Development of Criteria for Epilepsy Genetic Testing in Ontario, Canada

Accessibility, availability and common practices regarding genetic testing for epilepsy across Europe: A survey of the European Reference Network EpiCARE

OBJECTIVE

The increasingly rapid pace of advancement in genetic testing may lead to inequalities in technical and human resources with a negative impact on optimal epilepsy clinical practice. In this view, the European Reference Network (ERN) for Rare and Complex Epilepsies EpiCARE conducted a survey addressing several aspects of accessibility, availability, costs, and standard practices on genetic testing across ERN EpiCARE centers.

METHODS

An online Google form was sent to 70 representatives of ERN EpiCARE centers. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis were used for data presentation.

RESULTS

We received 45 responses (1/center) representing 23 European countries with a better representation of Western Europe. Forty-five percent of the centers did not have access to all available types of genetic testing, mainly reflecting the limited availability of whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Thirty-five percent of centers report cost coverage only for some of the available tests, while costs per test varied significantly (interquartile range IQR ranging from 150 to 1173 euros per test across centers). Urgent genetic testing is available in 71.7% of countries (time-to-urgent result: 2 day to 2 months). The average time-to-result of specific tests in case of non-urgent prescription has a significant variance across centers, with the biggest range observed for whole-exome sequencing (6-128 weeks, IQR: 27 weeks). The percentage of agreement among the experts regarding the choice of genetic test at first intention in specific clinical situations was in all cases less than 50 percent (34.9% to 47% according to the proposed scenarios).

SIGNIFICANCE

Costs, time to deliver the results to the clinician, and type of first-line genetic testing vary widely across Europe, even in countries where ERN EpiCARE centers are present. Increased availability of genetic tests and guidance for optimal test choices in epilepsy remains essential to avoid diagnostic delays and excess health costs.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The survey of the ERN EpiCARE highlights disparities in genetic testing for epilepsy across 45 ERN EpiCARE centers in 23 European countries. The findings reveal variable access to certain genetic tests, with lowest access to WGS. Costs and time-to-results vary widely. Urgent genetic testing is available in 71.7% of countries. Agreement among experts on first-line genetic tests for specific patient scenarios is below 50%. The study emphasizes the need for improved test availability and guidance to avoid diagnostic delays and unnecessary costs. EpiCARE has the mission to contribute in homogenizing best practices across Europe.

Genetic Testing in Pediatric Epilepsy: Tools, Tips, and Navigating the Traps

With the advent of high-throughput sequencing and computational methods, genetic testing has become an integral part of contemporary clinical practice, particularly in epilepsy. The toolbox for genetic testing has evolved from conventional chromosomal microarray and epilepsy gene panels to state-of-the-art sequencing techniques in the modern genomic era. Beyond its potential for therapeutic benefits through precision medicine, optimizing the choice of antiseizure medications, or exploring nonpharmacological therapeutic modalities, genetic testing carries substantial diagnostic, prognostic, and personal implications. Developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, the coexistence of neurodevelopmental comorbidities, early age of epilepsy onset, unexplained drug-refractory epilepsy, and positive family history have demonstrated the highest likelihood of yielding positive genetic test results. Given the diagnostic efficacy across different testing modalities, reducing costs of next-generation sequencing tests, and genetic diversity of epilepsies, exome sequencing or genome sequencing, where feasible and available, have been recommended as the first-tier test. Comprehensive clinical phenotyping at the outset, corroborative evidence from radiology and electrophysiology-based investigations, reverse phenotyping, and periodic reanalysis are some of the valuable strategies when faced with inconclusive test results. In this narrative review, the authors aim to simplify the approach to genetic testing in epilepsy by guiding on the selection of appropriate testing tools in the indicated clinical scenarios, addressing crucial aspects during pre- and post-test counseling sessions, adeptly navigating the traps posed by uncertain or negative genetic variants, and paving the way forward to the emerging testing modalities beyond DNA sequencing.

Yield and Utility of Routine Epilepsy Panel Genetic Testing Among Young Patients With Seizures

Objective: We examined the yield of routine epilepsy panel genetic testing in pediatric patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed epilepsy genetic panel results routinely performed in the hospital or clinic on patients <8 years old from July 2021 to July 2023. We evaluated demographics, family history, seizure type, severity, and frequency, development, tone and movement abnormalities, dysmorphism, and electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results as predictors of results. Results: 65 patients were included with mean age 4.5 years. Sixty percent of patients were male; 11 patients had pathogenic variants (16.9%), 7 were carriers for autosomal recessive conditions (10.8%), 36 had variants of uncertain significance (55.4%), and 11 tested negative (16.9%). Pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance were unassociated with demographics, clinical features, imaging, or family history. Conclusion: Variants identified have potential implications for treatment (SCN1), comorbidity screening (TSC1), reproduction (ATAD1, PSAT1, and CLN8), and prognostication (FOXG1). Patients not routinely screened for a genetic cause of epilepsy by our standard practices had clinically relevant results.

Experiences of adults living with refractory epilepsy and their views and expectations on receiving results from whole genome sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Researchers, clinicians and patients are turning to new innovations in research and clinical practice to further their knowledge in the genetic domain and improve diagnostics or treatment. However, with increased knowledge in genetics, societal issues may arise. Being conscious of these issues is crucial in order to implement standardized and efficient testing on a wider scale that is accessible to a greater number of individuals while simultaneously returning test results, including incidental findings, in a timely manner.

METHODS

Within the framework of a genomics research project, we invited 20 participants who suffer from refractory epilepsy to provide insight on their personal experiences with epilepsy, as well as their thoughts on receiving Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) results and with whom they would feel comfortable sharing these results with.

RESULTS

All participants had their own unique experience with epilepsy, such as how they handled their diagnosis, their struggles following the diagnosis, the healthcare services they received, how they shared their diagnosis with others, and how they managed stigmatization from others. Most participants would be eager to know their WGS results, whether the results be related to epilepsy (n = 19), response to pharmaceutical drugs including AEDs (n = 16), comorbidities (n = 19) and incidental findings (n = 15).

CONCLUSION

Our findings reinforce the need to improve access to genetic testing for epilepsy patients in clinical settings. Furthermore, while acquiring more genetic knowledge (i.e. WGS) about epilepsy can provide answers for the affected population, it also requires the simultaneous involvement of several medical disciplines, with greater emphasis on genetic and psychological counseling.

Genotype-Phenotype Analysis of Children with Epilepsy Referred for Whole-Exome Sequencing at a Tertiary Care University Hospital

BACKGROUND

Despite the high consanguinity rates, data on genetic epilepsy in Saudi Arabia is limited. The objective of the current study was to characterize genetic mutations associated with epilepsy in pediatric patients and describe their phenotypic presentations.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted among children presented with epilepsy in one center in Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2018. Only those who had undergone genetic testing were included.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients had positive whole-exome sequencing (WES) genetic testing with 37 mutations. Six mutations (SCN1A, DENND5A, KCNQ2, ACY1, SCN2A, and PCDH19) were repeated in 15 patients, with largely heterogeneous phenotypic presentations in patients with the same mutation. Several mutations are reported for the first time in Saudi Arabia. The median age at epilepsy onset was four months. Consanguineous parents and family history of epilepsy were frequent (31.8% and 33.3%, respectively). Developmental delay (44.4%), cognitive delay (42.2%), language delay (40.0%), behavioral features (28.9%), and microcephaly (20.0%) were frequent presentations. At initial diagnosis, 68.9% of EEG and 48.9% of brain MRI were abnormal. The most currently used antiseizure medications (ASMs) were levetiracetam (48.9%), topiramate (28.9%), and valproic acid (20.0%). Approximately 60% of the patients were controlled with (47.6%) or without (11.9%) ASMs, and three (7.1%) patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple mutations among children with epilepsy are reported in one hospital in Saudi Arabia, with the majority reported for the first time. The current findings highlight the importance of doing genetic testing for the evaluation of childhood epilepsy.

Genetic Testing to Inform Epilepsy Treatment Management From an International Study of Clinical Practice

Importance

It is currently unknown how often and in which ways a genetic diagnosis given to a patient with epilepsy is associated with clinical management and outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate how genetic diagnoses in patients with epilepsy are associated with clinical management and outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between March 18, 2016, and August 3, 2020, with outcomes reported between May and November 2020. The study setting included a commercial genetic testing laboratory and multicenter clinical practices. Patients with epilepsy, regardless of sociodemographic features, who received a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant were included in the study. Case report forms were completed by all health care professionals.

Exposures

Genetic test results.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical management changes after a genetic diagnosis (ie, 1 P/LP variant in autosomal dominant and X-linked diseases; 2 P/LP variants in autosomal recessive diseases) and subsequent patient outcomes as reported by health care professionals on case report forms.

Results

Among 418 patients, median (IQR) age at the time of testing was 4 (1-10) years, with an age range of 0 to 52 years, and 53.8% (n = 225) were female individuals. The mean (SD) time from a genetic test order to case report form completion was 595 (368) days (range, 27-1673 days). A genetic diagnosis was associated with changes in clinical management for 208 patients (49.8%) and usually (81.7% of the time) within 3 months of receiving the result. The most common clinical management changes were the addition of a new medication (78 [21.7%]), the initiation of medication (51 [14.2%]), the referral of a patient to a specialist (48 [13.4%]), vigilance for subclinical or extraneurological disease features (46 [12.8%]), and the cessation of a medication (42 [11.7%]). Among 167 patients with follow-up clinical information available (mean [SD] time, 584 [365] days), 125 (74.9%) reported positive outcomes, 108 (64.7%) reported reduction or elimination of seizures, 37 (22.2%) had decreases in the severity of other clinical signs, and 11 (6.6%) had reduced medication adverse effects. A few patients reported worsening of outcomes, including a decline in their condition (20 [12.0%]), increased seizure frequency (6 [3.6%]), and adverse medication effects (3 [1.8%]). No clinical management changes were reported for 178 patients (42.6%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that genetic testing of individuals with epilepsy may be materially associated with clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes.

A Multi-Disciplinary Team Approach to Genomic Testing for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Patients—The GENIE Study

Background. The genomic era has led to enormous progress in clinical care and a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach is imperative for integration of genomics into epilepsy patient care. Methods. The MDT approach involved patient selection, genomic testing choice, variant discussions and return of results. Genomics analysis included cytogenomic testing and whole exome sequencing (WES). Neurologist surveys were undertaken at baseline and after genomic testing to determine if genomic diagnoses would alter their management, and if there was a change in confidence in genomic testing and neurologist perceptions of the MDT approach. Results. The total diagnostic yield from all genomic testing was 17% (11/66), with four diagnoses from cytogenomic analyses. All chromosomal microarray (CMA) diagnoses were in patients seen by adult neurologists. Diagnostic yield for WES was 11% (7/62). The most common gene with pathogenic variants was DCX, reported in three patients, of which two were mosaic. The genomic diagnosis impacted management in 82% (9/11). There was increased confidence with integrating genomics into clinical care (Pearson chi square = 83, p = 0.004) and qualitative comments were highly supportive of the MDT approach. Conclusions. We demonstrated diagnostic yield from genomic testing, and the impact on management in a cohort with drug-resistant epilepsy. The MDT approach increased confidence in genomic testing and neurologists valued the input from this approach. The utility of CMA was demonstrated in epilepsy patients seen by adult neurologists as was the importance of considering mosaicism for previously undiagnosed patients.

The Benefit of Multigene Panel Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of the Genetic Epilepsies

With the increasing use of genetic testing in pediatric epilepsy, it is important to describe the diagnostic outcomes as they relate to clinical care. The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield and impact on patient care of genetic epilepsy panel testing. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) who had genetic testing between the years of 2013–2020. We identified 227 patients that met criteria for inclusion. The majority of patients had their testing performed as “out-of-province” tests since province-based testing during this period was limited. The diagnostic yield for multi-gene epilepsy panel testing was 17% (39/227) and consistent with the literature. Variants of unknown significance (VUS) were reported in a significant number of undiagnosed individuals (77%; 128/163). A higher diagnostic rate was observed in patients with a younger age of onset of seizures (before one year of age; 32%; 29/90). A genetic diagnosis informed prognosis, recurrence risk counselling and expedited access to resources in all those with a diagnosis. A direct change in clinical management as a result of the molecular diagnosis was evident for 9% (20/227) of patients. The information gathered in this study provides evidence of the clinical benefits of genetic testing in epilepsy and serves as a benchmark for comparison with the current provincial Ontario Epilepsy Genetic Testing Program (OEGTP) that began in 2020.

Usage of Genetic Panels in an Adult Epilepsy Clinic

BACKGROUND

There is limited data on the utility, yield, and cost efficiency of genetic testing in adults with epilepsy. We aimed to describe the yield and utility of genetic panels in our adult epilepsy clinic.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study of all patients followed by an epileptologist at a Canadian tertiary care centre's epilepsy clinic between January 2016 and August 2021 for whom a genetic panel was ordered. A panel was generally ordered when the etiology was unknown or in the presence of a malformation of cortical development. We determined the yield of panel positivity and of confirmed genetic diagnoses. We also estimated the proportion of these diagnoses that were clinically actionable.

RESULTS

In total, 164 panels were ordered in 164 patients. Most had refractory epilepsy (80%), and few had comorbid intellectual disability (10%) or a positive family history of epilepsy (11%). The yield of panel positivity was 11%. Panel results were uncertain 49% of the time and negative 40% of the time. Genetic diagnoses were confirmed in 7 (4.3%) patients. These genetic conditions involved the following genes: SCARB2, DEPDC5, PCDH19, LGI1, SCN1A, MT-TL1, and CHRNA7. Of the seven genetic diagnoses, 5 (71%) were evaluated to be clinically actionable.

CONCLUSION

We report a lower diagnostic yield for genetic panels in adults with epilepsy than what has so far been reported. Although the field of the genetics of epilepsy is a fast-moving one and more data is required, our findings suggest that guidelines for genetic testing in adults are warranted.

Multigene Panel Testing in a Large Cohort of Adults With Epilepsy: Diagnostic Yield and Clinically Actionable Genetic Findings

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although genetic testing among children with epilepsy has demonstrated clinical utility and become a part of routine testing, studies in adults are limited. This study reports the diagnostic yield of genetic testing in adults with epilepsy.

METHODS

Unrelated individuals aged 18 years and older who underwent diagnostic genetic testing for epilepsy using a comprehensive, next-generation sequencing-based, targeted gene panel (range 89-189 genes) were included in this cross-sectional study. Clinical information, provided at the discretion of the ordering clinician, was reviewed and analyzed. Diagnostic yield was calculated for all individuals including by age at seizure onset and comorbidities based on clinician-reported information. The proportion of individuals with clinically actionable genetic findings, including instances when a specific treatment would be indicated or contraindicated due to a diagnostic finding, was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 2,008 individuals, a diagnostic finding was returned for 218 adults (10.9%), with clinically actionable findings in 55.5% of diagnoses. The highest diagnostic yield was in adults with seizure onset during infancy (29.6%, 0-1 year), followed by in early childhood (13.6%, 2-4 years), late childhood (7.0%, 5-10 years), adolescence (2.4%, 11-17 years), and adulthood (3.7%, ≥18 years). Comorbid intellectual disability (ID) or developmental delay resulted in a high diagnostic yield (16.0%), most notably for females (19.6% in females vs 12.3% in males). Among individuals with pharmacoresistant epilepsy, 13.5% had a diagnostic finding, and of these, 57.4% were clinically actionable genetic findings.

DISCUSSION

These data reinforce the utility of genetic testing for adults with epilepsy, particularly for those with childhood-onset seizures, ID, and pharmacoresistance. This is an important consideration due to longer survival and the complexity of the transition from pediatric to adult care. In addition, more than half of diagnostic findings in this study were considered clinically actionable, suggesting that genetic testing could have a direct impact on clinical management and outcomes.

Access to genetic testing for rare diseases: Existing gaps in public-facing information

Genetic testing plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and potential treatment of inherited and rare conditions, such as aniridia-a disease that leads to abnormal eye development, as well as in health research on these conditions. As genetic testing is increasingly sought for accurate and early diagnosis of rare genetic disorders and in the context of direct-to-consumer genomics, it is critical to examine the public-facing information about access to these services and reimbursement policies. We conducted a targeted policy and public-facing resource search. Our analysis of resources available for the patient community revealed that there is very little practical guidance available about access and reimbursement for genetic testing for rare diseases. Greater clarity in public-facing resources about genetic testing would be beneficial to the patient community as it would promote informed choices about the procedure, mitigate potential harms associated with lack of information and enable patient engagement in their own health care.

Early-Onset Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies of Infancy: An Overview of the Genetic Basis and Clinical Features

Our current knowledge of genetically determined forms of epilepsy has shortened the diagnostic pathway usually experienced by the families of infants diagnosed with early-onset developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. Genetic causes can be found in up to 80% of infants presenting with early-onset developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, often in the context of an uneventful perinatal history and with no clear underlying brain abnormalities. Although current disease-specific therapies remain limited and patient outcomes are often guarded, a genetic diagnosis may lead to early therapeutic intervention using new and/or repurposed therapies. In this review, an overview of epilepsy genetics, the indications for genetic testing in infants, the advantages and limitations of each test, and the challenges and ethical implications of genetic testing are discussed. In addition, the following causative genes associated with early-onset developmental and epileptic encephalopathies are discussed in detail: KCNT1, KCNQ2, KCNA2, SCN2A, SCN8A, STXBP1, CDKL5, PIGA, SPTAN1, and GNAO1. The epilepsy phenotypes, comorbidities, electroencephalgraphic findings, neuroimaging findings, and potential targeted therapies for each gene are reviewed.

Absence Seizures in Children: Usual and the Unusual

Absence seizures are commonly encountered in clinical practice. The diagnosis is usually straightforward in majority of cases. However, it may be challenging in patients with some atypical clinical or EEG features or less common epilepsy syndromes. This narrative review describes the clinical and EEG features, treatment and prognosis of the usual and the unusual epilepsy syndromes associated with absence seizures. Absence status epilepticus is also discussed briefly.

Genetic Testing in Epilepsy

Because of next-generation sequencing and the discovery of many new causative genes, genetic testing in epilepsy patients has become widespread. Pathologic variants resulting in epilepsy cause a variety of changes that can be broadly classified into syndromic disorders (i.e., chromosomal abnormalities), metabolic disorders, brain malformations, and abnormal cellular signaling. Here, we review the available genetic testing, reasons to pursue genetic testing, common genetic causes of epilepsy, the data behind what patients are found to have genetic epilepsies based on current testing, and discussing these results with patients. We propose an algorithm for testing patients with epilepsy to maximize yield and limit costs based on their phenotype (including electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging findings), age of seizure onset, and presence of other neurologic comorbidities. Being able to discern which type of genetic testing to order, using that information to give targeted and cost-effective patient care, and interpreting results accurately will be a crucial skill for the modern neurologist.

Genetic Testing in Children with Epilepsy: Report of a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Retrospective observational study to determine diagnostic yield and utility of genetic testing in children with epilepsy attending the Epilepsy Clinic at Children's Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Children (birth-18 years) with epilepsy, who were seen in a 10-year period (January 1, 2008-March 31, 2018), were selected using defined inclusion criteria and by combining clinic datasets and laboratory records.

RESULTS

In total, 105 children (52.38% male and 47.61% female) with a variety of seizures were included in the analysis. Developmental delay was documented in the majority (83; 79.04%). Overall, a genetic diagnosis was established in 24 (22.85%) children. The diagnostic yield was highest for whole-exome sequencing (WES), at 35.71%. The yield from microarray was 8.33%. Yields of single-gene testing (18.60%) and targeted multigene panel testing (19.23%) were very similar. Several likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants not previously reported were identified and categorized using ACMG criteria. All diagnosed patients underwent a review of anti-seizure medication management and received counseling on natural history of their disease, possible complications, recurrence risks, and possibilities of preimplantation or prenatal genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the multiple benefits of detecting a genetic etiology in children with epilepsy. Similar yields in single versus multigene testing underscore the importance of accurate clinical phenotyping. Patients with epilepsy and their caregivers in Ontario would undoubtedly benefit from repatriation of multigene panels and WES to the province.

Customized multigene panels in epilepsy: the best things come in small packages

Over the past 10 years, the increasingly important role played by next-generation sequencing panels in the genetic diagnosis of epilepsy has led to a growing list of gene variants and a plethora of new scientific data. To date, however, there is still no consensus on what constitutes the "ideal panel design," or on the most rational criteria for selecting the best candidates for gene-panel analysis, even though both might optimize the cost-benefit ratio and the diagnostic efficiency of customized gene panels. Even though more and more laboratories are adopting whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier diagnostic approach, interpreting, "in silico," a set of epilepsy-related genes remains difficult. In the light of these considerations, we performed a systematic review of the targeted gene panels for epilepsy already reported in the available scientific literature, with a view to identifying the best criteria for selecting patients for gene-panel analysis, and the best way to design an "ideal," gold-standard panel that includes all genes with an established role in epilepsy pathogenesis, as well as those that might help to guide decisions regarding specific medical interventions and treatments. Our analyses suggest that the usefulness and diagnostic power of customized gene panels for epilepsy may be greatest when these panels are confined to rationally selected, relatively small, pools of genes, and applied in more carefully selected epilepsy patients (those with complex forms of epilepsy). A panel containing 64 genes, which includes the 45 genes harboring a significant number of pathogenic variants identified in previous literature, the 32 clinically actionable genes, and the 21 ILAE (International League Against Epilepsy) recommended genes, may represent an "ideal" core set likely able to provide the highest diagnostic efficiency and cost-effectiveness and facilitate gene prioritization when testing patients with whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing.

Implementation of Epilepsy Multigene Panel Testing in Ontario, Canada

Background:

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition that shows a marked genetic predisposition. The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed clinical genetic testing by allowing the rapid screen for causative variants in multiple genes. There are currently no NGS-based multigene panel diagnostic tests available for epilepsy as a licensed clinical diagnostic test in Ontario, Canada. Eligible patient samples are sent out of country for testing by commercial laboratories, which incurs significant cost to the public healthcare system.

Objective:

An expert Working Group of medical geneticists, pediatric neurologists/epileptologists, biochemical geneticists, and clinical molecular geneticists from Ontario was formed by the Laboratories and Genetics Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to develop a programmatic approach to implementing epilepsy panel testing as a provincial service.

Results:

The Working Group made several recommendations for testing to support the clinical delivery of care in Ontario. First, an extension of community healthcare outcomes-based program should be incorporated to inform and educate ordering providers when requesting and interpreting a genetic panel test. Second, any gene panel testing must be “evidence-based” and takes into account varied clinical indications to reduce the chance of uncertain and secondary results. Finally, an ongoing evaluative process was recommended to ensure continued test improvement for the future.

Conclusion:

This epilepsy panel testing implementation plan will be a model for genetic care directed toward a specific set of conditions in the province and serve as a prototype for genetic testing for other genetically heterogeneous diseases.