Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

A structural variation reference for medical and population genetics.

Structural variants (SVs) rearrange large segments of DNA1 and can have profound consequences in evolution and human disease2,3. As national biobanks, disease-association studies, and clinical genetic testing have grown increasingly reliant on genome sequencing, population references such as the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD)4 have become integral in the interpretation of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs)5. However, there are no reference maps of SVs from high-coverage genome sequencing comparable to those for SNVs. Here we present a reference of sequence-resolved SVs constructed from 14,891 genomes across diverse global populations (54% non-European) in gnomAD. We discovered a rich and complex landscape of 433,371 SVs, from which we estimate that SVs are responsible for 25-29% of all rare protein-truncating events per genome. We found strong correlations between natural selection against damaging SNVs and rare SVs that disrupt or duplicate protein-coding sequence, which suggests that genes that are highly intolerant to loss-of-function are also sensitive to increased dosage6. We also uncovered modest selection against noncoding SVs in cis-regulatory elements, although selection against protein-truncating SVs was stronger than all noncoding effects. Finally, we identified very large (over one megabase), rare SVs in 3.9% of samples, and estimate that 0.13% of individuals may carry an SV that meets the existing criteria for clinically important incidental findings7. This SV resource is freely distributed via the gnomAD browser8 and will have broad utility in population genetics, disease-association studies, and diagnostic screening.

Laboratory testing for preconception/prenatal carrier screening: A technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Carrier screening has historically assessed a relatively small number of autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions selected based on frequency in a specific subpopulation and association with severe morbidity or mortality. Advances in genomic technologies enable simultaneous screening of individuals for several conditions. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently published a clinical practice resource that presents a framework when offering screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception and recommends a tier-based approach when considering the number of conditions to screen for and their frequency within the US population in general. This laboratory technical standard aims to complement the practice resource and to put forth considerations for clinical laboratories and clinicians who offer preconception/prenatal carrier screening.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Diagnostic gene sequencing panels: from design to report-a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Gene sequencing panels are a powerful diagnostic tool for many clinical presentations associated with genetic disorders. Advances in DNA sequencing technology have made gene panels more economical, flexible, and efficient. Because the genes included on gene panels vary widely between laboratories in gene content (e.g., number, reason for inclusion, evidence level for gene-disease association) and technical completeness (e.g., depth of coverage), standards that address technical and clinical aspects of gene panels are needed. This document serves as a technical standard for laboratories designing, offering, and reporting gene panel testing. Although these principles can apply to multiple indications for genetic testing, the primary focus is on diagnostic gene panels (as opposed to carrier screening or predictive testing) with emphasis on technical considerations for the specific genes being tested. This technical standard specifically addresses the impact of gene panel content on clinical sensitivity, specificity, and validity-in the context of gene evidence for contribution to and strength of evidence for gene-disease association-as well as technical considerations such as sequencing limitations, presence of pseudogenes/gene families, mosaicism, transcript choice, detection of copy-number variants, reporting, and disclosure of assay limitations.

CCMG practice guideline: laboratory guidelines for next-generation sequencing.

PurposeThe purpose of this document is to provide guidance for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS, also known as massively parallel sequencing or MPS) in Canadian clinical genetic laboratories for detection of genetic variants in genomic DNA and mitochondrial DNA for inherited disorders, as well as somatic variants in tumour DNA for acquired cancers. They are intended for Canadian clinical laboratories engaged in developing, validating and using NGS methods. METHODS OF STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT: The document was drafted by the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Ad Hoc Working Group on NGS Guidelines to make recommendations relevant to NGS. The statement was circulated for comment to the CCMG Laboratory Practice and Clinical Practice committees, and to the CCMG membership. Following incorporation of feedback, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. DISCLAIMER: The CCMG is a Canadian organisation responsible for certifying medical geneticists and clinical laboratory geneticists, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada. The current CCMG Practice Guidelines were developed as a resource for clinical laboratories in Canada and should not be considered to be inclusive of all information laboratories should consider in the validation and use of NGS for a clinical laboratory service.

[Principles guiding the development of clinical practice guidelines for medical genetics and genomics specialty].

The development of clinical practice guidelines for medical genetics and genomics specialty is a key step in translating basic and clinical genetic research into evidence-based and precision clinical services. This paper briefly expounds the principles of writing high-quality and trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. According to these principles, the management framework, writing process, review and revision procedures, and application monitoring of medical genetic specialty guidelines are described. Systematic review of relevant literature for evidence applicable to the screening, diagnosis, counseling, treatment and prevention of specific genetic diseases is summarized. Specific requirements for writing and reviewing high-quality professional guidelines for medical genetics are introduced. These principles and requirements can ensure that the evidence-based methods and recommendations in the written guidelines conform to current international standards and have specific clinical purposes, scope of practice and time-tracking mechanism. Implementation of such guidelines can promote the translation of basic and clinical genetic research, promote cooperation of medical genetics and other clinical specialties and coordination of interdisciplinary clinical practice guidelines, and provide effective and safe clinical services for patients and their families.

Core competencies in genetics for healthcare professionals: results from a literature review and a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Advances in genetics and genomics require that healthcare professionals manage and incorporate new technologies into the appropriate clinical practice. The aim of this study was to identify core competencies in genetics for non-geneticists, both physicians and non-physicians. METHODS: We performed a literature review by searching MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science databases to identify studies reporting competencies in genetics in terms of knowledge, attitudes and abilities for non-genetic healthcare professionals. Furthermore, we conducted a survey according to a modified Delphi method, involving genetics experts to evaluate the competencies to be included as items of the curricula. RESULTS: Three eligible documents were identified and 3 Delphi rounds were carried out to reach a consensus on the competencies to be incorporated in the curricula. With reference to the curriculum for physicians, 19 items were included in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 10 in the abilities domain. We developed two different curricula for non-physicians: one specific for those working in genetic services (20 items in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 12 in the abilities) and one for those not working in genetic services (10 items in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 2 in the abilities). CONCLUSIONS: We developed 3 curricula in genetics addressed to non-genetic healthcare professionals. They differ in the "knowledge" and "abilities", while the "attitudes" are the same for all the healthcare professionals. Although some concerns about the generalizability of the findings could arise due to the Italian perspective, we envisage the curricula can be used for genetics educational programs in several contexts.

Professional responsibilities regarding the provision, publication, and dissemination of patient phenotypes in the context of clinical genetic and genomic testing: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Disclaimer: This Points to Consider document is designed as an educational resource to provide best practices for medical genetic clinicians, laboratories, and journals regarding the provision, publication, and dissemination of patient phenotypes in the context of genomic testing, clinical genetic practice, and research. While the goal of the document is the improvement of patient care, the considerations and practices described should not be considered inclusive of all proper considerations and practices or exclusive of others that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same goal. In determining the value of any practice, clinicians, laboratories, and journals should apply their own professional standards and judgment to the specific circumstances presented.The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the authors' affiliated institutions.

CAP/ACMG proficiency testing for biochemical genetics laboratories: a summary of performance.

PurposeTesting for inborn errors of metabolism is performed by clinical laboratories worldwide, each utilizing laboratory-developed procedures. We sought to summarize performance in the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) proficiency testing (PT) program and identify opportunities for improving laboratory quality. When evaluating PT data, we focused on a subset of laboratories that have participated in at least one survey since 2010.MethodsAn analysis of laboratory performance (2004 to 2014) on the Biochemical Genetics PT Surveys, a program administered by CAP and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Analytical and interpretive performance was evaluated for four tests: amino acids, organic acids, acylcarnitines, and mucopolysaccharides.ResultsSince 2010, 150 laboratories have participated in at least one of four PT surveys. Analytic sensitivities ranged from 88.2 to 93.4%, while clinical sensitivities ranged from 82.4 to 91.0%. Performance was higher for US participants and for more recent challenges. Performance was lower for challenges with subtle findings or complex analytical patterns.ConclusionUS clinical biochemical genetics laboratory proficiency is satisfactory, with a minority of laboratories accounting for the majority of errors. Our findings underscore the complex nature of clinical biochemical genetics testing and highlight the necessity of continuous quality management.

Laboratory analysis of organic acids, 2018 update: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Organic acid analysis detects accumulation of organic acids in urine and other body fluids and is a crucial first-tier laboratory test for a broad spectrum of inborn errors of metabolism. It is also frequently ordered as follow-up for a positive newborn screen result, as recommended by American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics newborn screening ACTion sheets and algorithms. The typical assay is performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. These technical standards were developed to provide guidance for laboratory practices in organic acid analysis, interpretation, and reporting. In addition, new diagnostic biomarkers for recently discovered organic acidurias have been added.

Clinically impactful differences in variant interpretation between clinicians and testing laboratories: a single-center experience.

PurposeTo describe the frequency and nature of differences in variant classifications between clinicians and genetic testing laboratories.MethodsRetrospective review of variants identified through genetic testing ordered in routine clinical care by clinicians in the Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease. We compared classifications made by clinicians, the testing laboratory, and other laboratories in ClinVar.ResultsOf 688 laboratory classifications, 124 (18%) differed from the clinicians' classifications. Most differences in classification would probably affect clinical care of the patient and/or family (83%, 103/124). The frequency of discordant classifications differed depending on the testing laboratory (P < 0.0001) and the testing laboratory's classification (P < 0.00001). For the majority (82/124, 66%) of discordant classifications, clinicians were more conservative (less likely to classify a variant pathogenic or likely pathogenic). The clinicians' classification was discordant with one or more submitter in ClinVar in 49.1% (28/57) of cases, while the testing laboratory's classification was discordant with a ClinVar submitter in 82.5% of cases (47/57, P = 0.0002).ConclusionThe clinical team disagreed with the laboratory's classification at a rate similar to that of reported disagreements between laboratories. Most of this discordance was clinically significant, with clinicians tending to be more conservative than laboratories in their classifications.

Laboratory analysis of amino acids, 2018 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Amino acid abnormalities are observed in a broad spectrum of inherited metabolic diseases, such as disorders of amino acid metabolism and transport, organic acidemias, and ureagenesis defects. Comprehensive analysis of physiologic amino acids in blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid is typically performed in the following clinical settings: evaluation of symptomatic patients in whom a diagnosis is not known; evaluation of previously diagnosed patients to monitor treatment efficacy; evaluation of asymptomatic or presymptomatic (at-risk) relatives of known patients; follow-up testing for an abnormal newborn screen; and assessment of dietary protein adequacy or renal function in general patient populations. Currently, the most common analytical method to quantify amino acids is based on ion exchange chromatography using post-column derivatization with ninhydrin and spectrophotometric detection. Newer methodologies are based on liquid chromatographic separation with detection by mass spectrometry or spectrophotometry. Amino acid analysis by nonseparation methods, such as the flow injection-tandem mass spectrometric (MS/MS) method used for newborn screening, is considered inadequate for the diagnosis of at-risk patients. The purpose of this document is to provide a technical standard for amino acid analysis as applied to the diagnosis and management of inborn errors of metabolism.

How practical experiences, educational routes and multidisciplinary teams influence genetic counselors' clinical practice in Europe.

The main objective of our study was to explore whether, and to what extent, genetic counselors' characteristics impact on their tasks in practice. Specifically, we explored the complementariness between genetic counselors and medical geneticists and therefore looked at the most relevant tasks of genetic counselors, according to genetic counselors themselves and according to the medical geneticists they work with. A total of 104 genetic counselors and 29 medical geneticists from 15 countries completed a purposefully designed questionnaire. Results showed that most genetic counselors in Europe perform similar tasks, irrespective of their backgrounds. When looking at the factors influencing genetic counselors' roles data showed that the type of tasks performed by genetic counselors is associated with the years of experience in the field, not with their background or education. Of particular interest was the consensus between genetic counselors and medical geneticists regarding the genetic counselor's role. Not surprisingly, tasks with more psychosocial implications were seen as genetic counselors' eligibility while tasks with more medical implications were seen as medical geneticists' attribution. Our study shows that most genetic counselors work in tune with international recommendations and seem to be supportive of multidisciplinary teams. Corroborating our data with previous research, we discuss potential implications for practice and training in genetic counseling.

Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.Genet Med 19 2, 249-255.

Genome editing in clinical genetics: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Laboratory and clinical genomic data sharing is crucial to improving genetic health care: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 05 January 2017.

Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers.

PURPOSE: Clinical exome sequencing is nondiagnostic for about 75% of patients evaluated for a possible Mendelian disorder. We examined the ability of systematic reevaluation of exome data to establish additional diagnoses. METHODS: The exome and phenotypic data of 40 individuals with previously nondiagnostic clinical exomes were reanalyzed with current software and literature. RESULTS: A definitive diagnosis was identified for 4 of 40 participants (10%). In these cases the causative variant is de novo and in a relevant autosomal-dominant disease gene. The literature to tie the causative genes to the participants' phenotypes was weak, nonexistent, or not readily located at the time of the initial clinical exome reports. At the time of diagnosis by reanalysis, the supporting literature was 1 to 3 years old. CONCLUSION: Approximately 250 gene-disease and 9,200 variant-disease associations are reported annually. This increase in information necessitates regular reevaluation of nondiagnostic exomes. To be practical, systematic reanalysis requires further automation and more up-to-date variant databases. To maximize the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing, providers should periodically request reanalysis of nondiagnostic exomes. Accordingly, policies regarding reanalysis should be weighed in combination with factors such as cost and turnaround time when selecting a clinical exome laboratory.Genet Med 19 2, 209-214.

Laboratory diagnosis of creatine deficiency syndromes: a technical standard and guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Disclaimer: These ACMG Standards and Guidelines are intended as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these standards and guidelines is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These Standards and Guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of others that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, clinical laboratory geneticists should apply their professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient's record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with these Standards and Guidelines. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Cerebral creatine deficiency syndromes are neurometabolic conditions characterized by intellectual disability, seizures, speech delay, and behavioral abnormalities. Several laboratory methods are available for preliminary and confirmatory diagnosis of these conditions, including measurement of creatine and related metabolites in biofluids using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, enzyme activity assays in cultured cells, and DNA sequence analysis. These guidelines are intended to standardize these procedures to help optimize the diagnosis of creatine deficiency syndromes. While biochemical methods are emphasized, considerations for confirmatory molecular testing are also discussed, along with variables that influence test results and interpretation.Genet Med 19 2, 256-263.