Clinical Cardiovascular Genetic Counselors Take a Leading Role in Team-based Variant Classification

The importance of variant reinterpretation in inherited cardiovascular diseases: Establishing the optimal timeframe

Inherited cardiovascular diseases are rare diseases that are difficult to diagnose by non-expert professionals. Genetic analyses play a key role in the diagnosis of these diseases, in which the identification of a pathogenic genetic variant is often a diagnostic criterion. Therefore, genetic variant classification and routine reinterpretation as data become available represent one of the main challenges associated with genetic analyses. Using the genetic variants identified in an inherited cardiovascular diseases unit during a 10-year period, the objectives of this study were: 1) to evaluate the impact of genetic variant reinterpretation, 2) to compare the reclassification rates between different cohorts of cardiac channelopathies and cardiomyopathies, and 3) to establish the most appropriate periodicity for genetic variant reinterpretation. All the evaluated cohorts (full cohort of inherited cardiovascular diseases, cardiomyopathies, cardiac channelopathies, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome, long QT syndrome and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia) showed reclassification rates above 25%, showing even higher reclassification rates when there is definitive evidence of the association between the gene and the disease in the cardiac channelopathies. Evaluation of genetic variant reclassification rates based on the year of the initial classification showed that the most appropriate frequency for the reinterpretation would be 2 years, with the possibility of a more frequent reinterpretation if deemed convenient. To keep genetic variant classifications up to date, genetic counsellors play a critical role in the reinterpretation process, providing clinical evidence that genetic diagnostic laboratories often do not have at their disposal and communicating changes in classification and the potential implications of these reclassifications to patients and relatives.

The Role of Genetics in the Management of Heart Failure Patients

Over the last decades, the relevance of genetics in cardiovascular diseases has expanded, especially in the context of cardiomyopathies. Its relevance extends to the management of patients diagnosed with heart failure (HF), given its capacity to provide invaluable insights into the etiology of cardiomyopathies and identify individuals at a heightened risk of poor outcomes. Notably, the identification of an etiological genetic variant necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of the family lineage of the affected patients. In the future, these genetic variants hold potential as therapeutic targets with the capability to modify gene expression. In this complex setting, collaboration among cardiologists, specifically those specializing in cardiomyopathies and HF, and geneticists becomes paramount to improving individual and family health outcomes, as well as therapeutic clinical results. This review is intended to offer geneticists and cardiologists an updated perspective on the value of genetic research in HF and its implications in clinical practice.

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.

Evolving cardiovascular genetic counseling needs in the era of precision medicine

In the era of Precision Medicine the approach to disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention is being transformed across medical specialties, including Cardiology, and increasingly involves genomics approaches. The American Heart Association endorses genetic counseling as an essential component in the successful delivery of cardiovascular genetics care. However, with the dramatic increase in the number of available cardiogenetic tests, the demand, and the test result complexity, there is a need not only for a greater number of genetic counselors but more importantly, for highly specialized cardiovascular genetic counselors. Consequently, there is a pressing need for advanced cardiovascular genetic counseling training, along with innovative online services, telemedicine, and patient-facing digital tools, as the most effective way forward. The speed of implementation of these reforms will be of essence in the translation of scientific advancements into measurable benefits for patients with heritable cardiovascular disease and their families.

Genetic counselor roles in the undiagnosed diseases network research study: Clinical care, collaboration, and curation

Genetic counselors (GCs) are increasingly filling important positions on research study teams, but there is limited literature describing the roles of GCs in these settings. GCs on the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) study team serve in a variety of roles across the research network and provide an opportunity to better understand genetic counselor roles in research. To quantitatively characterize the tasks regularly performed and professional fulfillment derived from these tasks, two surveys were administered to UDN GCs in a stepwise fashion. Responses from the first, free-response survey elicited the scope of tasks which informed development of a second structured, multiple-select survey. In survey 2, respondents were asked to select which roles they performed. Across 19 respondents, roles in survey 2 received a total of 947 selections averaging approximately 10 selections per role. When asked to indicate what roles they performed, respondent selected a mean of 50 roles (range 22-70). Survey 2 data were analyzed via thematic coding of responses and hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patterns in responses. From the thematic analysis, 20 non-overlapping codes emerged in seven categories: clinical interaction and care, communication, curation, leadership, participant management, research, and team management. Three themes emerged from the categories that represented the roles of GCs in the UDN: clinical care, collaboration, and curation. Cluster analyses showed that responses were more similar among individuals at the same institution than between institutions. This study highlights the ways GCs apply their unique skill set in the context of a clinical translational research network. Additionally, findings from this study reinforce the wide applicability of core skills that are part of genetic counseling training. Clinical literacy, genomics expertise and analysis, interpersonal, psychosocial and counseling skills, education, professional practice skills, and an understanding of research processes make genetic counselors well suited for such roles and poised to positively impact research experiences and outcomes for participants.

Cardiovascular Genetics: The Role of Genetics in Predicting Risk

Many cardiovascular disorders have underlying genetic causes. Clinical genetic testing for cardiovascular disease has become widely available and can be useful for diagnosis, management, and cascade screening in selected conditions and circumstances. This article gives an overview of the current state of genetic testing in inherited cardiovascular conditions, who can benefit from it, and the associated challenges.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

"The ultimate risk:" How clinicians assess the value and meaning of genetic data in cardiology

In modern medicine, health risks are often managed through the collection of health data and subsequent intervention. One of the goals of clinical genetics, for example, is to identify genetic predisposition to disease so that individuals can intervene to prevent potential harms. But recently, some clinicians have suggested that patients should undergo less testing and monitoring in an effort to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this paper, I explore how clinicians navigate the tension between identifying real disease risks for their patients with concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. I focus on clinicians ordering genetic testing for inherited cardiovascular diseases. Of the genes determined to be "clinically actionable" by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), half are related to cardiovascular diseases. But, due in part to high levels of uncertainty surrounding cardiovascular genetics, there is still disagreement within the field about how to order and interpret these tests. Based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 clinicians who order genetic testing for cardiovascular diseases, I find that there is considerable variability in the ways that clinicians determine which types of genetic tests are appropriate for their patients and how they interpret test results. Most importantly, I find that many providers do not presume that more genetic data will lead to better care. Instead, increased genetic data can lead to confusion and inappropriate treatment. This re-valuation of the utility of medical data is crucial for bioethicists to explore, especially as medical fields are sorting through increasing amounts of data.

Challenges in genetic testing: clinician variant interpretation processes and the impact on clinical care

PURPOSE

Efforts have been made to standardize laboratory variant interpretation, but clinicians are ultimately tasked with clinical correlation and application of genetic test results in patient care. This study aimed to explore processes clinicians utilize when reviewing and returning genetic test results, and how they impact patient care.

METHODS

Medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and nongenetics clinicians from two Midwestern states completed surveys (n = 98) and in-depth interviews (n = 29) on practices of reviewing and returning genetic test results. Retrospective chart review (n = 130) examined discordant interpretations and the impact on care.

RESULTS

Participants reported variable behaviors in both reviewing and returning results based on factors such as confidence, view of role, practice setting, and relationship with the lab. Providers did not report requesting changes to variant classifications from laboratories, but indicated relaying conflicting classifications to patients in some cases. Chart reviews revealed medically impactful differences in interpretation between laboratories and clinicians in 18 (13.8%) records.

CONCLUSION

Clinician practices for reviewing and integrating genetic test results into patient care vary within and between specialties and impact patient care. Strategies to better incorporate both laboratory and clinician expertise into interpretation of genetic results could result in improved care across providers and settings.

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families

This international multidisciplinary document intends to provide clinicians with evidence-based practical patient-centered recommendations for evaluating patients and decedents with (aborted) sudden cardiac arrest and their families. The document includes a framework for the investigation of the family allowing steps to be taken, should an inherited condition be found, to minimize further events in affected relatives. Integral to the process is counseling of the patients and families, not only because of the emotionally charged subject, but because finding (or not finding) the cause of the arrest may influence management of family members. The formation of multidisciplinary teams is essential to provide a complete service to the patients and their families, and the varied expertise of the writing committee was formulated to reflect this need. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. The recommendations were opened for public comment and reviewed by the relevant scientific and clinical document committees of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); the document underwent external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. While the recommendations are for optimal care, it is recognized that not all resources will be available to all clinicians. Nevertheless, this document articulates the evaluation that the clinician should aspire to provide for patients with sudden cardiac arrest, decedents with sudden unexplained death, and their families.

Variant Reinterpretation in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest With Preserved Ejection Fraction (the Cardiac Arrest Survivors With Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry) by Clinicians and Clinical Commercial Laboratories

BACKGROUND

Following an unexplained cardiac arrest, clinical genetic testing is increasingly becoming standard of care. Periodic review of variant classification is required, as reinterpretation can change the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of patients and their relatives.

METHODS

This study aimed to develop and validate a standardized algorithm to facilitate clinical application of the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines for the interpretation of genetic variants. The algorithm was applied to genetic results in the Cardiac Arrest Survivors With Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry, to assess the rate of variant reclassification over time. Variant classifications were then compared with the classifications of 2 commercial laboratories to determine the rate and identify sources of variant interpretation discordance.

RESULTS

Thirty-one percent of participants (40 of 131) had at least 1 genetic variant with a clinically significant reclassification over time. Variants of uncertain significance were more likely to be downgraded (73%) to benign than upgraded to pathogenic (27%; P=0.03). For the second part of the study, 50% (70 of 139) of variants had discrepant interpretations (excluding benign variants), provided by at least 1 team.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodic review of genetic variant classification is a key component of follow-up care given rapidly changing information in the field. There is potential for clinical care gaps with discrepant variant interpretations, based on the interpretation and application of current guidelines. The development of gene- and disease-specific guidelines and algorithms may provide an opportunity to further standardize variant interpretation reporting in the future. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00292032.

Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study

Genetic results are usually not returned to research participants in Uganda despite their increased demand. We report on researchers' perceptions and experiences of return of individual genetic research results. The study involved 15 in-depth interviews of investigators involved in genetics and/or genomic research. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. The four themes that emerged from the data were the need for return of individual results including incidental findings, community engagement and the consenting process, implications and challenges to return of individual results. While researchers are willing to return clinically significant genetic results to research participants, they remain unsure of how this should be implemented. Suggestions to aid implementation of return of results included reconsenting of participants before receiving individual genetic results and increasing access to genetic counseling services. Community engagement to determine community perceptions and individual preferences for the return of results, and also prepare participants to safely receive results emerged as another way to support return of results. Researchers have a positive attitude toward the return of clinically significant genetic results to research participants. There is need to develop national guidance on genetic research and also build capacity for clinical genetics and genetic counseling.

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families

This international multidisciplinary document intends to provide clinicians with evidence-based practical patient-centered recommendations for evaluating patients and decedents with (aborted) sudden cardiac arrest and their families. The document includes a framework for the investigation of the family allowing steps to be taken, should an inherited condition be found, to minimize further events in affected relatives. Integral to the process is counseling of the patients and families, not only because of the emotionally charged subject, but because finding (or not finding) the cause of the arrest may influence management of family members. The formation of multidisciplinary teams is essential to provide a complete service to the patients and their families, and the varied expertise of the writing committee was formulated to reflect this need. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. The recommendations were opened for public comment and reviewed by the relevant scientific and clinical document committees of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); the document underwent external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. While the recommendations are for optimal care, it is recognized that not all resources will be available to all clinicians. Nevertheless, this document articulates the evaluation that the clinician should aspire to provide for patients with sudden cardiac arrest, decedents with sudden unexplained death, and their families.

Impact of variant reclassification in the clinical setting of cardiovascular genetics

Genetic testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) has advanced over the past ten years, but these advancements have posed new challenges in variant classification. To address these challenges, ACMG/AMP published guidelines for variant interpretation in 2015. This study aimed to determine what impact these guidelines have on variant classification in clinical cardiovascular genetics. A retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent clinical genetic testing and had a variant identified in a gene associated with CVD. For each variant, systematic evidence review was performed and ACMG guidelines were applied for classification. These classifications were compared to those provided on patients' genetic test reports. This study identified 223 unique variants in 237 patients. Seventy-nine (35%) of the variants had classifications that differed from their clinical reports. Twenty-eight (35%) of these reclassifications would have changed medical management recommendations for 38 patients. Application of these guidelines resulted in reclassification for approximately one-third of the variants in this study. Clinicians can have a more active role in the process of variant classification. Variant classifications should be updated over time in the clinical CVD setting due to the impact reclassifications can have on clinical screening recommendations.

Evolving Roles of Genetic Counselors in the Clinical Laboratory

Genetic counselors (GCs) possess several core competencies that provide direct benefit in the clinical laboratory setting. Communication with clients about complex information such as test methodology or results and the skills of facilitation and translation of complex information were recognized as important skills early in the establishment of GCs in laboratories. The clinical expertise of GCs serves as the background and experience from which they facilitate complex laboratory cases. Early roles for GCs in the laboratory also included result reporting, case management, and test development. The scope of roles has broadened to include management, business development, education, telemedicine, research, and variant interpretation. With increasing value being placed on genetic counseling skills both in and outside of a clinical laboratory, the roles and positions of GCs will likely continue to expand.

Evaluation of Clinical Practices Related to Variants of Uncertain Significance Results in Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia and Inherited Cardiomyopathy Genes

Background:

Increasing use of genetic tests have identified many variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in genes associated with inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies. Evaluation of clinical practices, including medical management recommendations for VUS patients and their families, is important to prevent over- or under-treatment that may result in morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study is to describe practices related to VUS results including information and medical management recommendations providers give patients and their families.

Methods:

An anonymous online survey was distributed to genetic counselors (GCs) and cardiologists who have seen at least one patient for inherited arrhythmias or cardiomyopathies. The survey explored providers’ confidence in counseling, explanation of VUSs, topics covered before and after genetic testing, and clinical recommendations using a hypothetical scenario maximizing uncertainty with an unclear clinical and molecular diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and median confidence and likelihood of making various medical recommendations were compared across provider type.

Results:

Providers (N=102) who completed the survey included 29 cardiovascular GCs, 50 GCs from other specialties, and 23 cardiologists. GCs feel more confident than cardiologists counseling about VUS results ( P <0.001); while both cardiovascular GCs and cardiologists feel more confident than other GCs in providing input regarding medical management recommendations ( P =0.001 and P =0.01, respectively). Cardiologists were more likely than cardiac GCs to recommend clinical testing for family members even though testing in the scenario is expected to be uninformative.

Conclusions:

These findings illustrate how the expertise of different providers may impact decision processes, suggesting the need for interdisciplinary clinics to optimize care for challenging cases.

Changes in genetic variant results over time in pediatric cardiomyopathy and electrophysiology

Genetic testing for cardiac disorders continues to change. Our objective was to assess trends in variant classification in pediatric arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy. We conducted a retrospective review of patients tested for genetic arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy disorders from 2006-2017. Variants were classified by CLIA laboratories. Trends were assessed by the Spearman correlation. There were 914 variants in 583 patients from 337 families. The total number of tests ordered increased over time, accelerating after 2012. There was a strong positive correlation between the average number of genes tested per panel and year of testing (r = .97, p < .001) and a weak correlation between the year and a decrease in the percentage of clinically actionable variants (r = -.20, p = .005). By 2011, VUS represented >50% of variants reported on panels. Over 12 years, 203 genes were interrogated; one or more variants were reported in 91 of 203 genes (45%). 32% of patients had at least one clinically actionable variant; 28% had at least one VUS. Reclassification is an important long-term issue, with 21.5% variants changing clinical interpretation. We observed an increase over time in three areas: total number of tests ordered, average number of genes/panel, and percentage of VUS. Providers may need to interpret results from 90 + genes, and ongoing education is critical. Due to their specific training in test result interpretation, we recommend the inclusion of a genetic counselor in pediatric electrophysiology and cardiomyopathy teams.

A Person-Centered Approach to Cardiovascular Genetic Testing

Cardiovascular genetic counselors provide guidance to people facing the reality or prospect of inherited cardiovascular conditions. Key activities in this role include discussing clinical cardiac screening for at-risk family members and offering genetic testing. Psychological factors often influence whether patients choose to have genetic testing and how they understand and communicate the results to at-risk relatives, so psychological counseling increases the impact of genetic education and medical recommendations. This work reviews the literature on the factors that influence patient decisions about cardiovascular genetic testing and the psychological impact of results on people who opt to test. It also models use of a psychological framework to apply themes from the literature to routine cardiovascular genetic counseling practice. Modifications of the framework are provided to show how it can be adapted to serve the needs of both new and experienced genetic counselors.

Clinical and genetic evaluation after sudden cardiac arrest

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) can be attributed to cardiac, respiratory, metabolic, and toxicologic etiologies. Most cases of SCD are caused by coronary artery disease and approximately 40% of cardiac arrests are unexplained. Inherited arrythmias and cardiomyopathies are important contributors to SCA and SCD. Identifying an inherited condition after such an event not only has important ramifications for the individual, but also for relatives who may be at risk for the familial condition. This review will provide an overview of inherited cardiovascular disorders than can predispose to SCA/SCD, review the diagnostic evaluation for an individual and/or family after an SCA/SCD, and discuss the role of genetic testing.

Genetics of syndromic and nonsyndromic aortopathies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the literature and provide a summary of management of syndromic and nonsyndromic aortopathies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of newly identified genetic causes for aortopathies have continued to increase over the past 10 years. The number of reported individuals with most hereditary aneurysm genes is small but increasing with more publications focusing describing the natural history caused by each gene.

SUMMARY

Aortopathy can present as an isolated finding or present as part of a larger genetic syndrome. Advances in genetic testing technology has shed light on the increasing importance of molecular diagnostics in the evaluation and management of patients with hereditary aortic disease. Molecular diagnostics and family phenotyping can aide in the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients with aortic disease.

Variant interpretation is a component of clinical practice among genetic counselors in multiple specialties

PURPOSE

Genomic testing is routinely utilized across clinical settings and can have significant variant interpretation challenges. The extent of genetic counselor (GC) engagement in variant interpretation in clinical practice is unknown. This study aimed to explore clinical GCs' variant interpretation practice across specialties, understand outcomes of this practice, and identify resource and educational needs.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to National Society of Genetic Counselors members providing clinical counseling.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 239) represented all major clinical specialties. The majority (68%) reported reviewing evidence documented by the laboratory for most (>60%) variants reported; 45.5% report seeking additional evidence. Prenatal GCs were less likely to independently assess reported evidence. Most respondents (67%) report having reached a different conclusion about a variant's classification than the testing laboratory, though infrequently. Time was the most commonly reported barrier (72%) to performing variant interpretation, though the majority (97%) indicated that this practice had an important impact on patient care. When presented with three hypothetical scenarios, evidence typically used for variant interpretation was generally applied correctly.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to document variant interpretation practice broadly across clinical GC specialties. Our results suggest that variant interpretation should be considered a practice-based competency for GCs.

Opportunities, resources, and techniques for implementing genomics in clinical care

Advances in technologies for assessing genomic variation and an increasing understanding of the effects of genomic variants on health and disease are driving the transition of genomics from the research laboratory into clinical care. Genomic medicine, or the use of an individual's genomic information as part of their clinical care, is increasingly gaining acceptance in routine practice, including in assessing disease risk in individuals and their families, diagnosing rare and undiagnosed diseases, and improving drug safety and efficacy. We describe the major types and measurement tools of genomic variation that are currently of clinical importance, review approaches to interpreting genomic sequence variants, identify publicly available tools and resources for genomic test interpretation, and discuss several key barriers in using genomic information in routine clinical 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.

Establishment of Specialized Clinical Cardiovascular Genetics Programs: Recognizing the Need and Meeting Standards: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular genetics is a rapidly evolving subspecialty within cardiovascular medicine, and its growth is attributed to advances in genome sequencing and genetic testing and the expanding understanding of the genetic basis of multiple cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias (channelopathies), heart failure (cardiomyopathies), lipid disorders, cardiac complications of neuromuscular conditions, and vascular disease, including aortopathies. There have also been great advances in clinical diagnostic methods, as well as in therapies to ameliorate symptoms, slow progression of disease, and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. Emerging challenges include interpretation of genetic test results and the evaluation, counseling, and management of genetically at-risk family members who have inherited pathogenic variants but do not yet manifest disease. With these advances and challenges, there is a need for specialized programs combining both cardiovascular medicine and genetics expertise. The integration of clinical cardiovascular findings, including those obtained from physical examination, imaging, and functional assessment, with genetic information allows for improved diagnosis, prognostication, and cascade family testing to identify and to manage risk, and in some cases to provide genotype-specific therapy. This emerging subspecialty may ultimately require a new cardiovascular subspecialist, the genetic cardiologist, equipped with these combined skills, to permit interpretation of genetic variation within the context of phenotype and to extend the utility of genetic testing. This scientific statement outlines current best practices for delivering cardiovascular genetic evaluation and care in both the pediatric and the adult settings, with a focus on team member expertise and conditions that most benefit from genetic evaluation.

Developing a genomics rotation: Practical training around variant interpretation for genetic counseling students

With the wide adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based genetic tests, genetic counselors require increased familiarity with NGS technology, variant interpretation concepts, and variant assessment tools. The use of exome and genome sequencing in clinical care has expanded the reach and diversity of genetic testing. Regardless of the setting where genetic counselors are performing variant interpretation or reporting, most of them have learned these skills from colleagues, while on the job. Though traditional, lecture-based learning around these topics is important, there has been growing need for the inclusion of case-based, experiential training of genomics and variant interpretation for genetic counseling students, with the goal of creating a strong foundation in variant interpretation for new genetic counselors, regardless of what area of practice they enter. To address this need, we established a genomics and variant interpretation rotation for Stanford's genetic counseling training program. In response to changes in the genomics landscape, this has now evolved into three unique rotation experiences, each focused on variant interpretation in the context of various genomic settings, including clinical laboratory, research laboratory, and healthy genomic analysis studies. Here, we describe the goals and learning objectives that we have developed for these variant interpretation rotations, and illustrate how these concepts are applied in practice.

Clinically impactful differences in variant interpretation between clinicians and testing laboratories: a single-center experience

PurposeTo describe the frequency and nature of differences in variant classifications between clinicians and genetic testing laboratories.MethodsRetrospective review of variants identified through genetic testing ordered in routine clinical care by clinicians in the Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease. We compared classifications made by clinicians, the testing laboratory, and other laboratories in ClinVar.ResultsOf 688 laboratory classifications, 124 (18%) differed from the clinicians' classifications. Most differences in classification would probably affect clinical care of the patient and/or family (83%, 103/124). The frequency of discordant classifications differed depending on the testing laboratory (P < 0.0001) and the testing laboratory's classification (P < 0.00001). For the majority (82/124, 66%) of discordant classifications, clinicians were more conservative (less likely to classify a variant pathogenic or likely pathogenic). The clinicians' classification was discordant with one or more submitter in ClinVar in 49.1% (28/57) of cases, while the testing laboratory's classification was discordant with a ClinVar submitter in 82.5% of cases (47/57, P = 0.0002).ConclusionThe clinical team disagreed with the laboratory's classification at a rate similar to that of reported disagreements between laboratories. Most of this discordance was clinically significant, with clinicians tending to be more conservative than laboratories in their classifications.