Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Germline Variants of Uncertain Significance in Gynecologic Oncology Patients

Germline and somatic genetic/genomic testing are commonly ordered for gynecologic oncology patients. Genetic tests can inform disease etiology, prognosis, treatment decisions, and risk to the patient's relatives. Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are frequently encountered and have a more nuanced interpretation than straightforward pathogenic or benign variant classifications. Clinical care providers should be familiar with why and how VUSs are reported, their clinical significance, variant reclassification practices, and patient perceptions of VUSs.

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large.

RESULTS

Following incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.

CONCLUSION

The document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners.

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.

Attitudes toward uncertain results from prenatal exome sequencing: a national survey among healthcare professionals working in the prenatal setting

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the attitudes of healthcare professionals (HPs) working in the prenatal setting toward uncertain results (UR) from prenatal exome sequencing (pES) in China.

Methods

We conducted a national survey among HPs working in the prenatal setting. UR in our study include variants of uncertain significance (VUS), variants with variable penetrance/expressivity (VVPE), and secondary findings unrelated to the indication for testing (SFs). A total of 285 questionnaires that met the inclusion criteria were collected. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.

Results

When performing the pre-test counseling, only 7.4% of HPs mentioned the possibility of VUS, 6.3% discussed the possibility of VVPE, and 7.4% introduced the SFs with parents with the option to not report these variants. In post-test counseling, 73.0-82.8% HPs discussed with the parents but did not make any recommendations for managing the pregnancy after reporting UR (73.0% for VUS, 82.8% for VVPE, 74.7% for SFs, respectively).

Conclusion

Most parents did not have the option of opting out of reporting UR from pES in pre-test counseling. UR did not influence the pregnancy recommendation made by most HPs. Establishing national guidelines for reporting UR from pES and developing strategies to improve counseling skills may help HPs manage UR.

Recontact to return new or updated PALB2 genetic results in the clinical laboratory setting

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to recontact individuals with clinically actionable test results identified through a retrospective research study and to provide a framework for laboratories to recontact patients.

METHODS

Genetic testing was conducted on 2977 individuals originally referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing that had a negative genetic test result. A gene panel was used to identify pathogenic variants in known or newly discovered genes that could explain the underlying cause of disease; however, analysis was restricted to PALB2 for the purposes of this study. A patient recontact decision tree was developed to assist in the returning of updated genetic test results to clinics and patients.

RESULTS

Novel clinically actionable pathogenic variants were identified in the PALB2 gene in 18 participants (0.6%), the majority of whom were recontacted with their new or updated genetic test results. Eight individuals were unable to be recontacted; five individuals had already learnt about their new or updated findings from genetic testing outside the context of this study; three individuals prompted cascade testing in family members; two individuals were deceased.

CONCLUSION

Novel pathogenic variants in PALB2 were identified in 18 individuals through retrospective gene panel testing. Recontacting these individuals regarding these new or updated findings had a range of outcomes. The process of conveying genomic results within this framework can be effectively accomplished while upholding patient autonomy, potentially leading to advantageous outcomes for patients and their families.

Clonal origin and genomic diversity in Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer with multiple synchronous tumors: Identification of the pathogenicity of MLH1 p.L582H

Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer patients often present multiple synchronous tumors and this assessment can affect treatment strategies. We present a case of a 27-year-old woman with tumors in the uterine corpus, cervix, and ovaries who was diagnosed with endometrial cancer and exhibited cervical invasion and ovarian metastasis. Her family history suggested Lynch syndrome, and genetic testing identified a variant of uncertain significance, MLH1 p.L582H. We conducted immunohistochemical staining, microsatellite instability analysis, and Sanger sequencing for Lynch syndrome-associated cancers in three generations of the family and identified consistent MLH1 loss. Whole-exome sequencing for the corpus, cervical, and ovarian tumors of the proband identified a copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity (LOH) occurring at the MLH1 position in all tumors. This indicated that the germline variant and the copy-neutral LOH led to biallelic loss of MLH1 and was the cause of cancer initiation. All tumors shared a portion of somatic mutations with high mutant allele frequencies, suggesting a common clonal origin. There were no mutations shared only between the cervix and ovary samples. The profiles of mutant allele frequencies shared between the corpus and cervix or ovary indicated that two different subclones originating from the corpus independently metastasized to the cervix or ovary. Additionally, all tumors presented unique mutations in endometrial cancer-associated genes such as ARID1A and PIK3CA. In conclusion, we demonstrated clonal origin and genomic diversity in a Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer, suggesting the importance of evaluating multiple sites in Lynch syndrome patients with synchronous tumors.

Variant reclassification and clinical implications

Genomic technologies have transformed clinical genetic testing, underlining the importance of accurate molecular genetic diagnoses. Variant classification, ranging from benign to pathogenic, is fundamental to these tests. However, variant reclassification, the process of reassigning the pathogenicity of variants over time, poses challenges to diagnostic legitimacy. This review explores the medical and scientific literature available on variant reclassification, focusing on its clinical implications.Variant reclassification is driven by accruing evidence from diverse sources, leading to variant reclassification frequency ranging from 3.6% to 58.8%. Recent studies have shown that significant changes can occur when reviewing variant classifications within 1 year after initial classification, illustrating the importance of early, accurate variant assignation for clinical care.Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are particularly problematic. They lack clear categorisation but have influenced patient treatment despite recommendations against it. Addressing VUS reclassification is essential to enhance the credibility of genetic testing and the clinical impact. Factors affecting reclassification include standardised guidelines, clinical phenotype-genotype correlations through deep phenotyping and ancestry studies, large-scale databases and bioinformatics tools. As genomic databases grow and knowledge advances, reclassification rates are expected to change, reducing discordance in future classifications.Variant reclassification affects patient diagnosis, precision therapy and family screening. The exact patient impact is yet unknown. Understanding influencing factors and adopting standardised guidelines are vital for precise molecular genetic diagnoses, ensuring optimal patient care and minimising clinical risk.

Parents' attitudes towards research involving genome sequencing of their healthy children: a qualitative study

With widespread genomic sequencing research efforts, there is increasing impetus to return results to participants. Parents of healthy children are increasingly asked to participate in genomic research, yet there are limited studies of parental expectations for the return of results amongst healthy children. We explored parental attitudes towards their healthy children's participation in genomic research and expectations for return of results. Data collection involved semi-structured telephone interviews with parents of healthy children participating in a primary care research network. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. A total of 26 parents were interviewed: 22 were female, 19 self-reported as White/European, and 20 were aged 30-39. Three themes emerged: (1) Reciprocity; Parents preferred to receive medically actionable, childhood-onset results and expected recontact overtime in exchange for their research participation. (2) Downstream impacts of testing; Parents expected future clinical benefits but were concerned about the risk of genetic discrimination. (3) Power and empowerment; Some parents felt empowered to take preventative action for their child and relatives, while others did not want to limit their child's autonomy. Considering these tensions may help to inform participant-centered approaches to optimize parental decision-making and participation, as well as maximize the utility of results.

Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results.

CONCLUSION

There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.

Prenatal whole-exome sequencing in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency

BACKGROUND

Increased nuchal translucency (NT) is associated with an increased risk for genetic disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in detecting genetic abnormalities for fetuses with isolated first-trimester increased NT.

METHODS

After the exclusion of aneuploidies and pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) by quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), WES was performed on 63 fetuses with isolated first-trimester increased NT (≥3.5 mm).

RESULTS

Overall, WES yielded a 4.8% (3/63) diagnostic rate for fetuses with isolated increased NT. Pathogenic variants were identified in 37.5% (3/8) fetuses that developed additional structural anomalies later in gestation, and no pathogenic variants were detected in increased NT that resolved or remained isolated throughout the pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

This study provides powerful evidence to offer prenatal WES for increased NT only when additional abnormalities are present. Early detailed ultrasound to detect emerging anomalies can help physicians offer prenatal WES to fetuses with a greater likelihood of diagnosis.

Exome and genome sequencing for rare genetic disease diagnosis: A scoping review and critical appraisal of clinical guidance documents produced by genetics professional organizations

PURPOSE

Exome and genome sequencing have rapidly transitioned from research methods to widely used clinical tests for diagnosing rare genetic diseases. We sought to synthesize the topics covered and appraise the development processes of clinical guidance documents generated by genetics professional organizations.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of guidance documents published since 2010, systematically identified in peer-reviewed and gray literature, using established methods and reporting guidelines. We coded verbatim recommendations by topic using content analysis and critically appraised documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 30 guidance documents produced by 8 organizations (2012-2022), yielding 611 recommendations covering 21 topics. The most common topic related to findings beyond the primary testing indication. Mean AGREE II scores were low across all 6 quality domains; scores for items related to rigor of development were among the lowest. More recently published documents generally received higher scores.

CONCLUSION

Guidance documents included a broad range of recommendations but were of low quality, particularly in their rigor of development. Developers should consider using tools such as AGREE II and basing recommendations on living knowledge syntheses to improve guidance development in this evolving space.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited.

METHODS

An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed.

RESULTS

Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time.

CONCLUSION

Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants

With the growing use of genetic testing in medicine, the question of when genetic findings should be reinterpreted in light of new data has become inescapable. The generation of population and disease-specific data, development of computational tools, and new understandings of the relationship of specific genes to disorders can all trigger changes in variant classification that may have important implications for patients and the clinicians caring for them. This is a particular concern for patients from groups underrepresented in current reference datasets, since they have higher rates of uncertain findings. Here we identify the challenges to implementing a systematic approach to variant reinterpretation and propose solutions. In particular, we address (a) the infrastructure needed to support implementation of systematic variant reinterpretation, (b) the issues around obtaining consent from patients for reinterpretation, (c) the process for triggering reinterpretation, (d) pathways for the flow of reinterpreted data, (e) considerations for how to cover the costs of reinterpretation, and (f) practical issues related to implementation of processes and policies that address these issues, including the importance of a fixed duration during which there is an expectation that variants will be reinterpreted.

Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan

Genetic testing advances have enabled the provision of previously unavailable information on the pathogenicity of genetic variants, frequently necessitating the recontact of former patients by clinicians. In Japan, national health insurance coverage was extended to BRCA1/2 testing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer for patients who meet certain criteria in 2020, and conditions necessitating recontact were expected to increase. Studies and discussions regarding recontact have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe; however, in Japan, the national discussion around recontact remains undeveloped. We conducted a cross-sectional study by interviewing 73 facilities accredited by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer regarding the practice of recontacting patients at these facilities. Sixty-six facilities responded that they recontact patients, but only 17 facilities had a protocol for this. The most common reason for recontact was that it could benefit the patient. Facilities that did not recontact stated that they lacked the necessary personnel or services. Most facilities indicated that a recontact system should be implemented in their practice. The increased burden on too few medical personnel, unestablished systems, patient confusion, and the right not to know were cited as barriers to implementing recontact. Although developing recommendations on recontact would be useful for providing equitable healthcare in Japan, there is an urgent need to deepen the discussion on recontacting, as negative opinions about recontacting patients were observed.

Exploring the impact of the reclassification of a hereditary cancer syndrome gene variant: emerging themes from a qualitative study

The complexity of genetic variant interpretation means that a proportion of individuals who undergo genetic testing for a hereditary cancer syndrome will have their test result reclassified over time. Such a reclassification may involve a clinically significant upgrade or downgrade in pathogenicity, which may have significant implications for medical management. To date, few studies have examined the psychosocial impact of a reclassification in a hereditary cancer syndrome context. To address this gap, semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with eighteen individuals who had a BRCA1, BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome-related (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2) gene variant reclassified. The interviews were analysed utilising an inductive, qualitative approach and emergent themes were identified by thematic analysis. Variable levels of recall amongst participants were found. Common motivations for initial testing included a significant personal and/or family history of cancer and a desire to "find an answer". No individual whose uncertain result was upgraded reported negative psychosocial outcomes; most reported adapting to their reclassified result and appraised their genetic testing experience positively. However, individuals whose likely pathogenic/pathogenic results were downgraded reported feelings of anger, shock and sadness post reclassification, highlighting that additional psychosocial support may be required for some. Genetic counselling issues and recommendations for clinical practice are outlined.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.

The role of genetic testing in the diagnostic workflow of pediatric patients with kidney diseases: the experience of a single institution

PURPOSE

Inherited kidney diseases are among the leading causes of kidney failure in children, resulting in increased mortality, high healthcare costs and need for organ transplantation. Next-generation sequencing technologies can help in the diagnosis of rare monogenic conditions, allowing for optimized medical management and therapeutic choices.

METHODS

Clinical exome sequencing (CES) was performed on a cohort of 191 pediatric patients from a single institution, followed by Sanger sequencing to confirm identified variants and for family segregation studies.

RESULTS

All patients had a clinical diagnosis of kidney disease: the main disease categories were glomerular diseases (32.5%), ciliopathies (20.4%), CAKUT (17.8%), nephrolithiasis (11.5%) and tubular disease (10.5%). 7.3% of patients presented with other conditions. A conclusive genetic test, based on CES and Sanger validation, was obtained in 37.1% of patients. The highest detection rate was obtained for ciliopathies (74.4%), followed by nephrolithiasis (45.5%), tubular diseases (45%), while most glomerular diseases and CAKUT remained undiagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that genetic testing consistently used in the diagnostic workflow of children with chronic kidney disease can (i) confirm clinical diagnosis, (ii) provide early diagnosis in the case of inherited conditions, (iii) find the genetic cause of previously unrecognized diseases and (iv) tailor transplantation programs.

Feedback of individual genetic and genomics research results: A qualitative study involving grassroots communities in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.

CONCLUSION

Participation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.

Reclassification of clinically-detected sequence variants: Framework for genetic clinicians and clinical scientists by CanVIG-UK (Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK)

PURPOSE

Variant classifications may change over time, driven by emergence of fresh or contradictory evidence or evolution in weighing or combination of evidence items. For variant classifications above the actionability threshold, which is classification of likely pathogenic or pathogenic, clinical actions may be irreversible, such as risk-reducing surgery or prenatal interventions. Variant reclassification up or down across the actionability threshold can therefore have significant clinical consequences. Laboratory approaches to variant reinterpretation and reclassification vary widely.

METHODS

Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK is a multidisciplinary network of clinical scientists and genetic clinicians from across the 24 Molecular Diagnostic Laboratories and Clinical Genetics Services of the United Kingdom (NHS) and Republic of Ireland. We undertook surveys, polls, and national meetings of Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK to evaluate opinions about clinical and laboratory management regarding variant reclassification.

RESULTS

We generated a consensus framework on variant reclassification applicable to cancer susceptibility genes and other clinical areas, which provides explicit recommendations for clinical and laboratory management of variant reclassification scenarios on the basis of the nature of the new evidence, the magnitude of evidence shift, and the final classification score.

CONCLUSION

In this framework, clinical and laboratory resources are targeted for maximal clinical effect and minimal patient harm, as appropriate to all resource-constrained health care settings.

Challenges for precision public health communication in the era of genomic medicine

Although still in the early stages of development, the advent of fast, high-output, and cost-effective next-generation DNA sequencing technology is moving precision medicine into public health. Before this shift toward next-generation sequencing in public health settings, individual patients met geneticists after showing symptoms and through limited family screening. In the new era of precision public health, everyone is a possible participant in genetic sequencing, simply by being born (newborn screening), by donating blood (biobanking), or through population screening. These initiatives are increasingly offered to individuals throughout their life and more individuals are encountering opportunities to use DNA sequencing. This article raises awareness of these growing areas and calls for different models of public engagement and communication about genomics, including screening asymptomatic populations, obtaining consent for unspecified and unforeseen future uses of genomic data, and managing variants of uncertain significance. Given that such communication challenges loom large, established norms of practice in genomic medicine and research should be reconsidered.

Cancer patients' understandings of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical care

Genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) pose a growing challenge for patient communication and care in precision genomic medicine. To better understand patient perspectives of VUSs, we draw on qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 22 cancer patients and individuals with cancer family history who received a VUS result. The majority of patients did not recall receiving VUS results and those who remembered expressed few worries, while respondents who were tested because of a family history of cancer were more concerned about the VUS results. Personal characteristics, medical condition, family history, expectations prior to testing, and motivations for pursuing testing influence the ways patients came to terms with the uncertainty of the VUS result. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the findings to the debate on the responsibility of the patient in checking back for VUS reclassification and to implications for genetic counseling that emphasizes tailoring the pre- and post-test discussion of VUS as appropriate to the patients’ informational as well as emotional needs.

Interpretation and actionability of genetic variants in cardiomyopathies: a position statement from the European Society of Cardiology Council on cardiovascular genomics

This document describes the contribution of clinical criteria to the interpretation of genetic variants using heritable Mendelian cardiomyopathies as an example. The aim is to assist cardiologists in defining the clinical contribution to a genetic diagnosis and the interpretation of molecular genetic reports. The identification of a genetic variant of unknown or uncertain significance is a limitation of genetic testing, but current guidelines for the interpretation of genetic variants include essential contributions from clinical family screening that can establish a de novo assignment of the variant or its segregation with the phenotype in the family. A partnership between clinicians and patients helps to solve major uncertainties and provides reliable and clinically actionable information.

Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel

To realize the promise of genomic medicine, harness the power of genomic technologies, and capitalize on the extraordinary pace of research linking genomic variation to disease risks, healthcare systems must embrace and integrate genomics into routine healthcare. We have implemented an innovative pilot program for genomic population health screening for any-health-status adults within the largest health system in Vermont, United States. This program draws on key research and technological advances to safely extract clinical value for genomics in routine health care. The program offers no-cost, non-research DNA sequencing to patients by their primary care providers as a preventive health tool. We partnered with a commercial clinical testing company for two next generation sequencing gene panels comprising 431 genes related to both high and low-penetrance common health risks and carrier status for recessive disorders. Only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants are reported. Routine written clinical consultation is provided with a concise, clinical “action plan” that presents core messages for primary care provider and patient use and supports clinical management and health education beyond the testing laboratory’s reports. Access to genetic counseling is free in most cases. Predefined care pathways and access to genetics experts facilitates the appropriate use of results. This pilot tests the feasibility of routine, ethical, and scalable use of population genomic screening in healthcare despite generally imperfect genomic competency among both the public and health care providers. This article describes the program design, implementation process, guiding philosophies, and insights from 2 years of experience offering testing and returning results in primary care settings. To aid others planning similar programs, we review our barriers, solutions, and perceived gaps in the context of an implementation research framework.

Best practices for the interpretation and reporting of clinical whole genome sequencing

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) shows promise as a first-tier diagnostic test for patients with rare genetic disorders. However, standards addressing the definition and deployment practice of a best-in-class test are lacking. To address these gaps, the Medical Genome Initiative, a consortium of leading health care and research organizations in the US and Canada, was formed to expand access to high quality clinical WGS by convening experts and publishing best practices. Here, we present best practice recommendations for the interpretation and reporting of clinical diagnostic WGS, including discussion of challenges and emerging approaches that will be critical to harness the full potential of this comprehensive test.

Re-analysis of genomic data: An overview of the mechanisms and complexities of clinical adoption

Re-analyzing genomic information from a patient suspected of having an underlying genetic condition can improve the diagnostic yield of sequencing tests, potentially providing significant benefits to the patient and to the health care system. Although a significant number of studies have shown the clinical potential of re-analysis, less work has been performed to characterize the mechanisms responsible for driving the increases in diagnostic yield. Complexities surrounding re-analysis have also emerged. The terminology itself represents a challenge because "re-analysis" can refer to a range of different concepts. Other challenges include the increased workload that re-analysis demands of curators, adequate reimbursement pathways for clinical and diagnostic services, and the development of systems to handle large volumes of data. Re-analysis also raises ethical implications for patients and families, most notably when re-classification of a variant alters diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. This review highlights the possibilities and complexities associated with the re-analysis of existing clinical genomic data. We propose a terminology that builds on the foundation presented in a recent statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and describes each re-analysis process. We identify mechanisms for increasing diagnostic yield and provide perspectives on the range of challenges that must be addressed by health care systems and individual patients.

Cardiovascular Genetics: The Role of Genetics in Predicting Risk

Many cardiovascular disorders have underlying genetic causes. Clinical genetic testing for cardiovascular disease has become widely available and can be useful for diagnosis, management, and cascade screening in selected conditions and circumstances. This article gives an overview of the current state of genetic testing in inherited cardiovascular conditions, who can benefit from it, and the associated challenges.

A Framework of Critical Considerations in Clinical Exome Reanalyses by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

Exome reanalysis is useful for providing molecular diagnoses for previously uninformative samples. However, challenges exist in implementing a practical solution for clinicians and laboratories. This study complements the current literature by providing practical considerations for patient-level and cohort-level reanalyses. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute assembled the Document Development Committee and an interpretation working group that developed the framework for reevaluation of exome-based data. We describe two distinct but complementary approaches toward exome reanalyses: clinician-initiated patient-level reanalysis, and laboratory-initiated cohort-level reanalysis. We highlight the advantages and constraints for both approaches, and provide a high-level conceptual guide for ordering clinicians and laboratories through the critical decision pathways. Because clinical exome sequencing continues to be the standard of care in genetics, exome reanalysis would be critical in increasing the overall diagnostic yield. A systematic guide will facilitate the efficient adoption of reevaluation of exome data for laboratories, health care professionals, genetic counselors, and clinicians.

Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals

The issue of recontacting past genetics patients is increasingly relevant, particularly with the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Improved testing can provide additional information on the pathogenicity and prevalence of genetic variants, often leading to a need to recontact patients. Some international genetics societies have position statements and recommendations to guide genetic health professionals (GHPs) navigating the legal, ethical and practical issues of recontacting. In the absence of a standardised Australasian protocol, we explored the experiences and opinions of Australasian GHPs regarding patient follow-up and recontacting practices. Forty-five respondents completed an online survey. Most respondents indicated that recontacting occurred on an ad hoc basis, but most genetic services relied on patients (or family) initiating recontact. Implementation of a routine recontacting system was widely dismissed by 73% of respondents, citing lack of resources, limited information on legal responsibility and setting unrealistic expectations as common barriers. If recontact was contemplated, e-communication was an acceptable first step. This study identified the need for integrated familial cancer registries to assist under-resourced genetic services to maintain up-to-date patient records. Developing a standard recontacting protocol with flexibility to account for patient individuality and circumstances might enable provision of equitable service within Australasia.

Fragmented responsibility: views of Israeli HCPs regarding patient recontact following variant reclassification

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever-increasing diagnostic yield, recontacting patients after reclassification of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. Although periodical reinterpretation of VUSs is highly desired, recontacting former patients with new classifications is commonly not fulfilled in practice. We draw on semi-structured interviews with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome-wide sequencing to patients. Findings show agreement that an individual health care professional cannot address the task of recontacting patients after re-classification, and that responsibility should be shared among the medical specialties, laboratory scientists, as well as patients. In the absence of established guidelines, many respondents suggested that the patient should be informed about reclassification during a follow-up contact but they disagreed who should be responsible for informing the patient. HCPs agreed that the solution to this challenge involves a centralized automated database that is accessible, continuously updated, and facilitates retrospective as well as prospective flagging of reclassification for patients who can benefit from this information. National and international policies providing concrete guidelines on the optimal way to recontact patients with new valuable genomic information are needed.

Management of amended variant classification laboratory reports by genetic counselors in the United States and Canada: An exploratory study

For the past two decades, the guidelines put forth by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) detailing providers' clinical responsibility to recontact patients have remained mostly unchanged, despite evolving variant interpretation practices which have yielded substantial rates of reclassification and amended reports. In fact, there is little information regarding genetic counselors' roles in informing patients of reclassified variants, or the process by which these amended reports are currently being handled. In this study, we developed a survey to measure current experiences with amended variant reports and preferences for ideal management, which was completed by 96 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada. All respondents indicated they were the individuals responsible for disclosing initial positive genetic testing results and any clinically actionable reclassified variant reports, and over half (56%) received at least a few amended variant reports each year. Nearly a quarter (20/87) of respondents reported having a standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing amended reports and all were very satisfied (12/20) or satisfied (8/20) with the SOP. Of those without a protocol, 76% (51/67) would prefer to have an SOP implemented. Respondents reported a preference for (1) laboratories to send amended variant reports directly to the genetic counselor or ordering physician through email or an online portal, and (2) notification to patients ideally occurring through a phone call. In the event that the original genetic counselor is inaccessible, respondents reported a preference for reports to be sent directly to another genetic counselor (36%) on the team or the clinic in general (27%). Information from this study provides insight into the current practices of genetic counselors as applied to amended reports and what improvements may increase the efficiency of the reporting process. Moreover, these results suggest a need for an updated statement addressing duty to recontact, specifically as it applies to amended variant reports.

Assessing parental understanding of variant reclassification in pediatric neurology and developmental pediatrics clinics

Improvements in technology used for genetic testing have yielded an increased numbers of variants that are identified, each with a potential to return uninformative results. While some genetics providers may expect patients to be responsible for staying abreast of updates to their genetic testing results, it is unknown whether patients are even aware of the possibility of variant reclassification. Little research has assessed the comprehension and attitudes of parents of pediatric patients regarding reclassification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with parents (n = 15) whose children received a VUS from genetic testing in either the pediatric neurogenetics or developmental pediatrics clinics at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana. Most participants expressed understanding of the uncertainty surrounding their child's VUS test result. However, nearly half of participants shared that they had no prior knowledge of its potential reclassification. When asked whose responsibility it is to keep informed about changes to their child's VUS status, some participants stated that it belonged solely to healthcare providers - a distinctive finding of our study - whereas others felt that it was a joint responsibility between providers and the parents. We additionally found that some patients desire a support group for individuals with VUS. These results provide insight into the importance of pretest genetic counseling and the need for increased social and informational support for parents of children who receive inconclusive genetic testing results. We conclude that relying solely on the patient or guardian to manage uncertain results may be insufficient.

Clinical impact of rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies: a 5-year update

A proper interpretation of the pathogenicity of rare variants is crucial before clinical translation. Ongoing addition of new data may modify previous variant classifications; however, how often a reanalysis is necessary remains undefined. We aimed to extensively reanalyze rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies originally classified 5 years ago and its clinical impact. In 2016, rare variants identified through genetic analysis were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics’ recommendations. Five years later, we have reclassified the same variants following the same recommendations but including new available data. Potential clinical implications were discussed. Our cohort included 49 cases of inherited channelopathies diagnosed in 2016. Update show that 18.36% of the variants changed classification mainly due to improved global frequency data. Reclassifications mostly occurred in minority genes associated with channelopathies. Similar percentage of variants remain as deleterious nowadays, located in main known genes (SCN5A, KCNH2 and KCNQ1). In 2016, 69.38% of variants were classified as unknown significance, but now, 53.06% of variants are classified as such, remaining the most common group. No management was modified after translation of genetic data into clinics. After 5 years, nearly 20% of rare variants associated with inherited channelopathies were reclassified. This supports performing periodic reanalyses of no more than 5 years since last classification. Use of newly available data is necessary, especially concerning global frequencies and family segregation. Personalized clinical translation of rare variants can be crucial to management if a significant change in classification is identified.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base

The practice of recontacting patients has a long history in medicine but emerged as an issue in genetics as the rapid expansion of knowledge and of testing capacity raised questions about whether, when and how to recontact patients. Until recently, the debate on recontacting has focussed on theoretical concerns of experts. The publication of empirical research into the views of patients, clinicians, laboratories and services in a number of countries has changed this. These studies have filled out, and altered our view of, this issue. Whereas debates on the duty to recontact have explored all aspects of recontact practice, recent contributions have been developing a more nuanced view of recontacting. The result is a narrowing of the scope of the duty, so that a norm on recontacting focuses on the practice of reaching out to discharged patients. This brings into focus the importance of the consent conversation, the resource implications of this duty, and the role of the patient in recontacting.

DNA variant classification-reconsidering "allele rarity" and "phenotype" criteria in ACMG/AMP guidelines

Recent guidance suggested modified DNA variant pathogenicity assignments based on genome-wide allele rarity. Different a priori probabilities of pathogenicity operate where patients already have clinical diagnoses, and are found to have a very rare variant in a gene known to cause their disease, compared to predictive testing of a clinically unaffected individual. We tested new recommendations from the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group for ClinVar-listed, loss-of-function variants meeting the very strong evidence of pathogenicity criterion [PVS1] in genes for 3 specific diseases where causal gene identification can modify clinical care of an individual- Von Willebrand disease, cystic fibrosis and hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia. Across these diseases, current rules leave 20/1,278 (1.6%) of loss-of-function variants as variants of uncertain significance (VUS that may not be reported to clinicians), and 207/1,278 (17.2%) as likely pathogenic. Applying the new ClinGen rule enabling PVS1 and the allele rarity criterion PM2 to delineate likely pathogenicity still left 8/1,278 (0.9%) as VUS (reflecting non-PVS1 calls by the submitters), and the majority of null alleles meeting PVS1 as merely likely pathogenic. We favour an approach whereby, for PVS1 variants in patients who personally meet the phenotypic PP4 criterion for a disease where casual variants are commonly family-specific, that PM2 is upgraded to permit a pathogenic call. Of 1,278 ClinVar-listed frameshift, nonsense and canonical splice site variants that met PVS1 in the 3 conditions, 16.0% (204/1,278) would be newly designated as pathogenic, avoiding misinterpretation outside of clinical genetics communities. We suggest further discussion around variant assessment across different clinical applications, potentially guided by PP4 alerts to distinguish personal versus family phenotypic history.

Enhancing the Impact of Genomics Research in Autism through Integration of Research Results into Routine Care Pathways-A Case Series

The return of genetic results (RoR) to participants, enrolled as children, in autism research remains a complex process. Existing recommendations offer limited guidance on the use of genetic research results for clinical care. We highlight current challenges with RoR and illustrate how the use of a guiding framework drawn from existing literature facilitates RoR and the clinical integration of genetic research results. We report a case series (n = 16) involving the return of genetic results to participants in large genomics studies in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). We outline the framework that guided RoR and facilitated integration into clinical care pathways. We highlight specific cases to illustrate challenges that were, or could have been, resolved through this framework. The case series demonstrates the ethical, clinical and practical difficulties of RoR in ASD genomic studies for participants enrolled as children. Challenges were resolved using pre-established framework to guide RoR and incorporate research genetic results into clinical care. We suggest that optimal use of genetic research results relies on their integration into individualized care pathways for participants. We offer a framework that attempts to bridge the gap between research and healthcare in ASD.

Clinical Exome Reanalysis: Current Practice and Beyond

Novel gene-disease discoveries, rapid advancements in technology, and improved bioinformatics tools all have the potential to yield additional molecular diagnoses through the reanalysis of exome sequencing data. Collaborations between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and researchers are also driving factors that can contribute to these new insights. Automation in ongoing natural history collection, evolving phenotype updates, advancements in processing next-generation sequencing data, and up-to-date variant-gene-disease databases are increasingly needed for systematic exome reanalysis. Here, we review some of the advantages and challenges for clinician-initiated and laboratory-initiated exome reanalysis, and we propose a model for the future that could potentially maximize the clinical utility of exome reanalysis by integrating information from electronic medical records and knowledge databases into routine clinical workflows.

Clinical and laboratory reporting impact of ACMG-AMP and modified ClinGen variant classification frameworks in MYH7-related cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE

ClinGen provides gene-specific guidance for interpretation of sequence variants in MYH7. We assessed laboratory and clinical impact of reclassification by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) and ClinGen recommendations in 43 MYH7 variants reported by a diagnostic laboratory between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

Fifty-two proband reports containing MYH7 variants were reinterpreted by original ACMG-AMP and ClinGen guidelines. Evidence items were compared across schemes and reasons for classification differences recorded. Laboratory impact was assessed by number of recommended report reissues, and reclassifications coded as clinically "actionable" or "equivalent." Available pedigrees were reviewed to describe projected cascade impact.

RESULTS

ClinGen produced a higher proportion of diagnostic classifications (65% of variants) compared with ACMG-AMP (54%) and fewer variants of uncertain significance (30% versus 42%). ClinGen classification resulted in actionable changes in 18% of variants with equal upgrades and downgrades from original report. ClinGen's revisions to PM1 and PS4 contributed to classification differences in 21% and 19% of variants respectively. Each classification change per proband report impacted, on average, 3.1 cascade reports with a further 6.3 first- and second-degree relatives potentially available for genotyping per family.

CONCLUSION

ClinGen's gene-specific criteria provide expert-informed guidance for interpretation of MYH7 sequence variants. Periodic re-evaluation improves diagnostic confidence and should be considered by clinical and laboratory teams.

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.

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

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

"I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants

Little is known about what uncertainties patients experience after being identified to carry a pathogenic variant in a moderate-risk cancer gene as a result of undergoing multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility. Data regarding cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of risk management strategies for these variants continues to evolve, which has the potential to evoke uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty during pre- and post-test discussions is imperative to helping individuals to adapt to their results. A better understanding of this population's experience of uncertainty is needed to facilitate such discussions and is the aim of the current study. Semi-structured interviews (30-60 min in length), informed by Han and colleagues' taxonomy of uncertainty in clinical genomic sequencing, were conducted to assess motivations to pursue genetic testing, areas of perceived uncertainty, and strategies for managing uncertainty among 20 carriers of pathogenic variants in two moderate-risk genes, ATM and CHEK2. We found that participants pursue genetic testing with the expectation that results will clarify cancer risks and approaches to management. Participants experience uncertainties aligning with Han's taxonomy relating to the ambiguity of specific cancer risk estimates and effectiveness of certain risk management strategies. These uncertainties influenced decisions around the uptake of risk management strategies, which were additionally impacted by clinicians' uncertainty towards such strategies. Participants employ a variety of uncertainty management approaches to cope with their anxieties. Clinicians may wish to use these findings to facilitate patient adaptation to the implications of multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility during both pre- and post-test counseling sessions.