Communicating new knowledge on previously reported genetic variants

2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research

The reanalysis of genomic sequencing results has the potential to provide results that are of considerable medical and personal importance to recipients. Employing interviews with forty-seven predominantly medically underserved families and ethnographic observations we argue that there is pressing need to standardize the approach taken to reanalysis. Our findings highlight that study participants were unclear as to the likelihood of reanalysis happening, the process of initiating reanalysis, and whether they would receive revised results. Their reflections mirror the lack a specific focus upon reanalysis within consent and results sessions as observed in clinical settings. Mechanisms need to be put into place that standardize the approach to reanalysis in research and in clinical contexts. This would enable clinicians and genetic counsellors to communicate clearly with research participants with respect to potential for reanalysis of results and the process of reanalysis. We argue that that the role of reanalysis is too important to be referred to in an ad-hoc manner. Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of the current process may increase health inequities given the likelihood that only those families who have the means to press for reanalysis are likely to receive it.

Current published evidence on barriers and proposed strategies for genetic testing implementation in health care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The slow uptake of genetic testing in routine clinical practice warrants the attention of researchers and practitioners to find effective strategies to facilitate implementation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the barriers to and strategies for pharmacogenetic testing implementation in a health care setting from published literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in August 2021 with an expanded literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in a health care setting, from a health care system's perspective. Articles were screened using DistillerSR and findings were organized using the 5 major domains of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

A total of 3536 unique articles were retrieved from the above sources, with only 253 articles retained after title and abstract screening. Upon screening the full texts, 57 articles (representing 46 unique practice sites) were found matching the inclusion criteria. We found that most reported barriers and their associated strategies to the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing surrounded 2 CFIR domains: intervention characteristics and inner settings. Factors relating to cost and reimbursement were described as major barriers in the intervention characteristics. In the same domain, another major barrier was the lack of utility studies to provide evidence for genetic testing uptake. Technical hurdles, such as integrating genetic information to medical records, were identified as an inner settings barrier. Collaborations and lessons from early implementers could be useful strategies to overcome majority of the barriers across different health care settings. Strategies proposed by the included implementation studies to overcome these barriers are summarized and can be used as guidance in future.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and strategies identified in this scoping review can provide implementation guidance for practice sites that are interested in implementing genetic testing.

Different clinical characteristics and outcomes of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with and without hypertension: seeking the truth

OBJECTIVE

To determine the different clinical characteristics and outcomes of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients with and without hypertension (HT).

METHODS

A total of 696 HCM patients were included in this study and all HCM diagnoses were confirmed by the genetic test. Patients were analyzed separately in the septal reduction therapy (SRT) cohort and the non-SRT cohort. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death. Outcome analyses were conducted to evaluate the associations between HT and outcomes in HCM. Medications before enrollment and at discharge were collected in the post-hoc analyses.

RESULTS

HCM patients without HT were younger, had a lower body mass index, were more likely to have a family history of HCM, and had a smaller left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter than those with HT in both cohorts. A thicker LV wall, a higher level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and a higher extent of LV late gadolinium enhancement were additionally observed in patients without HT in the non-SRT cohort. The presence of HT did not alter the distribution pattern of late gadolinium enhancement, as well as the constituent ratio of eight disease-causing sarcomeric gene variants in both cohorts. Outcome analyses showed that in the non-SRT cohort, patients without HT had higher risks of cardiovascular death (HR = 2.537, P = 0.032) and all-cause death (HR = 3.309, P = 0.032). While such prognostic divergence was not observed in the SRT cohort. Further post-hoc analyses in the non-SRT cohort found that patients without HT received fewer non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers before enrollment and at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM patients without HT had worse clinical conditions and higher mortality than patients with HT overall, which may result from active medical therapy in HT patients. Active SRT may have a substantial de-risking effect on patients meeting the indications.

Negative Molecular Diagnostics in Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss: What Next?

Congenital hearing loss has an impact on almost every facet of life. In more than 50% of cases, a genetic cause can be identified. Currently, extensive genetic testing is available, although the etiology of some patients with obvious familial hearing loss remains unknown. We selected a cohort of mutation-negative patients to optimize the diagnostic yield for genetic hearing impairment. In this retrospective study, 21 patients (17 families) with negative molecular diagnostics for non-syndromic hearing loss (gene panel analysis) were included based on a positive family history with a similar type of hearing loss. Additional genetic testing was performed using a whole exome sequencing panel (WESHL panel v2.0) in four families with the strongest likelihood of genetic hearing impairment. In this cohort (n = 21), the severity of hearing loss was most commonly moderate (52%). Additional genetic testing revealed pathogenic copy number variants in the STRC gene in two families. In summary, regular re-evaluation of hearing loss patients with presumably genetic etiology after negative molecular diagnostics is recommended, as we might miss newly discovered deafness genes. The switch from gene panel analysis to whole exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing for the testing of congenital hearing loss seems promising.

Reanalysis of eMERGE phase III sequence variants in 10,500 participants and infrastructure to support the automated return of knowledge updates

PURPOSE

The clinical genomics knowledgebase is dynamic with variant classifications changing as newly identified cases, additional population data, and other evidence become available. This is a challenge for the clinical laboratory because of limited resource availability for variant reassessment.

METHODS

Throughout the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics phase III program, clinical sites associated with the Mass General Brigham/Broad sequencing center received automated, real-time notifications when reported variants were reclassified. In this study, we summarized the nature of these reclassifications and described the proactive reassessment framework we used for the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics program data set to identify variants most likely to undergo reclassification.

RESULTS

Reanalysis of 1855 variants led to the reclassification of 2% (n = 45) of variants, affecting 0.6% (n = 67) of participants. Of these reclassifications, 78% (n = 35) were high-impact changes affecting reportability, with 8 variants downgraded from likely pathogenic/pathogenic to variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and 27 variants upgraded from VUS to likely pathogenic/pathogenic. Most upgraded variants (67%) were initially classified as VUS-Favor Pathogenic, highlighting the benefit of VUS subcategorization. The most common reason for reclassification was new published case data and/or functional evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the importance of periodic sequence variant reevaluation and the need for automated approaches to advance routine implementation of variant reevaluations in clinical practice.

Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry

PURPOSE

Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process.

METHODS

GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them.

RESULTS

Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories.

CONCLUSION

Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.

2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy clinical practice guideline provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to diagnose and manage hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in adult and pediatric patients as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to April 30, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases.

STRUCTURE

Many recommendations from the earlier hypertrophic cardiomyopathy guidelines have been updated with new evidence or a better understanding of earlier evidence. This summary operationalizes the recommendations from the full guideline and presents a combination of diagnostic work-up, genetic and family screening, risk stratification approaches, lifestyle modifications, surgical and catheter interventions, and medications that constitute components of guideline directed medical therapy. For both guideline-directed medical therapy and other recommended drug treatment regimens, the reader is advised to follow dosing, contraindications and drug-drug interactions based on product insert materials.

2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Aim This executive summary of the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy clinical practice guideline provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to diagnose and manage hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in adult and pediatric patients as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to April 30, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Structure Many recommendations from the earlier hypertrophic cardiomyopathy guidelines have been updated with new evidence or a better understanding of earlier evidence. This summary operationalizes the recommendations from the full guideline and presents a combination of diagnostic work-up, genetic and family screening, risk stratification approaches, lifestyle modifications, surgical and catheter interventions, and medications that constitute components of guideline directed medical therapy. For both guideline-directed medical therapy and other recommended drug treatment regimens, the reader is advised to follow dosing, contraindications and drug-drug interactions based on product insert materials.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions

The evolving evidence base for the interpretation of variants identified in genetic and genomic testing has presented the genetics community with the challenge of variant reinterpretation. In particular, it is unclear whether an ethical duty of periodic reinterpretation should exist, who should bear that duty, and what its dimensions should be. Based on an analysis of the ethical arguments for and against a duty to reinterpret, we conclude that a duty should be recognized. Most importantly, by virtue of ordering and conducting tests likely to produce data on variants that cannot be definitively interpreted today, the health-care system incurs a duty to reinterpret when more reliable data become available. We identify four elements of the proposed ethical duty: data storage, initiation of reinterpretation, conduct of reinterpretation, and patient recontact, and we identify the parties best situated to implement each component. We also consider the reasonable extent and duration of a duty, and the role of the patient's consent in the process, although we acknowledge that some details regarding procedures and funding still need to be addressed. The likelihood of substantial patient benefit from a systematic approach to reinterpretation suggests the importance for the genetics community to reach consensus on this issue.

An ancillary genomics system to support the return of pharmacogenomic results

Existing approaches to managing genetic and genomic test results from external laboratories typically include filing of text reports within the electronic health record, making them unavailable in many cases for clinical decision support. Even when structured computable results are available, the lack of adopted standards requires considerations for processing the results into actionable knowledge, in addition to storage and management of the data. Here, we describe the design and implementation of an ancillary genomics system used to receive and process heterogeneous results from external laboratories, which returns a descriptive phenotype to the electronic health record in support of pharmacogenetic clinical decision support.

Reclassification of Variants of Uncertain Significance in Children with Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes is Predicted by Clinical Factors

Genetic testing is important to augment clinical diagnosis and inform management of inherited arrhythmias syndromes (IAS), but variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are common and remain a challenge in clinical practice. In 2015, American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) published updated guidelines for interpretation of genetic results. Despite increasing understanding of human genomic variation, there are no guidelines for reinterpretation of prior genetic test results. Patients at a single tertiary children's hospital with genetic testing for an IAS that demonstrated a VUS were re-evaluated using 2015 ACMG guidelines, clinical information, and publically available databases. Search of the electronic medical record identified 116 patients with genetic testing results available, and 24/116 (21%) harbored a VUS for an IAS. 23 unique VUS were evaluated from 12 genes. Over half of the VUS (12/23 (52%)) were reclassified using 2015 criteria, and 8 (35%) changed to pathogenic and 4 (17%) to benign. Relative risk of reclassification of VUS to a pathogenic variant in a patient with confirmed clinical diagnosis was 4.1 (95% CI 1.23-15.4). Reclassification was not associated with initial testing year. These data demonstrate 52% of VUS in children with IAS are reclassified with application of 2015 ACMG guidelines. Strength of phenotyping is associated with eventual pathogenic classification of genetic variants and periodic re-evaluation of VUS identified on genetic testing for IAS is warranted.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed.

METHODS

The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented.

RESULTS

Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?

Genomic Information for Clinicians in the Electronic Health Record: Lessons Learned From the Clinical Genome Resource Project and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network

Genomic knowledge is being translated into clinical care. To fully realize the value, it is critical to place credible information in the hands of clinicians in time to support clinical decision making. The electronic health record is an essential component of clinician workflow. Utilizing the electronic health record to present information to support the use of genomic medicine in clinical care to improve outcomes represents a tremendous opportunity. However, there are numerous barriers that prevent the effective use of the electronic health record for this purpose. The electronic health record working groups of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) project, along with other groups, have been defining these barriers, to allow the development of solutions that can be tested using implementation pilots. In this paper, we present “lessons learned” from these efforts to inform future efforts leading to the development of effective and sustainable solutions that will support the realization of genomic medicine.

Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network

The advancement of precision medicine requires new methods to coordinate and deliver genetic data from heterogeneous sources to physicians and patients. The eMERGE III Network enrolled >25,000 participants from biobank and prospective cohorts of predominantly healthy individuals for clinical genetic testing to determine clinically actionable findings. The network developed protocols linking together the 11 participant collection sites and 2 clinical genetic testing laboratories. DNA capture panels targeting 109 genes were used for testing of DNA and sample collection, data generation, interpretation, reporting, delivery, and storage were each harmonized. A compliant and secure network enabled ongoing review and reconciliation of clinical interpretations, while maintaining communication and data sharing between clinicians and investigators. A total of 202 individuals had positive diagnostic findings relevant to the indication for testing and 1,294 had additional/secondary findings of medical significance deemed to be returnable, establishing data return rates for other testing endeavors. This study accomplished integration of structured genomic results into multiple electronic health record (EHR) systems, setting the stage for clinical decision support to enable genomic medicine. Further, the established processes enable different sequencing sites to harmonize technical and interpretive aspects of sequencing tests, a critical achievement toward global standardization of genomic testing. The eMERGE protocols and tools are available for widespread dissemination.

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.

Analyzing and Reanalyzing the Genome: Findings from the MedSeq Project

Although genome sequencing is increasingly available in clinical and research settings, many questions remain about the interpretation of sequencing data. In the MedSeq Project, we explored how much effort is required to evaluate and report on more than 4,500 genes reportedly associated with monogenic conditions, as well as pharmacogenomic (PGx) markers, blood antigen serotyping, and polygenic risk scores in 100 individuals (50 with cardiomyopathy and 50 healthy) randomized to the sequencing arm. We defined the quality thresholds for determining the need for Sanger confirmation. Finally, we examined the effort needed and new findings revealed by reanalyzing each genome (6-23 months after initial analysis; mean 13 months). Monogenic disease risk and carrier status were reported in 21% and 94% of participants, respectively. Only two participants had no monogenic disease risk or carrier status identified. For the PGx results (18 genotypes in six genes for five drugs), the identified diplotypes prompted recommendation for non-standard dosing of at least one of the analyzed drugs in 95% of participants. For blood antigen studies, we found that 31% of participants had a rare blood antigen genotype. In the cardiomyopathy cohort, an explanation for disease was identified in 48% of individuals. Over the course of the study, 14 variants were reclassified and, upon reanalysis, 18 new variants met criteria for reporting. These findings highlight the quantity of medically relevant findings from a broad analysis of genomic sequencing data as well as the need for periodic reinterpretation and reanalysis of data for both diagnostic indications and secondary findings.

Recontact practices of cancer genetic counselors and an exploration of professional, legal, and ethical duty

The duty to recontact continues to be revisited in the field of clinical genetics and is currently relevant for cancer genetic counseling given the transition from single-gene to multi-gene panel testing. We recruited cancer genetic counselors through the National Society of Genetic Counselors list-serv to complete an online survey assessing current practices and perspectives regarding recontacting patients about diagnostic genetic tests. Forty-one percent of respondents reported that they have recontacted patients to offer updated (new) diagnostic genetic testing (40/97). A majority (61%, 17/28), of genetic counselors who reported recontact specifically for panel testing indicated that the availability of management recommendations for genes not previously tested routinely was an important factor in the decision to recontact. All respondents who recontacted patients reported "improved patient care" as a perceived benefit. Respondents indicated that recontact is mostly a patient responsibility (49%), followed by a shared responsibility between the provider and patient (43%). Few respondents (2%) reported a uniform ethical duty to recontact patients regarding new and updated testing, while the majority (89%) felt that there was some degree of ethical duty. A greater percentage of those who reported past recontact practices reported intention to recontact in the future (p = 0.001). There is little consensus among the genetic counselor respondents about how to approach the recontacting of patients to offer updated genetic testing.

Technical, Biological, and Systems Barriers for Molecular Clinical Decision Support

Genome-enabled or molecular clinical decision support (CDS) systems provide unique advantages for the clinical use of genomic data; however, their implementation is complicated by technical, biological, and systemic barriers. This article reviews the substantial technical progress that has been made in the past decade and finds that the underlying biological limitations of genomics as well as systemic barriers to adoption of molecular CDS have been comparatively underestimated. A hybrid consultative CDS system, which integrates a genomics consultant into an active CDS system, may provide an interim path forward.

Variant classification changes over time in BRCA1 and BRCA2

PURPOSE

To report BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) variant reassessments and reclassifications between 2012 and 2017 at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (AMDL) in Toronto, Canada, which provides BRCA1/2 testing for patients in Ontario, and to compare AMDL variant classifications with submissions in ClinVar.

METHODS

Variants were assessed using a standardized variant assessment tool based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology's guidelines and tracked in an in-house database. Variants were shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository and submitted to ClinVar for comparison against other laboratories.

RESULTS

AMDL identified 1209 BRCA1/2 variants between 2012 and 2017. During this period, 32.9% (398/1209) of variants were reassessed and 12.4% (150/1209) were reclassified. The majority of reclassified variants were downgraded (112/150, 74.7%). Of the reclassified variants, 63.3% (95/150) were reclassified to benign, 20.7% (31/150) to likely benign, 10.0% (15/150) to variant of uncertain significance, 2.0% (3/150) to likely pathogenic, and 4.0% (6/150) to pathogenic. Discordant ClinVar submissions were found for 40.4% (488/1209) of variants.

CONCLUSION

BRCA1/2 variants may be reclassified over time. Reclassification presents ethical and practical challenges related to recontacting patients. Data sharing is essential to improve variant interpretation, to help patients receive appropriate care based on their genetic results.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Clinical Utility of Reinterpreting Previously Reported Genomic Epilepsy Test Results for Pediatric Patients

IMPORTANCE

Clinical genomic tests that examine the DNA sequence of large numbers of genes are commonly used in the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in pediatric patients. The permanence of genomic test result interpretations is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of reinterpreting previously reported genomic test results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study retrospectively reviewed and reinterpreted genomic test results from July 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, for pediatric patients who previously underwent genomic epilepsy testing at a single tertiary care pediatric health care facility. Reinterpretation of previously reported variants was conducted in May 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient reports from clinical genomic epilepsy tests were reviewed, and all reported genetic variants were reinterpreted using 2015 consensus standards and guidelines for interpreting hereditary genetic variants. Three classification tiers were used in the reinterpretation: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), or benign or likely benign variant.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients had genomic epilepsy tests performed (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [0.8] years; 163 [52.8%] male), and 185 patients had a genetic variant reported. The reported variants resulted in 61 patients with and 124 patients without a genetic diagnosis (VUS variants only). On reinterpretation of all reported variants, 67 of the 185 patients (36.2%) had a change in variant classification. Of the 67 patients with a genetic variant change in interpretation, 21 (31.3%) experienced a change in diagnosis. During the 5 years of the study, 19 of 61 patients (31.1%) with a genetic diagnosis and 48 of 124 patients (38.7%) with undiagnosed conditions (VUS only) had their results reclassified. Review of genomic reports issued during the final 2 years of the study identified reclassification of variants in 4 of 16 patients (25.0%) with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and 11 of 41 patients (26.8%) with a VUS.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The identified high rate of reinterpretation in this study suggests that interpretation of genomic test results has rapidly evolved during the past 5 years. These findings suggest that reinterpretation of genomic test results should be performed at least every 2 years.

The BabySeq project: implementing genomic sequencing in newborns

BACKGROUND

The greatest opportunity for lifelong impact of genomic sequencing is during the newborn period. The "BabySeq Project" is a randomized trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns.

METHODS

Families of newborns are enrolled from Boston Children's Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital nurseries, and half are randomized to receive genomic sequencing and a report that includes monogenic disease variants, recessive carrier variants for childhood onset or actionable disorders, and pharmacogenomic variants. All families participate in a disclosure session, which includes the return of results for those in the sequencing arm. Outcomes are collected through review of medical records and surveys of parents and health care providers and include the rationale for choice of genes and variants to report; what genomic data adds to the medical management of sick and healthy babies; and the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns.

DISCUSSION

The BabySeq Project will provide empirical data about the risks, benefits and costs of newborn genomic sequencing and will inform policy decisions related to universal genomic screening of newborns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511 . Registration date: 10 April 2015.

Care in Specialized Centers and Data Sharing Increase Agreement in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Genetic Test Interpretation

Background—

Clinically impactful differences in the interpretation of genetic test results occur between laboratories and clinicians. To improve the classification of variants, a better understanding of why discrepancies occur and how they can be reduced is needed.

Methods and Results—

We examined the frequency, causes, and resolution of discordant variant classifications in the Sarcomeric Human Cardiomyopathy Registry (SHaRe), a consortium of international centers with expertise in the clinical management and genetic architecture of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Of the 112 variants present in patients at >1 center, 23 had discordant classifications among centers (20.5%; Fleiss κ, 0.54). Discordance was more than twice as frequent among clinical laboratories in ClinVar, a public archive of variant classifications (315/695 variants; 45.2%; Fleiss κ, 0.30; P <0.001). Discordance in SHaRe most frequently occurred because hypertrophic cardiomyopathy centers had access to different privately held data when making their classifications (75.0%). Centers reassessed their classifications based on a comprehensive and current data summary, leading to reclassifications that reduced the discordance rate from 20.5% to 10.7%. Different interpretations of rarity and co-occurrence with pathogenic variants contributed to residual discordance.

Conclusions—

Discordance in variant classification among hypertrophic cardiomyopathy centers is largely attributable to privately held data. Some discrepancies are caused by differences in expert assessment of conflicting data. Discordance was markedly lower among centers specialized in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy than among clinical laboratories, suggesting that optimal genetic test interpretation occurs in the context of clinical care delivered by specialized centers with both clinical and genetics expertise.

When bins blur: Patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing

BACKGROUND

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is being used in an expanding range of clinical settings. Most approaches to offering patients choices about learning CGES results classify results according to expert definitions of clinical actionability. Little is known about how patients conceptualize different categories of CGES results.

METHODS

The MedSeq Project is a randomized controlled trial studying the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in primary care and cardiology. We surveyed 202 patient-participants about different kinds of WGS results and conducted qualitative interviews with 49 of these participants. Interview data were analyzed both inductively and deductively using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated high levels of study understanding and genetic literacy. A small majority of participants wanted to learn all of their WGS results (n = 123, 61%). Qualitative data provided a deeper understanding of participants' perspectives about different types of WGS results. Participants did not have the same views about which WGS results would be actionable or upsetting to learn. They conceptualized variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in a variety of different ways. Many participants expressed optimism that the uncertainty associated with VUS results could be reduced over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Proposals to determine which WGS/CGES results to disclose by soliciting patient preferences may fail to appreciate the complex ways patients think about disease and the information WGS/CGES can produce. Our findings challenge prevailing methods of facilitating patient choice and assessing the benefits and harms related to the return of WGS/CGES results, which mostly rely on expert definitions of clinical utility to categorize the kinds of results patients can learn.

Implementing genomics and pharmacogenomics in the clinic: The National Human Genome Research Institute's genomic medicine portfolio

Increasing knowledge about the influence of genetic variation on human health and growing availability of reliable, cost-effective genetic testing have spurred the implementation of genomic medicine in the clinic. As defined by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), genomic medicine uses an individual's genetic information in his or her clinical care, and has begun to be applied effectively in areas such as cancer genomics, pharmacogenomics, and rare and undiagnosed diseases. In 2011 NHGRI published its strategic vision for the future of genomic research, including an ambitious research agenda to facilitate and promote the implementation of genomic medicine. To realize this agenda, NHGRI is consulting and facilitating collaborations with the external research community through a series of "Genomic Medicine Meetings," under the guidance and leadership of the National Advisory Council on Human Genome Research. These meetings have identified and begun to address significant obstacles to implementation, such as lack of evidence of efficacy, limited availability of genomics expertise and testing, lack of standards, and difficulties in integrating genomic results into electronic medical records. The six research and dissemination initiatives comprising NHGRI's genomic research portfolio are designed to speed the evaluation and incorporation, where appropriate, of genomic technologies and findings into routine clinical care. Actual adoption of successful approaches in clinical care will depend upon the willingness, interest, and energy of professional societies, practitioners, patients, and payers to promote their responsible use and share their experiences in doing so.

The Ethical Implications of the Reclassification of Noninvasive Follicular Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several studies have highlighted the lack of consensus in the diagnosis of follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC). An international multidisciplinary panel to address the controversy was assembled at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Pathology Society in March of 2015, leading to the recent publication reclassifying encapsulated (or noninvasive) FVPTC (EFVPTC) as a benign neoplasm. Does this change in histologic taxonomy warrant a change in clinical practice, and how should it affect those who have been given this diagnosis in the past? We consider the financial and psychological impact of this reclassification and discuss the ethical, legal, and practical issues involved with sharing this information with the patients who are affected.

SUMMARY

The total direct and indirect cost of thyroid cancer surveillance in patients is significant. High levels of clinically relevant distress affect up to 43% of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma, as estimated by the Distress Thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for detecting distress in cancer patients. Although there are currently no legal opinions that establish a precedent for recontacting patients whose clinical status is altered by a change in nomenclature, the prudent course would be to attend to the requirements of medical ethics.

CONCLUSION

Informing patients with a previous diagnosis of EFVPTC that the disease has been reclassified as benign is expected to have a dramatic effect on their surveillance needs and to alleviate the psychological impact of living with a diagnosis of cancer. It is important to re-evaluate the pathologic slides of those patients at risk to ensure that the invasive nature of the tumor is comprehensively evaluated before notifying a patient of a change in diagnosis. The availability of the entire tumor for evaluation of the capsule may prove to be a challenge for a portion of the population at risk. We believe that it is the clinician's professional duty to make a sincere and reasonable effort to convey the information to the affected patients. We also believe that the cost savings with respect to the need for additional surgery, radioactive iodine, and rigorous surveillance associated with a misinterpretation of the biology of the diagnosis of EFVPTC in less experienced hands will likely more than offset the cost incurred in histologic review and patient notification.

Health Care Infrastructure for Financially Sustainable Clinical Genomics

Next-generation sequencing has evolved technically and economically into the method of choice for interrogating the genome in cancer and inherited disorders. The introduction of procedural code sets for whole-exome and genome sequencing is a milestone toward financially sustainable clinical implementation; however, achieving reimbursement is currently a major challenge. As part of a prospective quality-improvement initiative to implement the new code sets, we adopted Agile, a development methodology originally devised in software development. We implemented eight functionally distinct modules (request review, cost estimation, preauthorization, accessioning, prebilling, testing, reporting, and reimbursement consultation) and obtained feedback via an anonymous survey. We managed 50 clinical requests (January to June 2015). The fraction of pursued-to-requested cases (n = 15/50; utilization management fraction, 0.3) aimed for a high rate of preauthorizations. In 13 of 15 patients the insurance plan required preauthorization, which we obtained in 70% and ultimately achieved reimbursement in 50%. Interoperability enabled assessment of 12 different combinations of modules that underline the importance of an adaptive workflow and policy tailoring to achieve higher yields of reimbursement. The survey confirmed a positive attitude toward self-organizing teams. We acknowledge the individuals and their interactions and termed the infrastructure: human pipeline. Nontechnical barriers currently are limiting the scope and availability of clinical genomic sequencing. The presented human pipeline is one approach toward long-term financial sustainability of clinical genomics.

Evaluation: A Qualitative Pilot Study of Novel Information Technology Infrastructure to Communicate Genetic Variant Updates

BACKGROUND

Partners HealthCare Personalized Medicine developed GeneInsight Clinic (GIC), a tool designed to communicate updated variant information from laboratory geneticists to treating clinicians through automated alerts, categorized by level of variant interpretation change.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate feedback from the initial users of the GIC, including the advantages and challenges to receiving this variant information and using this technology at the point of care.

METHODS

Healthcare professionals from two clinics that ordered genetic testing for cardiomyopathy and related disorders were invited to participate in one-hour semi-structured interviews and/ or a one-hour focus group. Using a Grounded Theory approach, transcript concepts were coded and organized into themes.

RESULTS

Two genetic counselors and two physicians from two treatment clinics participated in individual interviews. Focus group participants included one genetic counselor and four physicians. Analysis resulted in 8 major themes related to structuring and communicating variant knowledge, GIC's impact on the clinic, and suggestions for improvements. The interview analysis identified longitudinal patient care, family data, and growth in genetic testing content as potential challenges to optimization of the GIC infrastructure.

DISCUSSION

Participants agreed that GIC implementation increased efficiency and effectiveness of the clinic through increased access to genetic variant information at the point of care.

CONCLUSION

Development of information technology (IT) infrastructure to aid in the organization and management of genetic variant knowledge will be critical as the genetic field moves towards whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Findings from this study could be applied to future development of IT support for genetic variant knowledge management that would serve to improve clinicians' ability to manage and care for patients.

Telemedicine uptake among Genetics Professionals in Europe: room for expansion

Today's economic challenges and the changing landscape of clinical genetics are forcing us to consider alternative ways of providing genetic services, to comply with budget limitations and at the same time meeting the demands of increasing patient numbers and patient-centered care delivery. Telegenetics could be an effective and efficient way of counseling, but its use in Europe is not widely reported, nor is there evidence of international collaboration. We conducted an online survey among 929 genetics professionals, to explore the current availability and use of different telegenetics modalities in Europe. Our questionnaire was completed by 104 clinically active European genetics professionals. Telephone genetic counseling was used by 17% of respondents. Videoconferencing facilities were available to 24%, but only 9% of them used these for patient counseling. Various barriers to availability and use were cited, ranging from practical constraints, lack of professional support/knowledge, to lack of perceived suitability and need. The results show that telegenetics modalities are not currently in widespread use by our respondents, in part due to perceived barriers. To meet the changing economic, genetic, and societal circumstances, we recommend consideration of greater integration of telegenetics into regular clinical genetic care, to supplement existing care modalities. Professional cooperation, sharing knowledge, and establishing guidelines on a national and international level could contribute to successful and more widespread implementation of telegenetics. However, the perceived practical and regulatory barriers have to be overcome.

Information Technology Support for Clinical Genetic Testing within an Academic Medical Center

Academic medical centers require many interconnected systems to fully support genetic testing processes. We provide an overview of the end-to-end support that has been established surrounding a genetic testing laboratory within our environment, including both laboratory and clinician facing infrastructure. We explain key functions that we have found useful in the supporting systems. We also consider ways that this infrastructure could be enhanced to enable deeper assessment of genetic test results in both the laboratory and clinic.

Online genetic counseling from the providers' perspective: counselors' evaluations and a time and cost analysis

Telemedicine applications are increasingly being introduced in patient care in various disciplines, including clinical genetics, mainly to increase access to care and to reduce time and costs for patients and professionals. Most telegenetics reports describe applications in large geographical areas, showing positive patients' and professionals' satisfaction. One economic analysis published thus far reported lower costs than in-person care. We hypothesized that telegenetics can also be beneficial from the professional's view in relatively small geographical areas. We performed a pilot study in the Northern Netherlands of 51 home-based online counseling sessions for cardiogenetic and oncogenetic cascade screening, and urgent prenatal counseling. Previously, we showed patient satisfaction, anxiety, and perceived control of online counseling to be comparable to in-person counseling. This study focuses on expectations, satisfaction, and practical evaluations of the involved counselors, and the impact in terms of time and costs. Most counselors expected disadvantages of online counseling for themselves and their patients, mainly concerning insufficient non-verbal communication; few expected advantages for themselves. Afterwards, counselors additionally raised the disadvantage of insufficient verbal communication, and reported frequent technical problems. Their overall mean telemedicine satisfaction itemscore was 3.38 before, and 2.95 afterwards, being afterwards slightly below the minimum level we set for a satisfactory result. We estimated reduced time and costs by online counseling with about 8% and 10-12%, respectively. We showed online genetic counseling to be effective, feasible and cost-efficient, but technical improvements are needed to increase counselors' satisfaction.

Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine

Precision medicine has the potential to profoundly improve the practice of medicine. However, the advances required will take time to implement. Genetics is already being used to direct clinical decision-making and its contribution is likely to increase. To accelerate these advances, fundamental changes are needed in the infrastructure and mechanisms for data collection, storage and sharing. This will create a continuously learning health-care system with seamless cycling between clinical care and research. Patients must be educated about the benefits of sharing data. The building blocks for such a system are already forming and they will accelerate the adoption of precision medicine.

Management of Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomic Sequencing

Genomic sequencing is becoming accurate, fast, and increasingly inexpensive, and is rapidly being incorporated into clinical practice. Incidental or secondary findings, which can occur in large numbers from genomic sequencing, are a potential barrier to the utility of this new technology due to their relatively high prevalence and the lack of evidence or guidelines available to guide their clinical interpretation. This unit reviews the definition, classification, and management of incidental findings from genomic sequencing. The unit focuses on the clinical aspects of handling incidental findings, with an emphasis on the key role of clinical context in defining incidental findings and determining their clinical relevance and utility.

CSER and eMERGE: current and potential state of the display of genetic information in the electronic health record

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians' ability to use and interpret genetic information depends upon how those data are displayed in electronic health records (EHRs). There is a critical need to develop systems to effectively display genetic information in EHRs and augment clinical decision support (CDS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research and Electronic Medical Records & Genomics EHR Working Groups conducted a multiphase, iterative process involving working group discussions and 2 surveys in order to determine how genetic and genomic information are currently displayed in EHRs, envision optimal uses for different types of genetic or genomic information, and prioritize areas for EHR improvement.

RESULTS

There is substantial heterogeneity in how genetic information enters and is documented in EHR systems. Most institutions indicated that genetic information was displayed in multiple locations in their EHRs. Among surveyed institutions, genetic information enters the EHR through multiple laboratory sources and through clinician notes. For laboratory-based data, the source laboratory was the main determinant of the location of genetic information in the EHR. The highest priority recommendation was to address the need to implement CDS mechanisms and content for decision support for medically actionable genetic information.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneity of genetic information flow and importance of source laboratory, rather than clinical content, as a determinant of information representation are major barriers to using genetic information optimally in patient care. Greater effort to develop interoperable systems to receive and consistently display genetic and/or genomic information and alert clinicians to genomic-dependent improvements to clinical care is recommended.

ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource

On autopsy, a patient is found to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The patient’s family pursues genetic testing that shows a “likely pathogenic” variant for the condition on the basis of a study in an original research publication. Given the dominant inheritance of the condition and the risk of sudden cardiac death, other family members are tested for the genetic variant to determine their risk. Several family members test negative and are told that they are not at risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death, and those who test positive are told that they need to be regularly monitored for cardiomyopathy on echocardiography. Five years later, during a routine clinic visit of one of the genotype-positive family members, the cardiologist queries a database for current knowledge on the genetic variant and discovers that the variant is now interpreted as “likely benign” by another laboratory that uses more recently derived population-frequency data. A newly available testing panel for additional genes that are implicated in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is initiated on an affected family member, and a different variant is found that is determined to be pathogenic. Family members are retested, and one member who previously tested negative is now found to be positive for this new variant. An immediate clinical workup detects evidence of cardiomyopathy, and an intracardiac defibrillator is implanted to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death.