All Along the Watchtower: a Case of Long QT Syndrome Misdiagnosis Secondary to Genetic Testing Misinterpretation

Underrepresentation of Diverse Ancestries Drives Uncertainty in Genetic Variants Found in Cardiomyopathy-Associated Genes

BACKGROUND

Thousands of genetic variants have been identified in cardiomyopathy-associated genes. Diagnostic genetic testing is key for evaluation of individuals with suspected cardiomyopathy. While accurate variant pathogenicity assignment is important for diagnosis, the frequency of and factors associated with clinically relevant assessment changes are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to characterize pathogenicity assignment change in cardiomyopathy-associated genes and to identify factors associated with this change.

METHODS

We identified 10 sarcomeric and 6 desmosomal genetic cardiomyopathy-associated genes along with comparison gene sets. We analyzed clinically meaningful changes in pathogenicity assignment between any of the following: pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP), conflicting interpretations of pathogenicity or variant of unknown significance (C/VUS), and benign/likely benign. We explored association of minor allele frequency (MAF) differences between well, and traditionally poorly, represented ancestries in genetic studies with assessment stability. Analyses were performed using ClinVar and GnomAD data.

RESULTS

Of the 30,975 cardiomyopathy-associated gene variants in ClinVar, 2,276 of them (7.3%) had a clinically meaningful change in pathogenicity assignment over the study period, 2011 to 2021. Sixty-seven percent of variants that underwent a clinically significant change moved from P/LP or benign/likely benign to C/VUS. Among cardiomyopathy variants downgraded from P/LP, 35% had a MAF above 1 × 10 -4 in non-Europeans and below 1 × 10 -4 in Europeans.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 10 years, 7.3% of cardiomyopathy gene variants underwent a clinically meaningful change in pathogenicity assignment. Over 30% of downgrades from P/LP may be attributable to higher MAF in Non-Europeans than Europeans. This finding suggests that low ancestral diversity in genetic studies has increased diagnostic uncertainty in cardiomyopathy gene variants.

A descriptive investigation of clinical practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors in North America

Cardiovascular genetic counseling has expanded as an established genetic counseling specialty over the last 20 years. Despite guidelines recommending genetic counseling for heritable cardiac diseases, there have been limited descriptions of the practice model types used for different clinical indications seen in this genetic counseling subspecialty. We aimed to describe current clinical practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors and to document practice model strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement. Genetic counselor respondents (n = 63) who self-reported seeing cardiovascular indications were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors and Twitter. They completed a survey describing the types of healthcare professionals with whom they collaborate to see common cardiovascular indications, the nature of their collaboration, and their qualitative experiences with their practice models. Clinical indications addressed in this survey were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, all other cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, aortopathies, dyslipidemias, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and congenital heart defects. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. We found that the composition of multidisciplinary provider practice models varies by indication, though general cardiologists were the most common collaborative provider reported. Practice models including geneticists were most common for aortopathy indications. Overall, the majority of respondents were satisfied with the practice models they reported. While a wide variety of successes, challenges, and areas for improvement of practice models were reported, collaboration, communication, and access to appropriate providers for patient care were consistent themes across these three questions. To our knowledge, this is the first description of practice models used by cardiovascular genetic counselors. The results of this study add to the knowledge of this specialty of genetic counseling and assist in understanding the needs and challenges for developing cardiovascular genetics programs and clinics.

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.

Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results

The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.