Variant interpretation is a component of clinical practice among genetic counselors in multiple specialties

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants.

METHODS

Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict.

RESULTS

Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

Sudden cardiac death in the young: A consensus statement on recommended practices for cardiac examination by pathologists from the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology

Sudden cardiac death is, by definition, an unexpected, untimely death caused by a cardiac condition in a person with known or unknown heart disease. This major international public health problem accounts for approximately 15-20% of all deaths. Typically more common in older adults with acquired heart disease, SCD also can occur in the young where the cause is more likely to be a genetically transmitted process. As these inherited disease processes can affect multiple family members, it is critical that these deaths are appropriately and thoroughly investigated. Across the United States, SCD cases in those less than 40 years of age will often fall under medical examiner/coroner jurisdiction resulting in scene investigation, review of available medical records and a complete autopsy including toxicological and histological studies. To date, there have not been consistent or uniform guidelines for cardiac examination in these cases. In addition, many medical examiner/coroner offices are understaffed and/or underfunded, both of which may hamper specialized examinations or studies (e.g., molecular testing). Use of such guidelines by pathologists in cases of SCD in decedents aged 1-39 years of age could result in life-saving medical intervention for other family members. These recommendations also may provide support for underfunded offices to argue for the significance of this specialized testing. As cardiac examinations in the setting of SCD in the young fall under ME/C jurisdiction, this consensus paper has been developed with members of the Society of Cardiovascular Pathology working with cardiovascular pathology-trained, practicing forensic pathologists.

How Clinicians Conceptualize "Actionability" in Genomic Screening

Over the last decade, the concept of actionability has become a primary framework for assessing whether genetic data is useful and appropriate to return to patients. Despite the popularity of this concept, there is little consensus about what should count as "actionable" information. This is particularly true in population genomic screening, where there is considerable disagreement about what counts as good evidence and which clinical actions are appropriate for which patients. The pathway from scientific evidence to clinical action is not straightforward-it is as much social and political as it is scientific. This research explores the social dynamics shaping the integration of "actionable" genomic data into primary care settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with 35 genetics experts and primary care providers, we find that clinicians vary in how they define and operationalize "actionable" information. There are two main sources of disagreement. First, clinicians differ on the levels and types of evidence required for a result to be actionable, such as when we can be confident that genomic data provides accurate information. Second, there are disagreements about the clinical actions that must be available so that patients can benefit from that information. By highlighting the underlying values and assumptions embedded in discussions of actionability for genomic screening, we provide an empirical basis for building more nuanced policies regarding the actionability of genomic data in terms of population screening in primary care settings.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Adaptation of ACMG-ClinGen Technical Standards for Copy Number Variant Interpretation Concordance

This study aimed to evaluate inter-laboratory classification concordance for copy number variants (CNVs) with a semiquantitative point-based scoring metric recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Clinical Genome Resources (ClinGen). A total of 234 CNVs distributed by the National Center of Clinical Laboratories (NCCLs), and 72 CNVs submitted by different laboratories, were distributed to nine clinical laboratories performing routine clinical CNV testing in China and independently classified across laboratories. The overall inter-laboratory complete classification concordance rate of the 234 distributed CNVs increased from 18% (41/234) to 76% (177/234) using the scoring metric compared to the laboratory's previous method. The overall inter-laboratory complete classification concordance rate of the 72 submitted CNVs was 65% (47/72) using the scoring metrics. The 82 variants that initially did not reach complete concordance classification and 1 additional CNV deletion were reviewed; 34 reached complete agreement, and the overall post-review complete concordance rate was 85% (260/306). Additionally, the overall percentage of classification discordance possibly impacting medical management [i.e., pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) vs. variant of uncertain significance (VUS)] was 11% (35/306). The causes of initial and final discordance in the classification were identified. The ACMG-ClinGen framework has promoted consistency in interpreting the clinical significance of CNVs. Continuous training among laboratories, further criteria and additional clarification of the standards, sharing classifications and supporting evidence through public database, and ongoing work for dosage sensitive genes/regions curation will be beneficial for harmonization of CNVs classification.

A scalable Drosophila assay for clinical interpretation of human PTEN variants in suppression of PI3K/AKT induced cellular proliferation

Gene variant discovery is becoming routine, but it remains difficult to usefully interpret the functional consequence or disease relevance of most variants. To fill this interpretation gap, experimental assays of variant function are becoming common place. Yet, it remains challenging to make these assays reproducible, scalable to high numbers of variants, and capable of assessing defined gene-disease mechanism for clinical interpretation aligned to the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group guidelines for 'well-established assays'. Drosophila melanogaster offers great potential as an assay platform, but was untested for high numbers of human variants adherent to these guidelines. Here, we wished to test the utility of Drosophila as a platform for scalable well-established assays. We took a genetic interaction approach to test the function of ~100 human PTEN variants in cancer-relevant suppression of PI3K/AKT signaling in cellular growth and proliferation. We validated the assay using biochemically characterized PTEN mutants as well as 23 total known pathogenic and benign PTEN variants, all of which the assay correctly assigned into predicted functional categories. Additionally, function calls for these variants correlated very well with our recent published data from a human cell line. Finally, using these pathogenic and benign variants to calibrate the assay, we could set readout thresholds for clinical interpretation of the pathogenicity of 70 other PTEN variants. Overall, we demonstrate that Drosophila offers a powerful assay platform for clinical variant interpretation, that can be used in conjunction with other well-established assays, to increase confidence in the accurate assessment of variant function and pathogenicity.

Challenges in genetic testing: clinician variant interpretation processes and the impact on clinical care

PURPOSE

Efforts have been made to standardize laboratory variant interpretation, but clinicians are ultimately tasked with clinical correlation and application of genetic test results in patient care. This study aimed to explore processes clinicians utilize when reviewing and returning genetic test results, and how they impact patient care.

METHODS

Medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and nongenetics clinicians from two Midwestern states completed surveys (n = 98) and in-depth interviews (n = 29) on practices of reviewing and returning genetic test results. Retrospective chart review (n = 130) examined discordant interpretations and the impact on care.

RESULTS

Participants reported variable behaviors in both reviewing and returning results based on factors such as confidence, view of role, practice setting, and relationship with the lab. Providers did not report requesting changes to variant classifications from laboratories, but indicated relaying conflicting classifications to patients in some cases. Chart reviews revealed medically impactful differences in interpretation between laboratories and clinicians in 18 (13.8%) records.

CONCLUSION

Clinician practices for reviewing and integrating genetic test results into patient care vary within and between specialties and impact patient care. Strategies to better incorporate both laboratory and clinician expertise into interpretation of genetic results could result in improved care across providers and settings.

The genetic counselor's role in management of patients with dyslipidemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of genetic testing in diagnosis and management of dyslipidemias continues to grow. Consequently, it is increasingly important for patients to have access to clinicians who have expertise in medical genetics and the psychological implications related to this type of testing. Often a lipidologist has had limited training in this regard, and this review explores the role of the genetic counselor to fill this gap.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic counselors are key members of the healthcare team, and their specialized training in medical genetics and counseling allows them to fill this professional knowledge gap within the lipid clinic.

SUMMARY

With the continued emphasis on precision medicine, the utility of genetic testing for dyslipidemias will continue to grow. This will in turn increase the demand for provider expertise in medical genetics and counseling around these complex issues. Integrating a genetic counselor within the lipid clinic provides an ideal management scenario providing patients and families with access to not only medical information but also emotional support regarding their hereditary condition.

Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders are the most prevalent chronic medical conditions encountered in pediatric primary care. In addition to identifying appropriate descriptive diagnoses and guiding families to evidence-based treatments and supports, comprehensive care for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders includes a search for an underlying etiologic diagnosis, primarily through a genetic evaluation. Identification of an underlying genetic etiology can inform prognosis, clarify recurrence risk, shape clinical management, and direct patients and families to condition-specific resources and supports. Here we review the utility of genetic testing in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and describe the three major testing modalities and their yields - chromosomal microarray, exome sequencing (with/without copy number variant calling), and FMR1 CGG repeat analysis for fragile X syndrome. Given the diagnostic yield of genetic testing and the potential for clinical and personal utility, there is consensus that genetic testing should be offered to all patients with global developmental delay, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder. Despite this recommendation, data suggest that a minority of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability have undergone genetic testing. To address this gap in care, we describe a structured but flexible approach to facilitate integration of genetic testing into clinical practice across pediatric specialties and discuss future considerations for genetic testing in neurodevelopmental disorders to prepare pediatric providers to care for patients with such diagnoses today and tomorrow.

Variant Classification Concordance using the ACMG-AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines across Nine Genomic Implementation Research Studies

Harmonization of variant pathogenicity classification across laboratories is important for advancing clinical genomics. The two CLIA-accredited Electronic Medical Record and Genomics Network sequencing centers and the six CLIA-accredited laboratories and one research laboratory performing genome or exome sequencing in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium collaborated to explore current sources of discordance in classification. Eight laboratories each submitted 20 classified variants in the ACMG secondary finding v.2.0 genes. After removing duplicates, each of the 158 variants was annotated and independently classified by two additional laboratories using the ACMG-AMP guidelines. Overall concordance across three laboratories was assessed and discordant variants were reviewed via teleconference and email. The submitted variant set included 28 P/LP variants, 96 VUS, and 34 LB/B variants, mostly in cancer (40%) and cardiac (27%) risk genes. Eighty-six (54%) variants reached complete five-category (i.e., P, LP, VUS, LB, B) concordance, and 17 (11%) had a discordance that could affect clinical recommendations (P/LP versus VUS/LB/B). 21% and 63% of variants submitted as P and LP, respectively, were discordant with VUS. Of the 54 originally discordant variants that underwent further review, 32 reached agreement, for a post-review concordance rate of 84% (118/140 variants). This project provides an updated estimate of variant concordance, identifies considerations for LP classified variants, and highlights ongoing sources of discordance. Continued and increased sharing of variant classifications and evidence across laboratories, and the ongoing work of ClinGen to provide general as well as gene- and disease-specific guidance, will lead to continued increases in concordance.