Scaling national and international improvement in virtual gene panel curation via a collaborative approach to discordance resolution.

Clinical validity assessments of gene-disease associations underpin analysis and reporting in diagnostic genomics, and yet wide variability exists in practice, particularly in use of these assessments for virtual gene panel design and maintenance. Harmonization efforts are hampered by the lack of agreed terminology, agreed gene curation standards, and platforms that can be used to identify and resolve discrepancies at scale. We undertook a systematic comparison of the content of 80 virtual gene panels used in two healthcare systems by multiple diagnostic providers in the United Kingdom and Australia. The process was enabled by a shared curation platform, PanelApp, and resulted in the identification and review of 2,144 discordant gene ratings, demonstrating the utility of sharing structured gene-disease validity assessments and collaborative discordance resolution in establishing national and international consensus.

International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis 2022 debate 3-Fetal genome sequencing should be offered to all pregnant patients.

Prenatal trio exome sequencing (ES) has become integrated into the care for pregnant women when the fetus has structural anomalies. Details regarding optimizing indications for prenatal exome sequencing, its detection rates with different categories of fetal anomalies, and principles of interpretation of pathogenicity of sequence variants are still under investigation. However, there is now growing consensus about its benefits for finding the cause of fetal structural anomalies. What is not established, is whether exome or genome sequencing (GS) has a place in the care of all pregnant women. This report is a summary of the debate on this topic at the 26th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy. Both expert debaters considered the advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include the ability to diagnose serious childhood conditions without a prenatally observable phenotype, which creates the potential of early treatments. Disadvantages include difficulties with variant classification, counseling complexities, healthcare cost, and the burden on healthcare systems and families, in particular with the discovery of adult-onset disorders or variants of uncertain significance. Although both debaters weighed the balance of these conflicting arguments differently, they agreed that more research is needed to further explore the clinical utility and ethical aspects of GS for all pregnant women.

Twelve years of assessing the quality of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Genomics Quality Assessment has provided external quality assessments (EQAs) for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for 12 years for eight monogenic diseases to identify sub-optimal PGT strategies, testing and reporting of results, which can be shared with the genomics community to aid optimised standards of PGT services for couples. METHOD: The EQAs were provided in two stages to mimic end-to-end protocols. Stage 1 involved DNA feasibility testing of a couple undergoing PGT and affected proband. Participants were required to report genotyping results and outline their embryo testing strategy. Lymphoblasts were distributed for mock embryo testing for stage 2. Submitted clinical reports and haplotyping results were assessed against peer-ratified criteria. Performance was monitored to identify poor performance. RESULTS: The most common testing methodology was short tandem repeat linkage analysis (59%); however, the adoption of single nucleotide polymorphism-based platforms was observed and a move from blastomere to trophectoderm testing. There was a variation in testing strategies, assigning marker informativity and understanding test limitations, some clinically unsafe. Critical errors were reported for genotyping and interpretation. CONCLUSION: EQA provides an overview of the standard of preimplantation genetic testing-M clinical testing and identifies areas of improvement for accurate detection of high-risk embryos.

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results. METHODS: A collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018-19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants. RESULTS: The overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.

Evaluating the performance of a clinical genome sequencing program for diagnosis of rare genetic disease, seen through the lens of craniosynostosis.

PURPOSE: Genome sequencing (GS) for diagnosis of rare genetic disease is being introduced into the clinic, but the complexity of the data poses challenges for developing pipelines with high diagnostic sensitivity. We evaluated the performance of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) panel-based pipelines, using craniosynostosis as a test disease. METHODS: GS data from 114 probands with craniosynostosis and their relatives (314 samples), negative on routine genetic testing, were scrutinized by a specialized research team, and diagnoses compared with those made by 100kGP. RESULTS: Sixteen likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by 100kGP. Eighteen additional likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by the research team, indicating that for craniosynostosis, 100kGP panels had a diagnostic sensitivity of only 47%. Measures that could have augmented diagnoses were improved calling of existing panel genes (+18% sensitivity), review of updated panels (+12%), comprehensive analysis of de novo small variants (+29%), and copy-number/structural variants (+9%). Recent NHS England recommendations that partially incorporate these measures should achieve 85% overall sensitivity (+38%). CONCLUSION: GS identified likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in 29.8% of previously undiagnosed patients with craniosynostosis. This demonstrates the value of research analysis and the importance of continually improving algorithms to maximize the potential of clinical GS.

Ensuring high standards for the delivery of NIPT world-wide: Development of an international external quality assessment scheme.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure accurate and appropriate reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results, the standard of testing should be measured and monitored by participation in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. The findings from international pilot EQAs for NIPT for the common trisomies are presented. METHODS: In the first pilot, three EQA providers used artificially manufactured reference materials to deliver an EQA for NIPT. The second pilot used clinically collected maternal plasma samples. The testing and reporting for aneuploidy status was performed by participating laboratories using routine procedures. Reports were assessed against peer ratified criteria and EQA scores were returned to participants. RESULTS: Forty laboratories participated in the first. Genotyping accuracy was high; four laboratories reported a critical genotyping error (10%) and two reported partial results. Eighty seven laboratories participated in the second pilot using maternal plasma, two reporting a critical genotyping error (2.3%). For both rounds, report content was variable with key information frequently omitted or difficult to identify within the report. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully delivered an international pilot EQA for NIPT. When compared with currently available manufactured materials, EQA for NIPT was best performed using clinically collected maternal plasma. Work is required to define and improve the standard of reporting.

International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA.

BACKGROUND: Molecular analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is becoming increasingly important in clinical treatment decisions. A pilot External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme for ctDNA analysis was organized by four European EQA providers under the umbrella organization IQN Path, in order to investigate the feasibility of delivering an EQA to assess the detection of clinically relevant variants in plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and to analyze reporting formats. METHODS: Thirty-two experienced laboratories received 5 samples for EGFR mutation analysis and/or 5 samples for KRAS and NRAS mutation analysis. Samples were artificially manufactured to contain 3 mL of human plasma with 20 ng/mL of fragmented ctDNA and variants at allelic frequencies of 1 and 5%. RESULTS: The scheme error rate was 20.1%. Higher error rates were observed for RAS testing when compared to EGFR analysis, for allelic frequencies of 1% compared to 5%, and for cases including 2 different variants. The reports over-interpreted wild-type results and frequently failed to comment on the amount of cfDNA extracted. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot scheme demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a ctDNA EQA scheme and the need for such a scheme due to high error rates in detecting low frequency clinically relevant variants. Recommendations to improve reporting of cfDNA are provided.

Delivering an accredited non-invasive prenatal diagnosis service for monogenic disorders and recommendations for best practice.

The identification of cell-free fetal DNA circulating in maternal blood combined with technological developments, in particular next-generation sequencing, is enabling the development of safer prenatal diagnosis. While this technology has been widely applied as a highly sensitive screening test for aneuploidy, there has been relatively little clinical application for the diagnosis of monogenic disorders. In the UK, we have established non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) as a clinical service for a range of inherited disorders. The results from NIPD do not require confirmation by invasive testing and are welcomed by patients and health professionals alike. Here, we describe the technical approaches used, current practice and outline recommendations for best practice when delivering an NIPD service from an accredited laboratory. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Recommended practice for laboratory reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing of trisomies 13, 18 and 21: a consensus opinion.

OBJECTIVE: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 13, 18 and 21 is used worldwide. Laboratory reports should provide clear, concise results with test limitations indicated, yet no national or local guidelines are currently available. Here, we aim to present minimum best practice guidelines. METHODS: All laboratories registered in the three European quality assurance schemes for molecular and cytogenetics were invited to complete an online survey focused on services provided for NIPT and non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Laboratories delivering NIPT for aneuploidy were asked to submit two example reports; one high and one low risk result. Reports were reviewed for content and discussed at a meeting of laboratory providers and clinicians held at the ISPD 2016 conference in Berlin. RESULTS: Of the 122 laboratories that responded, 50 issued reports for NIPT and 43 of these submitted sample reports. Responses and reports were discussed by 72 attendees at the meeting. Consensus opinion was determined in several areas and used to develop best practice guidelines for reporting of NIPT results. CONCLUSIONS: Across Europe, there is considerable variation in reporting NIPT results. Here, we describe minimum best practice guidelines, which will be distributed to European laboratories, and reports audited in subsequent external quality assurance cycles. © 2017 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

HGVS Nomenclature in Practice: An Example from the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme.

The recommendations for the description of sequence variants from the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) were published in 2000. Over the years, the recommendations became widely adopted, especially in human clinical genetics and DNA laboratory reporting. As part of a testing scheme performed by the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) for Molecular Genetics, we assessed the current variability in the use and interpretation of the guidelines by diagnostic laboratories based across the globe. Twenty-six participating laboratories gave 21 different descriptions. Six laboratories gave fully compliant HGVS descriptions, 12 laboratories reported the correct variant, although not using the recommended format, whilst eight laboratory reports (31%) were not correct. The results indicate that available tools to check variant descriptions were not used. We conclude that education appears to be the way forward to eliminate the observed variability in data reporting.

What's in a Name? A Coordinated Approach toward the Correct Use of a Uniform Nomenclature to Improve Patient Reports and Databases.

The Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations provide standardized nomenclature for reporting variants. This should be encouraged in molecular pathology-both for issuing diagnostic reports and for correct data recording in electronic databases. Many providers of external quality assessment (EQA) promote the correct use of HGVS nomenclature by scoring variant descriptions used in EQA reports. This study focuses on the type and impact of variant nomenclature errors. An assessment was made of EGFR gene variant nomenclature by four EQA providers (European Society of Pathology [ESP], European Molecular Genetics Quality Network [EMQN], United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service for Molecular Genetics, and the French national Gen&Tiss EQA scheme) for two EQA distributions. Laboratories testing for oncology biomarkers make different errors when describing EGFR gene variants. Significant differences were observed regarding inclusion of the correct reference sequence: EMQN participants made fewer errors compared to ESP EQA participants (P-value = 0.015). The analysis of ESP EQA participants showed significant improvement over 2 years (P-value = 0.016). Results demonstrate the need for improvement of variant reporting according to HGVS guidelines. Consequences of using incorrect mutation nomenclature are currently perceived as low by many laboratories, but the impact will rise with an increased reliance on databases to assist in result analysis.

External quality assessment (EQA) for tumor mutational burden: results of an international IQN path feasibility pilot scheme.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has recently been approved as an agnostic biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, methods for TMB testing have not yet been standardized. The International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath) organized a pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for TMB testing. The aim of this program was the validation of the materials and the procedures for the EQA of this complex biomarker. Five formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell lines were selected to mimic the various TMB values observed in clinical practice. The FFPE samples were tested with the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) assay as the reference test and three commercially available targeted sequencing panels. Following this internal validation, the five cell lines were sent to 29 laboratories selected on the basis of a previous survey. Nineteen of the 23 laboratories that submitted results (82.6%) used targeted sequencing for TMB estimation. Only two laboratories performed whole exome sequencing (WES) and two assessed TMB by clinical exome. A high variability in the reported TMB values was observed. The variability was higher for samples with the highest TMB value according to the F1CDx test. However, good reproducibility of the TMB score was shown by laboratories using the same panel. The majority of laboratories did not indicate a TMB cut-off value for clinical interpretation. In conclusion, this pilot EQA scheme suggests that it is feasible to run such an EQA program for TMB assessment. However, the results of our pilot highlight the numerous challenges for the standardization of this test.

Implementation of circulating tumour DNA multi-target mutation testing in plasma: a perspective from an external quality assessment providers' survey.

Demand for large-scale tumour profiling across cancer types has increased in recent years, driven by the emergence of targeted drug therapies. Analysing alternations in plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for cancer detection can improve survival; ctDNA testing is recommended when tumour tissue is unavailable. An online survey of molecular pathology testing was circulated by six external quality assessment members of IQN Path to registered laboratories and all IQN Path collaborative corporate members. Data from 275 laboratories across 45 countries were collected; 245 (89%) perform molecular pathology testing, including 177 (64%) which perform plasma ctDNA diagnostic service testing. The most common tests were next-generation sequencing-based (n = 113). Genes with known stratified treatment options, including KRAS (n = 97), NRAS (n = 84), and EGFR (n = 130), were common targets. The uptake of ctDNA plasma testing and plans to implement further testing demonstrates the importance of support from a well-designed EQA scheme.

Recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genomic testing.

Results of clinical genomic testing must be reported in a clear, concise format to ensure they are understandable and interpretable. It is important laboratories are aware of the information which is essential to make sure the results are not open to misinterpretation. As genomic testing has continued to evolve over the past decade, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic) published in 2014 have been reviewed and updated to provide the genomic community with guidance on reporting unambiguous results.

Whole genome sequencing for the diagnosis of neurological repeat expansion disorders in the UK: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy and prospective clinical validation study.

BACKGROUND: Repeat expansion disorders affect about 1 in 3000 individuals and are clinically heterogeneous diseases caused by expansions of short tandem DNA repeats. Genetic testing is often locus-specific, resulting in underdiagnosis of people who have atypical clinical presentations, especially in paediatric patients without a previous positive family history. Whole genome sequencing is increasingly used as a first-line test for other rare genetic disorders, and we aimed to assess its performance in the diagnosis of patients with neurological repeat expansion disorders. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of whole genome sequencing to detect the most common repeat expansion loci associated with neurological outcomes (AR, ATN1, ATXN1, ATXN2, ATXN3, ATXN7, C9orf72, CACNA1A, DMPK, FMR1, FXN, HTT, and TBP) using samples obtained within the National Health Service in England from patients who were suspected of having neurological disorders; previous PCR test results were used as the reference standard. The clinical accuracy of whole genome sequencing to detect repeat expansions was prospectively examined in previously genetically tested and undiagnosed patients recruited in 2013-17 to the 100 000 Genomes Project in the UK, who were suspected of having a genetic neurological disorder (familial or early-onset forms of ataxia, neuropathy, spastic paraplegia, dementia, motor neuron disease, parkinsonian movement disorders, intellectual disability, or neuromuscular disorders). If a repeat expansion call was made using whole genome sequencing, PCR was used to confirm the result. FINDINGS: The diagnostic accuracy of whole genome sequencing to detect repeat expansions was evaluated against 793 PCR tests previously performed within the NHS from 404 patients. Whole genome sequencing correctly classified 215 of 221 expanded alleles and 1316 of 1321 non-expanded alleles, showing 97·3% sensitivity (95% CI 94·2-99·0) and 99·6% specificity (99·1-99·9) across the 13 disease-associated loci when compared with PCR test results. In samples from 11 631 patients in the 100 000 Genomes Project, whole genome sequencing identified 81 repeat expansions, which were also tested by PCR: 68 were confirmed as repeat expansions in the full pathogenic range, 11 were non-pathogenic intermediate expansions or premutations, and two were non-expanded repeats (16% false discovery rate). INTERPRETATION: In our study, whole genome sequencing for the detection of repeat expansions showed high sensitivity and specificity, and it led to identification of neurological repeat expansion disorders in previously undiagnosed patients. These findings support implementation of whole genome sequencing in clinical laboratories for diagnosis of patients who have a neurological presentation consistent with a repeat expansion disorder. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care, National Health Service England, National Institute for Health Research, and Illumina.

Recommendations for whole genome sequencing in diagnostics for rare diseases.

In 2016, guidelines for diagnostic Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) have been published by EuroGentest in order to assist laboratories in the implementation and accreditation of NGS in a diagnostic setting. These guidelines mainly focused on Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) and targeted (gene panels) sequencing detecting small germline variants (Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) and insertions/deletions (indels)). Since then, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) has been increasingly introduced in the diagnosis of rare diseases as WGS allows the simultaneous detection of SNVs, Structural Variants (SVs) and other types of variants such as repeat expansions. The use of WGS in diagnostics warrants the re-evaluation and update of previously published guidelines. This work was jointly initiated by EuroGentest and the Horizon2020 project Solve-RD. Statements from the 2016 guidelines have been reviewed in the context of WGS and updated where necessary. The aim of these recommendations is primarily to list the points to consider for clinical (laboratory) geneticists, bioinformaticians, and (non-)geneticists, to provide technical advice, aid clinical decision-making and the reporting of the results.

Tumor mutation burden testing: a survey of the International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path).

While tumour mutation burden (TMB) is emerging as a possible biomarker for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), methods for testing have not been standardised as yet. In April 2019, the International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) launched a survey to assess the current practice of TMB testing. Of the 127 laboratories that replied, 69 (54.3%) had already introduced TMB analysis for research purposes and/or clinical applications. Fifty laboratories (72.5%) used targeted sequencing, although a number of different panels were employed. Most laboratories tested formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material (94.2%), while 18/69 (26%) tested also cell-free DNA. Fifty-five laboratories used both single nucleotide variants and indels for TMB calculation; 20 centers included only non-synonymous variants. In conclusion, the data from this survey indicate that multiple global laboratories were capable of rapidly introducing routine clinical TMB testing. However, the variability of testing methods raises concerns about the reproducibility of results among centers.

External Quality Assessment Schemes for Biomarker Testing in Oncology: Comparison of Performance between Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded-Tissue and Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Plasma.

Liquid biopsies have emerged as a useful addition to tissue biopsies in molecular pathology. Literature has shown lower laboratory performances when a new method of variant analysis is introduced. This study evaluated the differences in variant analysis between tissue and plasma samples after the introduction of liquid biopsy in molecular analysis. Data from a pilot external quality assessment scheme for the detection of molecular variants in plasma samples and from external quality assessment schemes for the detection of molecular variants in tissue samples were collected. Laboratory performance and error rates by sample were compared between matrices for variants present in both scheme types. Results showed lower overall performance [65.6% (n = 276) versus 89.2% (n = 1607)] and higher error rates [21.0% to 43.5% (n = 138) versus 8.7% to 16.7% (n = 234 to 689)] for the detection of variants in plasma compared to tissue, respectively. In the plasma samples, performance was decreased for variants with an allele frequency of 1% compared to 5% [56.5% (n = 138) versus 74.6% (n = 138)]. The implementation of liquid biopsy in the detection of circulating tumor DNA in plasma was associated with poor laboratory performance. It is important both to apply optimal detection methods and to extensively validate new methods for testing circulating tumor DNA before treatment decisions are made.

One byte at a time: evidencing the quality of clinical service next-generation sequencing for germline and somatic variants.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is replacing other molecular techniques to become the de facto gene diagnostics approach, transforming the speed of diagnosis for patients and expanding opportunities for precision medicine. Consequently, for accredited laboratories as well as those seeking accreditation, both objective measures of quality and external review of laboratory processes are required. External quality assessment (EQA), or Proficiency Testing (PT), can assess a laboratory's service through an independent external agency, the EQA provider. The analysis of a growing number of genes and whole exome and genomes is now routine; therefore, an EQA must be delivered to enable all testing laboratories to participate. In this paper, we describe the development of a unique platform and gene target independent EQA scheme for NGS, designed to scale from current to future requirements of clinical diagnostic laboratories testing for germline and somatic variants. The EQA results from three annual rounds indicate that clinical diagnostic laboratories are providing an increasingly high-quality NGS service and variant calling abilities are improving. From an EQA provider perspective, challenges remain regarding delivery and performance criteria, as well as in analysing similar NGS approaches between cohorts with meaningful metrics, sample sourcing and data formats.