Evaluation for Genetic Disorders in the Absence of a Clinical Indication for Testing

Whole-exome sequencing as the first-tier test for patients in neonatal intensive care unit: a Chinese single-center study

BACKGROUND

Genetic disorders significantly affect patients in neonatal intensive care units, where establishing a diagnosis can be challenging through routine tests and supplementary examinations. Whole-exome sequencing offers a molecular-based approach for diagnosing genetic disorders. This study aimed to assess the importance of whole-exome sequencing for neonates in intensive care through a retrospective observational study within a Chinese cohort.

METHODS

We gathered data from neonatal patients at Tianjin Children's Hospital between January 2018 and April 2021. These patients presented with acute illnesses and were suspected of having genetic disorders, which were investigated using whole-exome sequencing. Our retrospective analysis covered clinical data, genetic findings, and the correlation between phenotypes and genetic variations.

RESULTS

The study included 121 neonates. Disorders affected multiple organs or systems, predominantly the metabolic, neurological, and endocrine systems. The detection rate for whole-exome sequencing was 52.9% (64 out of 121 patients), identifying 84 pathogenic or likely pathogenic genetic variants in 64 neonates. These included 13 copy number variations and 71 single-nucleotide variants. The most frequent inheritance pattern was autosomal recessive (57.8%, 37 out of 64), followed by autosomal dominant (29.7%, 19 out of 64). In total, 40 diseases were identified through whole-exome sequencing.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the value and clinical utility of whole-exome sequencing as a primary diagnostic tool for neonates in intensive care units with suspected genetic disorders. Whole-exome sequencing not only aids in diagnosis but also offers significant benefits to patients and their families by providing clarity in uncertain diagnostic situations.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Elective genetic testing: Genetics professionals' perspectives and practices

Elective genetic testing (EGT) to identify disease risk in individuals who may or may not meet clinical criteria for testing is increasingly being offered in clinical practice. However, little is known about how EGT is currently implemented and how genetics professionals perceive this type of testing. We conducted a mixed-methods survey study to evaluate genetics professionals' perspectives and attitudes about EGT and describe the current landscape of EGT practices in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Six clinical geneticists and 131 genetic counselors responded to the online survey, among whom 44% reported offering EGT in their practice. Over 84% of survey respondents agreed that EGT may improve health outcomes and understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations, and 85% agreed that potential risks include result misinterpretation and contribution to economic health disparities. Though most respondents felt comfortable providing pretest (77%) and post-test (86%) counseling for EGT, lack of provider resources (such as time and personnel) and prioritization of diagnostic testing were cited most frequently in free-text responses as reasons for not offering EGT. Of those offering EGT, 88% reported positive overall experiences. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions identified benefits of EGT as expanding access to genetic testing, providing potential health benefits, and providing psychological benefits for patients. Disadvantages included prohibitive costs, limited clinical utility, and strain on resources. Overall, we found that genetics providers perceive both potential benefits and harms of EGT and that those offering this testing had generally positive experiences, although ethical reservations and practical limitations exist.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

A study of elective genome sequencing and pharmacogenetic testing in an unselected population

BACKGROUND

Genome sequencing (GS) of individuals without a medical indication, known as elective GS, is now available at a number of centers around the United States. Here we report the results of elective GS and pharmacogenetic panel testing in 52 individuals at a private genomics clinic in Alabama.

METHODS

Individuals seeking elective genomic testing and pharmacogenetic testing were recruited through a private genomics clinic in Huntsville, AL. Individuals underwent clinical genome sequencing with a separate pharmacogenetic testing panel.

RESULTS

Six participants (11.5%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants that may explain one or more aspects of their medical history. Ten participants (19%) had variants that altered the risk of disease in the future, including two individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Forty-four participants (85%) were carriers of a recessive or X-linked disorder. All individuals with pharmacogenetic testing had variants that affected current and/or future medications.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the importance of collecting detailed phenotype information to interpret results in elective GS.

Next-generation sequencing for constitutional variants in the clinical laboratory, 2021 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are now established in clinical laboratories as a primary testing modality in genomic medicine. These technologies have reduced the cost of large-scale sequencing by several orders of magnitude. It is now cost-effective to analyze an individual with disease-targeted gene panels, exome sequencing, or genome sequencing to assist in the diagnosis of a wide array of clinical scenarios. While clinical validation and use of NGS in many settings is established, there are continuing challenges as technologies and the associated informatics evolve. To assist clinical laboratories with the validation of NGS methods and platforms, the ongoing monitoring of NGS testing to ensure quality results, and the interpretation and reporting of variants found using these technologies, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) has developed the following technical standards.

Genetic counseling for patients with positive genomic screening results: Considerations for when the genetic test comes first

Emerging genetic testing delivery models have enabled individuals to receive testing without a medical indication. This article will highlight key considerations for patient care in the setting of adult patients with positive results for monogenic disease identified through genomic screening. Suggestions for how to adapt genetic counseling to a genomic screening population will encompass topics such as phenotyping, risk assessments, and the use of existing guidelines and resources. Case examples will demonstrate principles of genotype-first patient care.

Adopted individuals' interest in elective genomic testing

PURPOSE

Adoptees are a population that could benefit from genetic testing to fill gaps in family health history (FHH). Elective genomic testing (EGT) provides adoptees with clinical genetic testing options to learn about genetic health risks in the absence of FHH. We assessed adoptees' interests in, motivations for and perceived utility of EGT.

METHODS

Adult adoptees and non-adoptees completed an anonymous, online survey regarding their interest and motivations for EGT, perceived utility of potential results and willingness to pay for EGT. A validated measure of social identity was included to measure the effects of social identity on testing interest.

RESULTS

There were 112 adoptees and 229 non-adoptees included in the study. Adoptees reported greater interest in EGT (OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 11.3) than non-adoptees. They were motivated by curiosity and a desire to learn information about risks to children and grandchildren more than non-adoptees. Adoptees with higher education and non-adoptees with higher incomes were significantly more likely to spend more on EGT. Adoptees with higher incomes and non-adoptees with higher education were not significantly more likely to spend more. Social identity was a significant mediator between adoption and testing motivation.

CONCLUSION

Understanding adoptees' unique motivations and interests in EGT will allow healthcare providers to better address the informational needs and desires of this population. Social identity provides a foundation for recognising adoptees' universal experiences that influence motivations for genetic testing.

An online compendium of treatable genetic disorders

More than 4,000 genes have been associated with recognizable Mendelian/monogenic diseases. When faced with a new diagnosis of a rare genetic disorder, health care providers increasingly turn to internet resources for information to understand the disease and direct care. Unfortunately, it can be challenging to find information concerning treatment for rare diseases as key details are scattered across a number of authoritative websites and numerous journal articles. The website and associated mobile device application described in this article begin to address this challenge by providing a convenient, readily available starting point to find treatment information. The site, Rx-genes.com (https://www.rx-genes.com/), is focused on those conditions where the treatment is directed against the mechanism of the disease and thereby alters the natural history of the disease. The website currently contains 633 disease entries that include references to disease information and treatment guidance, a brief summary of treatments, the inheritance pattern, a disease frequency (if known), nonmolecular confirmatory testing (if available), and a link to experimental treatments. Existing entries are continuously updated, and new entries are added as novel treatments appear in the literature.

Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is positioned to become one of the most robust strategies for achieving timely diagnosis of rare genomic diseases. Despite its favorable diagnostic performance compared to conventional testing strategies, routine use and reimbursement of WGS are hampered by inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of clinical utility. For example, what constitutes clinical utility for WGS varies by stakeholder's perspective (physicians, patients, families, insurance companies, health-care organizations, and society), clinical context (prenatal, pediatric, critical care, adult medicine), and test purpose (diagnosis, screening, treatment selection). A rapidly evolving technology landscape and challenges associated with robust comparative study design in the context of rare disease further impede progress in this area of empiric research. To address this challenge, an expert working group of the Medical Genome Initiative was formed. Following a consensus-based process, we align with a broad definition of clinical utility and propose a conceptually-grounded and empirically-guided measurement toolkit focused on four domains of utility: diagnostic thinking efficacy, therapeutic efficacy, patient outcome efficacy, and societal efficacy. For each domain of utility, we offer specific indicators and measurement strategies. While we focus on diagnostic applications of WGS for rare germline diseases, this toolkit offers a flexible framework for best practices around measuring clinical utility for a range of WGS applications. While we expect this toolkit to evolve over time, it provides a resource for laboratories, clinicians, and researchers looking to characterize the value of WGS beyond the laboratory.

A Systematic Review of the Value Assessment Frameworks Used within Health Technology Assessment of Omics Technologies and Their Actual Adoption from HTA Agencies

BACKGROUND

Omics technologies, enabling the measurements of genes (genomics), mRNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics), are valuable tools for personalized decision-making. We aimed to identify the existing value assessment frameworks used by health technology assessment (HTA) doers for the evaluation of omics technologies through a systematic review.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve potential eligible articles published until 31 May 2020 in English. Additionally, through a desk research in HTA agencies' repositories, we retrieved the published reports on the practical use of these frameworks.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two frameworks, which addressed genetic and/or genomic technologies, were described. Most of them derived from the ACCE framework and evaluated the domains of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. We retrieved forty-five reports, which mainly addressed the commercial transcriptomic prognostics and next generation sequencing, and evaluated clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and description and technical characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

A value assessment framework for the HTA evaluation of omics technologies is not standardized and accepted, yet. Our work reports that the most evaluated domains are analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility and economic aspects.

Diagnostic gene sequencing panels: from design to report-a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Gene sequencing panels are a powerful diagnostic tool for many clinical presentations associated with genetic disorders. Advances in DNA sequencing technology have made gene panels more economical, flexible, and efficient. Because the genes included on gene panels vary widely between laboratories in gene content (e.g., number, reason for inclusion, evidence level for gene-disease association) and technical completeness (e.g., depth of coverage), standards that address technical and clinical aspects of gene panels are needed. This document serves as a technical standard for laboratories designing, offering, and reporting gene panel testing. Although these principles can apply to multiple indications for genetic testing, the primary focus is on diagnostic gene panels (as opposed to carrier screening or predictive testing) with emphasis on technical considerations for the specific genes being tested. This technical standard specifically addresses the impact of gene panel content on clinical sensitivity, specificity, and validity-in the context of gene evidence for contribution to and strength of evidence for gene-disease association-as well as technical considerations such as sequencing limitations, presence of pseudogenes/gene families, mosaicism, transcript choice, detection of copy-number variants, reporting, and disclosure of assay limitations.

Considerations for clinical curation, classification, and reporting of low-penetrance and low effect size variants associated with disease risk

PURPOSE

Clinically relevant variants exhibit a wide range of penetrance. Medical practice has traditionally focused on highly penetrant variants with large effect sizes and, consequently, classification and clinical reporting frameworks are tailored to that variant type. At the other end of the penetrance spectrum, where variants are often referred to as "risk alleles," traditional frameworks are no longer appropriate. This has led to inconsistency in how such variants are interpreted and classified. Here, we describe a conceptual framework to begin addressing this gap.

METHODS

We used a set of risk alleles to define data elements that can characterize the validity of reported disease associations. We assigned weight to these data elements and established classification categories expressing confidence levels. This framework was then expanded to develop criteria for inclusion of risk alleles on clinical reports.

RESULTS

Foundational data elements include cohort size, quality of phenotyping, statistical significance, and replication of results. Criteria for determining inclusion of risk alleles on clinical reports include presence of clinical management guidelines, effect size, severity of the associated phenotype, and effectiveness of intervention.

CONCLUSION

This framework represents an approach for classifying risk alleles and can serve as a foundation to catalyze community efforts for refinement.

Translating Risk of Consumer-Initiated Genetic Testing

This editorial highlights the article by Bick and colleagues that proposes a framework for evaluating elective genomic testing.