Disclosure of cardiac variants of uncertain significance results in an exome cohort

Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty

PURPOSE

Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity.

METHOD

Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework.

CONCLUSION

Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.

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.

Genetic screening in heritable thoracic aortic disease—rationale, potentials and pitfalls

Thoracic aortic aneurysms are silent yet deadly clinical entities which may elude detection until an acutely life-threatening aortic dissection or rupture occurs. Approximately 20% of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms or dissection have a positive family history, indicating a strong genetic component to the aetiology. Genetic screening in such hereditary thoracic aortic disease (HTAD) may thus be beneficial in detecting causative genetic mutations in affected patients, identifying asymptomatic family members who may be at risk, and in guiding the optimal timing of preventative surgery in those with confirmed genetic aortopathy. Genetic screening can facilitate personalised aortic care tailored to an individual's specific genetic abnormality, with the aim of mitigating the significant morbidity burden and premature mortality associated with HTAD. This review examines the rationale for genetic screening in HTAD, its potential applications, current limitations and potential future directions.

Discovery of over 200 new and expanded genetic conditions using GeneMatcher

GeneMatcher is a platform through which various stakeholders can connect with others interested in candidate gene findings. GeneDx, a diagnostic laboratory, has utilized GeneMatcher over the last seven years to successfully facilitate connections between clinicians and researchers, generating fruitful research collaborations. Our ultimate goal in reporting candidate gene findings is to amass sufficient evidence to establish novel disease–gene relationships (DGRs), thus providing diagnostic answers to families and clinicians. Our database of over 300,000 clinical exomes has been a major driver of DGR discovery. Our laboratory accounts for over 20% of total GeneMatcher submissions. Largely fueled by GeneMatcher matches, we have published over 200 articles involving new DGRs or expanded phenotypes for known disease‐causing genes in the past three years. These endeavors require commitments to sharing data and dedicating resources to investigate potential matches. Ultimately, GeneMatcher enables collaboration on a broad scale: we are grateful to the clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers who have partnered with us to accelerate the pace of DGR discovery. GeneMatcher opens the door to new partnerships, new discoveries, and families finding answers that otherwise may not have been possible.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

The communication of uncertainty in health: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of existing studies that examine communication strategies that address uncertainty in health and categorize them using the taxonomy of uncertainty.

METHODS

Relevant articles retrieved from ten databases were categorized according to the dimensions of the taxonomy of uncertainty, and study characteristics were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

All articles (n = 63) explored uncertainty in the context of probabilistic risk and related to scientific issues (n = 63; 100%). The majority focused on complexity (n = 24; 38.1%) and uncertainty experienced by patients (n = 52; 82.5%). Most utilized quantitative methods (n = 46; 73.0%), hypothetical scenarios (n = 49; 77.8%), and focused on cancer (n = 20; 31.7%). Theory guided messages and study design in fewer than half (n = 27; 42.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in terminology used to refer to different types of uncertainties preclude a unified research agenda on uncertainty communication. Research predominately focuses on probability as the source of uncertainty, uncertainties related to scientific issues, and uncertainty experienced by patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Additional efforts are needed to understand providers' experience of uncertainty, and to identify strategies to address ambiguity. Future studies should use consistent terminology to allow for coherence and advancement of uncertainty communication scholarship. Continued efforts to refine the existing taxonomy should be undertaken.

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.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

Evaluation of Clinical Practices Related to Variants of Uncertain Significance Results in Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia and Inherited Cardiomyopathy Genes

Background:

Increasing use of genetic tests have identified many variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in genes associated with inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies. Evaluation of clinical practices, including medical management recommendations for VUS patients and their families, is important to prevent over- or under-treatment that may result in morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study is to describe practices related to VUS results including information and medical management recommendations providers give patients and their families.

Methods:

An anonymous online survey was distributed to genetic counselors (GCs) and cardiologists who have seen at least one patient for inherited arrhythmias or cardiomyopathies. The survey explored providers’ confidence in counseling, explanation of VUSs, topics covered before and after genetic testing, and clinical recommendations using a hypothetical scenario maximizing uncertainty with an unclear clinical and molecular diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and median confidence and likelihood of making various medical recommendations were compared across provider type.

Results:

Providers (N=102) who completed the survey included 29 cardiovascular GCs, 50 GCs from other specialties, and 23 cardiologists. GCs feel more confident than cardiologists counseling about VUS results ( P <0.001); while both cardiovascular GCs and cardiologists feel more confident than other GCs in providing input regarding medical management recommendations ( P =0.001 and P =0.01, respectively). Cardiologists were more likely than cardiac GCs to recommend clinical testing for family members even though testing in the scenario is expected to be uninformative.

Conclusions:

These findings illustrate how the expertise of different providers may impact decision processes, suggesting the need for interdisciplinary clinics to optimize care for challenging cases.

Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications

As genomic sequencing expands into more areas of patient care, an increasing number of patients learn of the variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that they carry. Understanding the potential psychosocial consequences of the disclosure of a VUS can help inform pre- and post-test counseling discussions. Medical uncertainty in general elicits a variety of responses from patients, particularly in the growing field of medical genetics and genomics. It is important to consider patients' responses to the ambiguous nature of VUSs across different indications and situational contexts. Genetic counselors and other providers ordering genetic testing should be prepared for the possibility of their patients' misinterpretation of such results. Pre-test counseling should include a discussion of the possibility of VUSs and what it would mean for the patient's care and its potential psychosocial impacts. When a VUS is found, post-test counseling should include additional education and a discussion of the variant's implications and medical management recommendations based on the results. These discussions may help temper subjective interpretations, unrealistic views, and decisional regret.

The Genetics of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Dissection: A Clinical Perspective

Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection (TAAD) affects many patients globally and has high mortality rates if undetected. Once thought to be solely a degenerative disease that afflicted the aorta due to high pressure and biomechanical stress, extensive investigation of the heritability and natural history of TAAD has shown a clear genetic basis for the disease. Here, we review both the cellular mechanisms and clinical manifestations of syndromic and non-syndromic TAAD. We particularly focus on genes that have been linked to dissection at diameters <5.0 cm, the current lower bound for surgical intervention. Genetic screening tests to identify patients with TAAD associated mutations that place them at high risk for dissection are also discussed.

Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study

Family studies to reclassify clinically ascertained variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can impact risk assessment, medical management, and psychological outcomes for patients and their families. There are limited avenues for patients and their families to actively participate in VUS reclassification, and access to family studies at most commercial laboratories is restricted by multiple factors. To explore patient attitudes about participation in family studies for VUS reclassification, we conducted semistructured pre- and post-participation telephone interviews with 38 participants in a family-based VUS reclassification study that utilized a patient-driven approach for family ascertainment and recruitment. Participants had VUS from multigene panel testing performed at multiple clinical laboratories for cancer or other disease risk. Inductive thematic analysis of transcribed interviews highlighted four major themes: (a) Participants' study goals were driven by the desire to resolve uncertainty related to the VUS, (b) Participants had mixed reactions to the VUS reclassification outcomes of the study, (c) Personal, public, and familial knowledge increased through study participation and (d) Participants used study participation to actively cope with the uncertainty of a VUS. As personalized genomic medicine becomes more prevalent, clinicians, clinical laboratories, and researchers could consider creating more opportunities for active partnership with patients and families, who are motivated to contribute data to familial VUS studies.

Health behaviors among unaffected participants following receipt of variants of uncertain significance in cardiomyopathy-associated genes

Purpose

Studies on returning variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have predominantly included patients with a personal or family history of cancer and cancer-associated gene VUS. This study examined health behaviors amongst participants with cardiomyopathy-associated gene VUS, but without a personal history of cardiomyopathy.

Methods

Sixty-eight eligible participants without apparent cardiomyopathy who received VUS in cardiomyopathy-associated genes completed a survey of health behaviors, disclosure, distress, uncertainty, positive experiences, decisional conflict, and perceived value. Medical records of participants who reported cardiac testing because of their VUS were reviewed for testing indication(s).

Results

Two participants had cardiac testing due to their VUS alone. Four had cardiac testing because of their VUS and other clinical indications and 12 changed health behaviors, including one participant who was subsequently diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. Distress, uncertainty, and decisional conflict were low (means= 1.2, 4.2, 24.5; scale ranges= 0–30, 0–45, 15–75, respectively), and positive experiences and perceived value were moderate (means= 12.4, 14.4; scale range= 0–20, 4–20, respectively). Greater perceived value was associated with greater likelihood to engage in health behaviors (p= 0.04).

Conclusion

VUS can be returned to apparently unaffected individuals with modest use of healthcare resources, minimal behavioral changes, and favorable psychological reactions.