Genomic multidisciplinary teams: A model for navigating genetic mainstreaming and precision medicine.

AIM: Recent rapid advances in genomics are revolutionising patient diagnosis and management of genetic conditions. However, this has led to many challenges in service provision, education and upskilling requirements for non-genetics health-care professionals and remuneration for genomic testing. In Australia, Medicare funding with a Paediatric genomic testing item for patients with intellectual disability or syndromic features has attempted to address this latter issue. The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Westmead (SCHN-W) Clinical Genetics Department established Paediatric and Neurology genomic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to address the Medicare-specified requirement for discussion with clinical genetics, and increasing genomic testing advice requests. METHODS: This SCHN-W genomic MDT was evaluated with two implementation science frameworks - the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and GMIR - Genomic Medicine Integrative Research frameworks. Data from June 2020 to July 2022 were synthesised and evaluated, as well as process mapping of the MDT service. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were discussed in 34 MDT meetings, facilitating 148 genomic tests, of which 73 were Medicare eligible. This was equivalent to 26% of SCHN-W genetics outpatient activity, and 13% of all Medicare-funded paediatric genomic testing in NSW. 39% of patients received a genetic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The genomic MDT facilitated increased genomic testing at a tertiary paediatric centre and is an effective model for mainstreaming and facilitating precision medicine. However, significant implementation issues were identified including cost and sustainability, as well as the high level of resourcing that will be required to scale up this approach to other areas of medicine.

Protocol for a comprehensive prospective cohort study of trio-based whole-genome sequencing for underlying cancer predisposition in paediatric and adolescent patients newly diagnosed with cancer: the PREDICT study.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying an underlying germline cancer predisposition (CP) in a child with cancer has potentially significant implications for both the child and biological relatives. Cohort studies indicate that 10%-15% of paediatric cancer patients carry germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes, but many of these patients do not meet current clinical criteria for genetic testing. This suggests broad tumour agnostic germline testing may benefit paediatric cancer patients. However, the utility and psychosocial impact of this approach remain unknown. We hypothesise that an approach involving trio whole-genome germline sequencing (trio WGS) will identify children and families with an underlying CP in a timely fashion, that the trio design will streamline cancer risk counselling to at-risk relatives if CP was inherited, and that trio testing will not have a negative psychosocial impact on families. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: To test this, we present the Cancer PREDisposition In Childhood by Trio sequencing study (PREDICT). This study will assess the clinical utility of trio WGS to identify CP in unselected patients with cancer 21 years or younger in New South Wales, Australia. PREDICT will perform analysis of biological parents to determine heritability and will examine the psychosocial impact of this trio sequencing approach. PREDICT also includes a broad genomics research programme to identify new candidate genes associated with childhood cancer risk. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: By evaluating the feasibility, utility and psychosocial impact of trio WGS to identify CP in paediatric cancer, PREDICT will inform how such comprehensive testing can be incorporated into a standard of care at diagnosis for all childhood cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04903782.

Standardized practices for RNA diagnostics using clinically accessible specimens reclassifies 75% of putative splicing variants.

PURPOSE: Genetic variants causing aberrant premessenger RNA splicing are increasingly being recognized as causal variants in genetic disorders. In this study, we devise standardized practices for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based RNA diagnostics using clinically accessible specimens (blood, fibroblasts, urothelia, biopsy). METHODS: A total of 74 families with diverse monogenic conditions (31% prenatal-congenital onset, 47% early childhood, and 22% teenage-adult onset) were triaged into PCR-based RNA testing, with comparative RNA sequencing for 19 cases. RESULTS: Informative RNA assay data were obtained for 96% of cases, enabling variant reclassification for 75% variants that can be used for genetic counseling (71%), to inform clinical care (32%) and prenatal counseling (41%). Variant-associated mis-splicing was highly reproducible for 28 cases with samples from ≥2 affected individuals or heterozygotes and 10 cases with ≥2 biospecimens. PCR amplicons encompassing another segregated heterozygous variant was vital for clinical interpretation of 22 of 79 variants to phase RNA splicing events and discern complete from partial mis-splicing. CONCLUSION: RNA diagnostics enabled provision of a genetic diagnosis for 64% of recruited cases. PCR-based RNA diagnostics has capacity to analyze 81.3% of clinically significant genes, with long amplicons providing an advantage over RNA sequencing to phase RNA splicing events. The Australasian Consortium for RNA Diagnostics (SpliceACORD) provide clinically-endorsed, standardized protocols and recommendations for interpreting RNA assay data.

User Acceptability of Whole Exome Reproductive Carrier Testing for Consanguineous Couples in Australia.

The study aimed to explore with consanguineous couples in Australia the acceptability and perceived utility of whole exome reproductive carrier screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive conditions. Semi-structured interviews with 21 consanguineous couples were conducted prior to the offer of screening. Interviews were coded, and thematic analysis was informed by an inductive approach. Three major themes were identified: experiences and attitudes of Australian consanguineous couples, childhood genetic conditions and beliefs, and the perceived utility of genomic screening. All but one couple had previously sought genetic advice, and a large majority of couples were aware of childhood conditions within their family or community. Thirteen couples perceived consanguinity as increasing the risk of having affected children. Nine spoke of premarital screening programs routinely conducted in their countries of origin. All supported the concept and availability of genomic reproductive carrier screening. Hypothetically, if found to be carriers of a severe childhood disorder, 13 couples reported they would test a pregnancy, and 12 of whom would consider termination of pregnancy or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Four couples would not test a pregnancy and two were unsure. A majority of couples would communicate potential at-risk status to family members, although there were some caveats. Fourteen couples chose to have exome screening and reported that they would utilize the results with the goal of preventing childhood conditions. Of these couples, nine (64%) had an affected child but were aware that testing may reveal they were at risk for a child with a different condition and five (71%) without an affected child. While from diverse ethnic and backgrounds, all couples practiced a religion and all but one couple were recruited from the same clinical genetics unit, with a likely higher genetic literacy and bias towards accepting genetic testing. However, the choice made by all couples was reportedly made with consideration of their personal values, their current family situation, and exome testing issues, including fear of incidental findings and concerns about test reliability.

Beyond the panel: preconception screening in consanguineous couples using the TruSight One "clinical exome".

PURPOSE: To provide proof of concept by broadening preconception screening beyond targeted testing to inform reproductive risk in consanguineous couples. METHODS: Consanguineous couples were screened for autosomal recessive and X-linked disorders using the TruSight One panel of 4,813 genes associated with human disease. RESULTS: We recruited 22 couples, of whom 15 elected to have sequencing. We found four couples to be at risk of autosomal recessive disorders, including one with a child affected by Poretti-Boltshauser syndrome (a diagnosis not made prior to the study) and another previously known to carry a ß-globin variant. Two couples were found to carry variants unrelated to known family history. These variants were in the genes C5orf42 (associated with Joubert syndrome and orofaciodigital syndrome) and GYS2 (associated with glycogen synthase deficiency). One known variant was not detected-a single exon deletion in FAM20C. We would not expect to identify this variant with the methodology employed. Of the four variants identified, only the ß-globin variant would have been found using available commercial preconception screening panels. CONCLUSION: Preconception screening of consanguineous couples for recessive and X-linked disorders using genomic sequencing is practicable, and is likely to detect many more at-risk couples than any targeted panel could achieve. A couples-based approach greatly reduces the associated analysis and counselling burden.