Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Prenatal Testing for Variants in Genes Associated with Hereditary Cancer Risk: Laboratory Experience and Considerations

Prenatal molecular genetic testing for familial variants that cause inherited disorders has been performed for decades and is accepted as standard of care. However, the spectrum of genes considered for prenatal testing is expanding because of genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk (HCR) and inclusion of conditions with associated cancer risk in carrier screening panels. A few of these disorders, such as ataxia telangiectasia and Bloom syndrome, include increased cancer risk as part of the phenotype, already meet professional guidelines for prenatal testing, and may be associated with increased cancer risk in heterozygous carriers. In addition, recent studies implicate heterozygosity for variants in lysosomal storage disease genes in HCR etiology. Currently, there is no specific professional guidance regarding prenatal testing for HCR. To determine the prevalence of such testing, we reviewed 1345 consecutive prenatal specimens received in our laboratory for familial variant-specific testing and identified 65 (4.8%) with a known or likely HCR component, plus 210 (15.6%) for lysosomal storage disease. These specimens were classified into five distinct categories for clarity and to enable evaluation. Our experience assessing prenatal specimens for variants associated with HCR, with or without a constitutional phenotype, provides metrics for and contributes to the points to consider in prenatal testing for HCR.

Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT-related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017-August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient-HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT-related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics.

RESULTS

The search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT-related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information-seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT-related knowledge and confidence, often self-reported as insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient-HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision-making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT-related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient-HCP interactions are needed.

Impact of genetic counseling strategy on diagnostic yield and workload for genome-sequencing-based tumor diagnostics

PURPOSE

Genome sequencing (GS) enables comprehensive molecular analysis of tumors and identification of hereditary cancer predisposition. According to guidelines, directly determining pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) requires pretest genetic counseling, which is cost-ineffective. Referral for genetic counseling based on tumor variants alone could miss relevant PGVs and/or result in unnecessary referrals.

METHODS

We validated GS for detection of germline variants and simulated 3 strategies using paired tumor-normal GS data of 937 metastatic patients. In strategy-1, genetic counseling before tumor testing allowed direct PGV analysis. In strategy-2 and -3, germline testing and referral for post-test genetic counseling is based on tumor variants using Dutch (strategy-2) or Europen Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (strategy-3) guidelines.

RESULTS

In strategy-1, PGVs would be detected in 50 patients (number-needed-to counsel; NTC = 18.7). In strategy-2, 86 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 43 would have PGVs (NTC = 2). In strategy-3, 94 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 32 would have PGVs (NTC = 2.9). Hence, 43 and 62 patients, respectively, were unnecessarily referred based on a somatic variant.

CONCLUSION

Both post-tumor test counseling strategies (2 and 3) had significantly lower NTC, and strategy-2 had the highest PGV yield. Combining pre-tumor test mainstreaming and post-tumor test counseling may maximize the clinically relevant PGV yield and minimize unnecessary referrals.

Opportunistic genetic screening increases the diagnostic yield and is medically valuable for care of patients and their relatives with hereditary cancer

BACKGROUND

Multigene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (MGP-NGS) enables the detection of germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in genes beyond those associated with a certain cancer phenotype. Opportunistic genetic screening based on MGP-NGS in patients with suspicion of hereditary cancer reveals these incidental findings (IFs).

METHODS

MGP-NGS was performed in patients who fulfilled the clinical criteria to undergo genetic testing according to the Catalan Health Service guidelines. Variants were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines and the Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK guidelines.

RESULTS

IFs were identified in 10 (1.22%) of the 817 patients who underwent MGP-NGS. The mean age at cancer diagnosis was 49.4±9.5 years. Three IFs (30.0%) were detected in PMS2, two (20.0%) in ATM and TP53 and one (10.0%) in MSH6, NTHL1 and VHL. Seven (70.0%) IFs were single-nucleotide substitutions, two (20.0%) were deletions and one (10.0%) was a duplication. Three (30.0) IFs were located in intronic regions, three (30.3%) were nonsense, two (20.0%) were frameshift and two (20.0%) were missense variations. Six (60.0%) IFs were classified as PVs and four (40.0%) as LPVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunistic genetic screening increased the diagnostic yield by 1.22% in our cohort. Most of the identified IFs were present in clinically actionable genes (n=7; 70.0%), providing these families with an opportunity to join cancer early detection programmes, as well as secondary cancer prevention. IFs might facilitate the diagnosis of asymptomatic individuals and the early management of cancer once it develops.

Recommandations francophones pour la pratique clinique concernant la prise en charge des cancers du sein de Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022-2023

With more than 60,000 new cases of breast cancer in mainland France in 2023 and 8% of all cancer deaths, breast cancer is the leading cancer in women in terms of incidence and mortality. While the number of new cases has almost doubled in 30 years, the percentage of patients at all stages alive at 5 years (87%) and 10 years (76%) testifies to the major progress made in terms of screening, characterisation and treatment. However, this progress, rapid as it is, needs to be evaluated and integrated into an overall strategy, taking into account the characteristics of the disease (stage and biology), as well as those of the patients being treated. These are the objectives of the St Paul-de-Vence recommendations for clinical practice. We report here the summary of the votes, discussions and conclusions of the Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022-2023 RPCs.

[The role of physicians in patient and family adherence to genetic testing]

INTRODUCTION

More and more French cancer patients are offered by their physicians having their genetic characteristics analyzed (diagnosis, adaptation of treatment plans, etc.). In oncology, considering the development of personalized medicine, these analyses are commonplace. Analyses of germline (hereditary) genetic characteristics require information from patients who must sign an informed consent (article 16.10 of the Civil Code and articles L. 1131-3 and L. 1122-1-1 of the Public Health Code). However, prescribing physicians are rarely geneticists and have little training in genetics. Patients report that few are able to answer their questions and often sign a consent that is not truly informed.

METHODS

To identify the genetic knowledge and training needs of prescribers, we conducted an online survey of physicians prescribing genetic testing in oncology between January and March 2020. The survey consisted of 17 closed questions and 3 open questions.

RESULTS

We obtained 35 usable questionnaires which show that 50% of the prescribing physicians questioned lack knowledge of genetics, but do not express a need for training. They were interested in the provision of a digital teaching aid for patients.

DISCUSSION

We have therefore made a film for patients, available in free access, which aims to shed light on the analysis of genetic characteristics. The film helps physicians to explain the offered analyses and their consequences (https://youtu.be/5lWUSsteavs).

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

An spanish study of secondary findings in families affected with mendelian disorders: choices, prevalence and family history

Clinical exome sequencing has the potential to identify pathogenic variants unrelated to the purpose of the study (secondary findings, SFs). Data describing actual choices of SFs in participants in a clinical setting and factors influencing their decision are virtually non-existant in Europe. In this work, we report the acceptance rate of SFs, calculate their prevalence and study factors associated with the decision in a cohort of patients affected with a rare genetic disorder in a Spanish Hospital. Finally, we re-examine the presence of previously non reported family history in positive cases. We retrospectively reviewed informed consent choices and SF results from 824 unrelated probands affected with rare genetic disorders who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. Ninety percent of families (740/824) affected with rare disorders wished to be informed of SFs. Declining SFs was associated with a prenatal setting (30% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.025), consanguinity (19% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.013), male gender (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.00865) and the proband being a minor (10.6% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.014). Overall, 27 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 27 individuals, with an SF prevalence of 3.6%. Disclosure of SFs increased the percentage of positive family histories and resulted in early diagnosis or changes in the management of 10 individuals from five families. We show that the acceptance of SFs in Spain is high and the disclosure of SFs leads to a clinically meaningful change in the medical management of individuals.

Heath policy guiding the identification, analysis and management of secondary findings for individuals undergoing genomic sequencing: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Genomic sequencing is increasingly enabling precision care across medical specialties; however, the discovery of genomic 'secondary findings' (SFs) unrelated to the patient's primary indication remains a profuse, unintended consequence. Existing practices within the continuum of SF identification, analysis and management are numerous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory across health conditions and regions. Final decisions are often at the discretion of the genomic sequencing laboratory, bioinformatician or treating physician. This difference in healthcare delivery causes inconsistent information, disclosure and downstream impacts required to manage SFs and patient outcomes. Improving our understanding of the SF health policy landscape can determine components of the SF policy continuum spanning generation through to management that are in conflict, limitations of current guidance and existing needs across clinical settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will carry out a systematic review to catalogue and appraise current guidance directing the identification, analysis and management of SFs for participants receiving genomic sequencing globally. We will conduct a comprehensive search of Medline (Medline R, Medline Epub Ahead of Print and Medline-In-Process & In-Data-Review Citations), Embase and Cochrane databases (n=5, inception to Feb 2022) and a grey literature search of international genomics websites (n=64; inception to May 2022). Key inclusion criteria include: guidance produced by health organisations, bioethics committees and professional associations, outlining recommendations for: (1) SF identification, (2) SF analysis or (3) SF management. Non-English language articles and conference abstracts will be excluded. Guidance will be critically appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument (AGREE) II tool. We will interpret our findings by process and across populations using a qualitative descriptive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our systematic review evaluates published data and does not require ethics review. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and workshops with precision medicine stakeholders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022316079.

Clinical and psychological implications of secondary and incidental findings in cancer susceptibility genes after exome sequencing in patients with rare disorders

Background/Objectives

Exome sequencing may identify pathogenic variants unrelated with the purpose of the analysis. We investigated the frequency of secondary and incidental findings (SF/IF) in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG), their clinical actionability and the psychological impact in individuals with an SF/IF (cases) compared with individuals tested due to their cancer history (controls).

Methods

This study analysed 533 exomes ordered for non-cancer conditions. Medical records were reviewed for clinical actionability of SF/IF. Psychological impact was analysed using the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale and compared between cases and controls with a propensity score weighting method.

Results

The frequency of SF/IF in CSG was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1% to 3.8%): threeBRCA2, threePMS2, twoSDHB, and one each inBRCA1,MLH1andRAD51C. Among the relatives, 18 were carriers. Twenty enrolled for surveillance, and a neoplasm was diagnosed in 20%: three paragangliomas and one breast cancer. Cases presented higher MICRA mean scores than controls (21.3 vs 16.2 in MICRA total score, 6.3 vs 4.2 in the distress subscale, and 8.3 vs 6.6 in the uncertainty subscale; all p<0.001).

Conclusion

SF/IF in CSG were identified in 2.1% of patients. Despite a numerically higher psychological impact, the identification of SF/IF allowed early detection and cancer prevention in families without cancer history.

Clinical exome-based panel testing for medically actionable secondary findings in a cohort of 383 Italian participants

Background: Next-generation sequencing-based genetic testing represents a great opportunity to identify hereditary predispositions to specific pathological conditions and to promptly implement health surveillance or therapeutic protocols in case of disease. The term secondary finding refers to the active search for causative variants in genes associated with medically actionable conditions.

Methods: We evaluated 59 medically actionable ACMG genes using a targeted in silico analysis of clinical exome sequencing performed in 383 consecutive individuals referred to our Medical Genetics Unit. A three-tier classification system of SFs for assessing their clinical impact and supporting a decision-making process for reporting was established.

Results: We identified SFs with high/moderate evidence of pathogenicity in 7.0% (27/383) of analyzed subjects. Among these, 12/27 (44.4%) were carriers of a high-risk recessive disease allele. The most represented disease domains were cancer predisposition (33.3%), cardiac disorders (16.7%), and familial hypercholesterolemia (12.5%).

Conclusion: Although still debated, ensuring during NGS-based genetic testing an opportunistic screening might be valuable for personal and familial early management and surveillance of medically actionable disorders, the individual’s reproductive choices, and the prevalence assessment of underestimated hereditary genetic diseases.

Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in the circulating tumor DNA testing

Background

Somatic and germline variants are not distinguishable by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing without analyzing non-tumor samples. Although confirmatory germline testing is clinically relevant, the criteria for selecting presumed germline variants have not been established in ctDNA testing. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants in clinical ctDNA testing through their variant allele fractions (VAFs).

Methods

A total of consecutive 106 patients with advanced solid tumors who underwent ctDNA testing (Guardant360®) between January 2018 and March 2020 were eligible for this study. To verify the origin of pathogenic variants reported in ctDNA testing, germline sequencing was performed using peripheral blood DNA samples archived in the Clinical Bioresource Center in Kyoto University Hospital (Kyoto, Japan) under clinical research settings.

Results

Among 223 pathogenic variants reported in ctDNA testing, the median VAF was 0.9% (0.02–81.8%), and 88 variants with ≥ 1% VAFs were analyzed in germline sequencing. Among 25 variants with ≥ 30% VAFs, seven were found in peripheral blood DNA (BRCA2: n = 6, JAK2: n = 1). In contrast, among the 63 variants with VAFs ranging from 1 to < 30%, only one variant was found in peripheral blood DNA (TP53: n = 1). Eventually, this variant with 15.6% VAF was defined to be an acquired variant, because its allelic distribution did not completely link to those of neighboring germline polymorphisms.

Conclusion

Our current study demonstrated that VAFs values are helpful for selecting presumed germline variants in clinical ctDNA testing.

Germline sequencing for presumed germline pathogenic variants via tumor-only comprehensive genomic profiling

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group (ESMO-PMWG) published recommendations regarding confirmatory germline testing for presumed germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs) in tumor-only comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). However, the clinical validity of these recommendations has not been investigated in a real-world practice.

METHODS

Medical records of 180 consecutive patients who obtained the results of a tumor-only CGP (FoundationOne^® CDx, Foundation Medicine, Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA) between October 2018 and March 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. After excluding patients with no reported variants in 45 actionable genes (n = 6), or no archived germline DNA samples (n = 31), 143 patients were investigated. The PGPVs were selected from the CGP report and germline sequencing were performed using DNA samples archived in Clinical Bioresource Center in Kyoto University Hospital (Kyoto, Japan).

RESULTS

A total of 195 variants were classified as PGPV based on the conventional criteria. Germline sequencing disclosed that 12 variants (6.2%) were of germline origin. In contrast, after filtering these 195 variants through the ESMO-PMWG recommendation criteria for confirmatory germline testing, following seven PGPVs, BRCA2 (n = 2), BRIP1 (n = 1), BAP1 (n = 1), PMS2 (n = 1), MSH2 (n = 1), and SDHB (n = 1) remained and six variants (85.7%) were confirmed to be of germline origin.

CONCLUSION

Our current data suggested that the application of ESMO-PMWG criteria is helpful in selecting PGPVs with a high likelihood of germline origin in a tumor-only CGP in daily clinical practice.

Present status of germline findings in precision medicine for Japanese cancer patients: issues in the current system

OBJECTIVE

Since 2019, precision cancer medicine has been covered by national insurance in Japan; however, to date, germline findings have not been fully reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current status and raise a problem of germline finding analysis and disclosure in Japanese precision cancer medicine.

METHODS

Germline findings of 52 genes were examined in 296 cases with advanced cancer by a case series study.

RESULTS

Six (2.0%) cases were examined by the Oncoguide™ NCC Oncopanel with germline testing, but no germline findings were reported. The remaining 290 (98.0%) cases were analyzed by FoundationOne® CDx (tumor-only testing), which recognized 404 pathogenic variants; those of BRCA1/2 were recognized in 16 (5.5%) tumors. Our institutional algorithm suggested 39 candidate germline findings in 34 cases, while the public algorithm listed at least 91 candidate germline findings. Four germline findings had been previously identified (BRCA1: 3 and ATM: 1). Nine of 30 cases with candidate germline findings excluding these known germline findings refused or deferred germline testing. Only 4 of 16 cases that received counseling underwent germline testing, and those 4 revealed 3 germline findings (BRCA2, CDK4 and RAD51C); in total, 8 (2.7%) germline findings were revealed. Reasons for refusing genetic counseling and/or germline testing included extra hospital visits, added expense for germline testing due to limited national insurance coverage, poor patient physical condition and no known family members associated with the possible germline finding.

CONCLUSIONS

In current Japanese precision cancer medicine, only a small fraction of the patients undergoes germline testing and demonstrated germline finding. The current results suggested a need for earlier indications for precision cancer medicine, broader insurance coverage and more efficient germline finding prediction algorithms, to increase the number of germline testings and to improve the following managements.

Singleton exome sequencing of 90 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies revealing novel disease-causing variants and genotype-phenotype correlations

Exome sequencing has been increasingly implemented in prenatal genetic testing for fetuses with morphological abnormalities but normal rapid aneuploidy detection and microarray analysis. We present a retrospective study of 90 fetuses with different abnormal ultrasound findings, in which we employed the singleton exome sequencing (sES; 75 fetuses) or to a lesser extent (15 fetuses) a multigene panel analysis of 6713 genes as a primary tool for the detection of monogenic diseases. The detection rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in this study was 34.4%. The highest diagnostic rate of 56% was in fetuses with multiple anomalies, followed by cases with skeletal or renal abnormalities (diagnostic rate of 50%, respectively). We report 20 novel disease-causing variants in different known disease-associated genes and new genotype-phenotype associations for the genes KMT2D, MN1, CDK10, and EXOC3L2. Based on our data, we postulate that sES of fetal index cases with a concurrent sampling of parental probes for targeted testing of the origin of detected fetal variants could be a suitable tool to obtain reliable and rapid prenatal results, particularly in situations where a trio analysis is not possible.

Massive parallel sequencing in individuals with multiple primary tumours reveals the benefit of re-analysis

Multiple primary cancers, defined as three or more primary tumours, are rare, and there are few genetic studies concerning them. There is a need for increased knowledge on the heritability of multiple primary cancers and genotype-phenotype correlations. We have performed whole-genome/exome sequencing (WGS/WES) in ten individuals with three or more primary tumours, with no previous findings on standard clinical genetic investigations. In one individual with a clinical diagnosis of MEN1, a likely pathogenic cryptic splice site variant was detected in the MEN1 gene. The variant (c.654C > A) is synonymous but we showed in a cDNA analysis that it affects splicing and leads to a frameshift, with the theoretical new amino acid sequence p.(Gly219Glufs*13). In one individual with metachronous colorectal cancers, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, we found a likely pathogenic variant in the MLH1 gene (c.27G > A), and two risk factor variants in the genes CHEK2 and HOXB13. The MLH1 variant is synonymous but has previously been shown to be associated to constitutional low-grade hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter, and segregates with disease in families with colorectal and endometrial cancer. No pathogenic single nucleotide or structural variants were detected in the remaining eight individuals in the study. The pathogenic variants found by WGS/WES were in genes already sequenced by Sanger sequencing and WES in the clinic, without any findings. We conclude that, in individuals with an unequivocal clinical diagnosis of a specific hereditary cancer syndrome, where standard clinical testing failed to detect a causative variant, re-analysis may lead to a diagnosis.

Next-Generation Sequencing in Newborn Screening: A Review of Current State

Newborn screening was first introduced at the beginning of the 1960s with the successful implementation of the first phenylketonuria screening programs. Early expansion of the included disorders was slow because each additional disorder screened required a separate test. Subsequently, the technological advancements of biochemical methodology enabled the scaling-up of newborn screening, most notably with the implementation of tandem mass spectrometry. In recent years, we have witnessed a remarkable progression of high-throughput sequencing technologies, which has resulted in a continuous decrease of both cost and time required for genetic analysis. This has enabled more widespread use of the massive multiparallel sequencing. Genomic sequencing is now frequently used in clinical applications, and its implementation in newborn screening has been intensively advocated. The expansion of newborn screening has raised many clinical, ethical, legal, psychological, sociological, and technological concerns over time. This review provides an overview of the current state of next-generation sequencing regarding newborn screening including current recommendations and potential challenges for the use of such technologies in newborn screening.

Stakeholder views on opportunistic genomic screening in the Netherlands: a qualitative study

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such 'opportunistic genomic screening' (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected 'secondary findings' be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical 'screening' framework, rather than as a form of 'good patient care'. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a 'fiduciary duty' to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient's informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.

Clinical practice guidelines for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancer and are increasingly used to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy of BRCA-related cancer. Because issues of BRCA testing in clinical practice now overlap with both preventive and therapeutic management, updated and comprehensive practice guidelines for BRCA genotyping are needed. The integrative recommendations for BRCA testing presented here aim to (1) identify individuals who may benefit from genetic counselling and risk-reducing strategies; (2) update germline and tumour-testing indications for PARPi-approved therapies; (3) provide testing recommendations for personalised management of early and metastatic breast cancer; and (4) address the issues of rapid process and tumour analysis. An international group of experts, including geneticists, medical and surgical oncologists, pathologists, ethicists and patient representatives, was commissioned by the French Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine (SFMPP). The group followed a methodology based on specific formal guidelines development, including (1) evaluating the likelihood of BRCAm from a combined systematic review of the literature, risk assessment models and expert quotations, and (2) therapeutic values of BRCAm status for PARPi therapy in BRCA-related cancer and for management of early and advanced breast cancer. These international guidelines may help clinicians comprehensively update and standardise BRCA testing practices.

Molecular Features and Clinical Management of Hereditary Gynecological Cancers

Hereditary gynecological cancers are caused by several inherited genes. Tumors that arise in the female reproductive system, such as ovaries and the uterus, overlap with hereditary cancers. Several hereditary cancer-related genes are important because they might lead to therapeutic targets. Treatment of hereditary cancers should be updated in line with the advent of various new methods of evaluation. Next-generation sequencing has led to rapid, economical genetic analyses that have prompted a concomitant and significant paradigm shift with respect to hereditary cancers. Molecular tumor profiling is an epochal method for determining therapeutic targets. Clinical treatment strategies are now being designed based on biomarkers based on tumor profiling. Furthermore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines significantly changed the genetic testing process in 2020 to initially consider multi-gene panel (MGP) evaluation. Here, we reviewed the molecular features and clinical management of hereditary gynecological malignancies, such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), and Lynch, Li–Fraumeni, Cowden, and Peutz–Jeghers syndromes. We also reviewed cancer-susceptible genes revealed by MGP tests.

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Evaluating the resource implications of different service delivery models for offering additional genomic findings

PURPOSE

To evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.

METHODS

Data from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.

RESULTS

For the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375-US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794-US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41-51%.

CONCLUSION

Resources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.

Disclosure of secondary findings in exome sequencing of 2480 Japanese cancer patients

High-throughput sequencing has greatly contributed to precision medicine. However, challenges remain in reporting secondary findings (SFs) of germline pathogenic variants and managing the affected patients. The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of SFs in Japanese cancer patients using whole exome sequencing (WES) and to understand patient preferences regarding SF disclosure. WES was conducted for 2480 cancer patients. Genomic data were screened and classified for variants of 59 genes listed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF v2.0 and for an additional 13 hereditary cancer-related genes. Majority of the participants (68.9%; 1709/2480) opted for disclosure of their SFs. Thirty-two pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, including BRCA1 (7 patients), BRCA2 (4), CHEK2 (4), PTEN (3), MLH1 (3), SDHB (2), MSH6 (1), NF1 (1), EXT2 (1), NF1 (1), NTRK1 (1), MYH7 (3), MYL2 (1), TNNT2 (1), LDLR (2), FBN1 (1), and KCNH2 (1) were recognized in 36 patients (1.5%). Twenty-eight (77.8%) patients underwent genetic counseling and received their SF results. Eighteen (64.3%) patients underwent clinical management for SFs. Genetic validation tests were administered significantly more frequently to patients with than without a SF-related personal history (P = 0.025). This was a first attempt at a large-scale systematic exome analysis in Japan; nevertheless, many cancer patients opted for disclosure of SFs and accepted or considered clinical management.

Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles

Background

Genomic screening has unique challenges which makes it difficult to easily implement on a wide scale. If the costs, benefits and tradeoffs of investing in genomic screening are not evaluated properly, there is a risk of wasting finite healthcare resources and also causing avoidable harm.

Main text

If healthcare professionals – including policy makers, payers and providers – wish to incorporate genomic screening into healthcare while minimizing waste, maximizing benefits, and considering results that matter to patients, using the principles of triple value (allocative, technical, and personal value) could help them to evaluate tough decisions and tradeoffs. Allocative value focuses on the optimal distribution of limited healthcare resources to maximize the health benefits to the entire population while also accounting for all the costs of care delivery. Technical value ensures that for any given condition, the right intervention is chosen and delivered in the right way. Various methods (e.g. ACCE, HTA, and Wilson and Jungner screening criteria) exist that can help identify appropriate genomic applications. Personal value incorporates preference based informed decision making to ensure that patients are informed about the benefits and harms of the choices available to them and to ensure they make choices based on their values and preferences.

Conclusions

Using triple value principles can help healthcare professionals make reasoned and tough judgements about benefits and tradeoffs when they are exploring the role genomic screening for chronic diseases could play in improving the health of their patients and populations.

Clinical significance of TP53 variants as possible secondary findings in tumor-only next-generation sequencing

In tumor-only next-generation sequencing (NGS), identified variants have the potential to be secondary findings (SFs), but they require verification through additional germline testing. In the present study, 194 patients with advanced cancer who underwent tumor-only NGS between April 2015 and March 2018 were enrolled, and the incidences of possible and true SFs were evaluated. Among them, 120 patients (61.9%) harbored at least one possible SF. TP53 was the most frequent gene in which 97 variants were found in 91 patients (49.5%). Nine patients provided informed consent to undergo additional germline testing, and a total of 14 variants (BRCA1, n = 1; BRCA2, n = 2; PTEN, n = 2; RB1, n = 1; SMAD4, n = 1; STK11, n = 1; TP53, n = 6) were analyzed. Three variants (BRCA1, n = 1; BRCA2, n = 2) were confirmed to be SFs, whereas TP53 variants were confirmed to be somatic variants. To confirm the low prevalence of SFs in TP53, we analyzed 24 patients with TP53 variants who underwent a paired tumor–normal NGS assay. As expected, all TP53 variants were confirmed to be somatic variants. A total of 30 patients were tested for germline variants in TP53, but none of them resulted in true SFs, suggesting the low prevalence of SFs in this gene. Therefore, the significance of additional germline testing for TP53 variants appears to be relatively low in daily clinical practice using a tumor-only NGS assay, unless patients have any relevant medical or family history.

From Targeting Somatic Mutations to Finding Inherited Cancer Predispositions: The Other Side of the Coin

The expanding use of tumor genome analysis by next generation sequencing to drive target therapies has led to increased germline findings in genes predisposing to hereditary cancer. These putative germline findings obtained from theranostic analyses, such as BRCA1/2 gene testing, large panels, whole-exome, or whole-genome sequencing, need to be managed carefully and in an anticipated way with the patient. Before the genetic analysis of a tumor, specific information should be given to patients, who should be aware that the results may have extra-therapeutic medical issues for themselves and relatives. We previously published a list of 36 actionable genes predisposing to cancer for which informing the patient is recommended prior to pangenomic germline analysis because of available screening or preventive strategies. Here, we report clinical practice considerations and schemes for managing germline findings in tumor analyses, including written informed consent and a multidisciplinary approach involving an oncologist, molecular biologist/pathologist, and geneticist in case of germline findings. A somatic result showing a deleterious mutation in a known predisposing gene in a patient who has consented to this purpose should result in referral to a geneticist who is part of the multidisciplinary team. At any time of the somatic analysis process, the patient may have access to a geneticist consultation if additional information is required. This framework will optimally manage both personalized theranostic issues and specific preventive strategies for individuals and relatives; it will also simplify and accelerate the process of genetic testing.

Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium

Implementing genome and exome sequencing in clinical practice presents challenges, including obtaining meaningful informed consent. Consent may be challenging due to test limitations such as uncertainties associated with test results and interpretation, complexity created by the potential for additional findings and high patient expectations. We drew on the experiences of research teams within the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) Consortium on informed consent for clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) to negotiate consensus considerations. We present six considerations for clinicians and 12 key points to communicate as they support patients in deciding whether to undergo CGES. These considerations and key points provide a helpful starting point for informed consent to CGES, grounded in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) experience.

Homozygous frame shift variant in ATP7B exon 1 leads to bypass of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay and to a protein capable of copper export

Wilson disease (WD) is an autosomal recessive disease of copper excess due to pathogenic variants in the ATP7B gene coding for a copper-transporting ATPase. We present a 5-year-old girl with the homozygous frame shift variant NM_000053.3: c.19_20del in exon 1 of ATP7B (consecutive exon numbering with c.1 as first nucleotide of exon 1), detected by whole-exome sequencing as a secondary finding. The variant leads to a premature termination codon in exon 2. The girl exhibited no WD symptoms and no abnormalities in liver biopsy. ATP7B liver mRNA expression was comparable to healthy controls suggesting that nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) could be bypassed by the mechanism of translation reinitiation. To verify this hypothesis, a CMV-driven ATP7B minigene (pcDNA3) was equipped with the authentic ATP7B 5' untranslated region  and a truncated intron 2. We introduced c.19_20del by site-directed mutagenesis and overexpressed the constructs in HEK293T cells. We analyzed ATP7B expression by qRT-PCR, northern and western blot, and examined protein function by copper export capacity assays. Northern blot, qRT-PCR, and western blot revealed that c.19_20del ATP7B mRNA and protein is expressed in size and amount comparable to wild-type. Copper export capacity was also comparable to wild-type. Our results indicate that c.19_20del in ATP7B is able to bypass NMD by translation reinitiation, demonstrating that the classification of truncating variants as pathogenic without additional investigations should be done carefully.