Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on intellectual disability/autism sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), exhibit genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, making them difficult to differentiate without a molecular diagnosis. The Clinical Genome Resource Intellectual Disability/Autism Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) uses systematic curation to distinguish ID/ASD genes that are appropriate for clinical testing (ie, with substantial evidence supporting their relationship to disease) from those that are not. METHODS: Using the Clinical Genome Resource gene-disease validity curation framework, the ID/Autism GCEP classified genes frequently included on clinical ID/ASD testing panels as Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Known Disease Relationship. RESULTS: As of September 2021, 156 gene-disease pairs have been evaluated. Although most (75%) were determined to have definitive roles in NDDs, 22 (14%) genes evaluated had either Limited or Disputed evidence. Such genes are currently not recommended for use in clinical testing owing to the limited ability to assess the effect of identified variants. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of gene-disease relationships evolves over time; new relationships are discovered and previously-held conclusions may be questioned. Without periodic re-examination, inaccurate gene-disease claims may be perpetuated. The ID/Autism GCEP will continue to evaluate these claims to improve diagnosis and clinical care for NDDs.

Positive impact of genetic counseling assistants on genetic counseling efficiency, patient volume, and cost in a cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: Cancer genetics clinics have seen increasing demand, challenging genetic counselors (GCs) to increase efficiency and prompting some clinics to implement genetic counseling assistants (GCAs). To evaluate the impact of GCAs on Geisinger's cancer genetics clinic, we tracked GC time utilization, new patient volume, and clinic cost per patient before and after implementing a GCA program. METHODS: GCs used time-tracking software while completing preappointment activities. Electronic health records were reviewed for appointment length and number of patients per week. Internal salary data for GCs and GCAs were used to calculate clinic costs per patient. RESULTS: Time spent by GCs completing each preappointment activity (21.8 vs. 15.1 minutes) and appointment length (51.6 vs. 44.5 minutes) significantly decreased after GCA program implementation (p values < 0.001). New patients per week per GC significantly increased (7.9 vs. 11.4, p < 0.001). Weekly clinic cost per patient significantly decreased ($233 vs. $176, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Implementing a GCA program increased GC efficiency in preappointment activities and clinic appointments, increased patient volume, and decreased clinic cost per patient. Such a program can improve access to GC services and assist GCs in focusing on the direct patient care for which they are specially trained.