Characterization of variant reclassification and patient re-contact in a cancer genetics clinic

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Variant reclassification and clinical implications

Genomic technologies have transformed clinical genetic testing, underlining the importance of accurate molecular genetic diagnoses. Variant classification, ranging from benign to pathogenic, is fundamental to these tests. However, variant reclassification, the process of reassigning the pathogenicity of variants over time, poses challenges to diagnostic legitimacy. This review explores the medical and scientific literature available on variant reclassification, focusing on its clinical implications.Variant reclassification is driven by accruing evidence from diverse sources, leading to variant reclassification frequency ranging from 3.6% to 58.8%. Recent studies have shown that significant changes can occur when reviewing variant classifications within 1 year after initial classification, illustrating the importance of early, accurate variant assignation for clinical care.Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are particularly problematic. They lack clear categorisation but have influenced patient treatment despite recommendations against it. Addressing VUS reclassification is essential to enhance the credibility of genetic testing and the clinical impact. Factors affecting reclassification include standardised guidelines, clinical phenotype-genotype correlations through deep phenotyping and ancestry studies, large-scale databases and bioinformatics tools. As genomic databases grow and knowledge advances, reclassification rates are expected to change, reducing discordance in future classifications.Variant reclassification affects patient diagnosis, precision therapy and family screening. The exact patient impact is yet unknown. Understanding influencing factors and adopting standardised guidelines are vital for precise molecular genetic diagnoses, ensuring optimal patient care and minimising clinical risk.

Principles of Genetic Counseling in Inherited Heart Conditions

Cardiac genetic counseling is the process of helping individuals adapt to a personal diagnosis or family history of an inherited heart condition. The process is shown to benefit patients and includes specialized skills, such as counseling children and interpreting complex genetic results. Emerging areas include: evolving service delivery models for caring for patients and communicating risk to relatives, new areas of need including postmortem molecular autopsy, and new populations of individuals found to carry a likely pathogenic/pathogenic cardiac variant identified through genomic screening. This article provides an overview of the cardiac genetic counseling process and evolving areas in the field.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

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.