerged were: (1) concerns with both "genetics-led" and "intensivist-led" models with workflows and sustainability (2) shift the role of determining rGS eligibility to ICU medical professionals, (3) continued role of geneticists to assess phenotype, and (4) include genetic counselors (GCs) and neonatal nurse practitioners to enhance workflow and care. All geneticists supported shifting decisions regarding eligibility for rGS to the ICU team to minimize time cost for the genetics workforce. Exploring models of geneticist-led phenotyping, intensivist-led phenotyping for some indications, and/or inclusion of a dedicated inpatient GC may help offset the time burden of consenting and other tasks associated with rGS.

Evaluation of two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in genomic variant interpretation for the NHS workforce

BACKGROUND

The implementation of the National Genomic Medicine Service in the UK has increased patient access to germline genomic testing. Increased testing leads to more genetic diagnoses but does result in the identification of genomic variants of uncertain significance (VUS). The rigorous process of interpreting these variants requires multi-disciplinary, highly trained healthcare professionals (HCPs). To meet this training need, we designed two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for HCPs involved in germline genomic testing pathways: Fundamental Principles (FP) and Inherited Cancer Susceptibility (ICS).

METHODS

An evaluation cohort of HCPs involved in genomic testing were recruited, with additional data also available from anonymous self-registered learners to both MOOCs. Pre- and post-course surveys and in-course quizzes were used to assess learner satisfaction, confidence and knowledge gained in variant interpretation. In addition, granular feedback was collected on the complexity of the MOOCs to iteratively improve the resources.

RESULTS

A cohort of 92 genomics HCPs, including clinical scientists, and non-genomics clinicians (clinicians working in specialties outside of genomics) participated in the evaluation cohort. Between baseline and follow-up, total confidence scores improved by 38% (15.2/40.0) (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4-18.0) for the FP MOOC and 54% (18.9/34.9) (95%CI 15.5-22.5) for the ICS MOOC (p < 0.0001 for both). Of those who completed the knowledge assessment through six summative variant classification quizzes (V1-6), a mean of 79% of respondents classified the variants such that correct clinical management would be undertaken (FP: V1 (73/90) 81% Likely Pathogenic/Pathogenic [LP/P]; V2 (55/78) 70% VUS; V3 (59/75) 79% LP/P; V4 (62/72) 86% LP/LP. ICS: V5 (66/91) 73% VUS; V6 (76/88) 86% LP/P). A non-statistically significant higher attrition rate was seen amongst the non-genomics workforce when compared to genomics specialists for both courses. More participants from the non-genomics workforce rated the material as "Too Complex" (FP n = 2/7 [29%], ICS n = 1/5 [20%]) when compared to the specialist genomics workforce (FP n = 1/43 [2%], ICS n = 0/35 [0%]).

CONCLUSIONS

After completing one or both MOOCs, self-reported confidence in genomic variant interpretation significantly increased, and most respondents could correctly classify variants such that appropriate clinical management would be instigated. Genomics HCPs reported higher satisfaction with the level of content than the non-genomics clinicians. The MOOCs provided foundational knowledge and improved learner confidence, but should be adapted for different workforces to maximise the benefit for clinicians working in specialties outside of genetics.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Functional and clinical studies reveal pathophysiological complexity of CLCN4-related neurodevelopmental condition

Missense and truncating variants in the X-chromosome-linked CLCN4 gene, resulting in reduced or complete loss-of-function (LOF) of the encoded chloride/proton exchanger ClC-4, were recently demonstrated to cause a neurocognitive phenotype in both males and females. Through international clinical matchmaking and interrogation of public variant databases we assembled a database of 90 rare CLCN4 missense variants in 90 families: 41 unique and 18 recurrent variants in 49 families. For 43 families, including 22 males and 33 females, we collated detailed clinical and segregation data. To confirm causality of variants and to obtain insight into disease mechanisms, we investigated the effect on electrophysiological properties of 59 of the variants in Xenopus oocytes using extended voltage and pH ranges. Detailed analyses revealed new pathophysiological mechanisms: 25% (15/59) of variants demonstrated LOF, characterized by a "shift" of the voltage-dependent activation to more positive voltages, and nine variants resulted in a toxic gain-of-function, associated with a disrupted gate allowing inward transport at negative voltages. Functional results were not always in line with in silico pathogenicity scores, highlighting the complexity of pathogenicity assessment for accurate genetic counselling. The complex neurocognitive and psychiatric manifestations of this condition, and hitherto under-recognized impacts on growth, gastrointestinal function, and motor control are discussed. Including published cases, we summarize features in 122 individuals from 67 families with CLCN4-related neurodevelopmental condition and suggest future research directions with the aim of improving the integrated care for individuals with this diagnosis.