Population screening shows risk of inherited cancer and familial hypercholesterolemia in Oregon.

The Healthy Oregon Project (HOP) is a statewide effort that aims to build a large research repository and influence the health of Oregonians through providing no-cost genetic screening to participants for a next-generation sequencing 32-gene panel comprising genes related to inherited cancers and familial hypercholesterolemia. This type of unbiased population screening can detect at-risk individuals who may otherwise be missed by conventional medical approaches. However, challenges exist for this type of high-throughput testing in an academic setting, including developing a low-cost high-efficiency test and scaling up the clinical laboratory for processing large numbers of samples. Modifications to our academic clinical laboratory including efficient test design, robotics, and a streamlined analysis approach increased our ability to test more than 1,000 samples per month for HOP using only one dedicated HOP laboratory technologist. Additionally, enrollment using a HIPAA-compliant smartphone app and sample collection using mouthwash increased efficiency and reduced cost. Here, we present our experience three years into HOP and discuss the lessons learned, including our successes, challenges, opportunities, and future directions, as well as the genetic screening results for the first 13,670 participants tested. Overall, we have identified 730 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 710 participants in 24 of the 32 genes on the panel. The carrier rate for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the inherited cancer genes on the panel for an unselected population was 5.0% and for familial hypercholesterolemia was 0.3%. Our laboratory experience described here may provide a useful model for population screening projects in other states.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted exome reanalysis greatly aids in the identification of new positive cases and reduces analysis time in a clinical diagnostic laboratory.

PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) and variant prioritization tools for genomic variant analysis are being rapidly developed for use in clinical diagnostic testing. However, their clinical utility and reliability are currently limited. Therefore, we performed a validation of a commercial AI tool (Moon) and a comprehensive reanalysis of previously collected clinical exome sequencing cases using an open-source variant prioritization tool (Exomiser) and the now-validated AI tool to test their feasibility in clinical diagnostics. METHODS: A validation study of Moon was performed with 29 positive cases determined by previous manual analysis. After validation, reanalysis was performed on 80 previously manually analyzed nondiagnostic exome cases using Moon. Finally, a comparison between Moon and Exomiser was completed regarding their ability to identify previously completed positive cases and to identify new positive cases. RESULTS: Moon correctly selected the causal variant(s) in 97% of manually analyzed positive cases and identified 7 new positive cases. Exomiser correctly identified the causal gene in 85% of positive cases and agreed with Moon by ranking the new gene in its top 10 list 43% of the time. CONCLUSION: The use of AI in diagnostic laboratories greatly enhances exome sequencing analysis by reducing analysis time and increasing the diagnostic rate.

Preconception Carrier Screening by Genome Sequencing: Results from the Clinical Laboratory.

Advances in sequencing technologies permit the analysis of a larger selection of genes for preconception carrier screening. The study was designed as a sequential carrier screen using genome sequencing to analyze 728 gene-disorder pairs for carrier and medically actionable conditions in 131 women and their partners (n = 71) who were planning a pregnancy. We report here on the clinical laboratory results from this expanded carrier screening program. Variants were filtered and classified using the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline; only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were confirmed by orthologous methods before being reported. Novel missense variants were classified as variants of uncertain significance. We reported 304 variants in 202 participants. Twelve carrier couples (12/71 couples tested) were identified for common conditions; eight were carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis. Although both known and novel variants were reported, 48% of all reported variants were missense. For novel splice-site variants, RNA-splicing assays were performed to aid in classification. We reported ten copy-number variants and five variants in non-coding regions. One novel variant was reported in F8, associated with hemophilia A; prenatal testing showed that the male fetus harbored this variant and the neonate suffered a life-threatening hemorrhage which was anticipated and appropriately managed. Moreover, 3% of participants had variants that were medically actionable. Compared with targeted mutation screening, genome sequencing improves the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant variants. While certain novel variant interpretation remains challenging, the ACMG guidelines are useful to classify variants in a healthy population.

Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

PURPOSE: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs). METHODS: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. RESULTS: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Correction: Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

The originally published version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 2. The numbers below the black arrowheads were incorrect; please see incorrect Figure in associated Correction. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification.

Recommendations for laboratories to report incidental findings from genomic tests have stimulated interest in such results. In order to investigate the criteria and processes for assigning the pathogenicity of specific variants and to estimate the frequency of such incidental findings in patients of European and African ancestry, we classified potentially actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in all 4300 European- and 2203 African-ancestry participants sequenced by the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). We considered 112 gene-disease pairs selected by an expert panel as associated with medically actionable genetic disorders that may be undiagnosed in adults. The resulting classifications were compared to classifications from other clinical and research genetic testing laboratories, as well as with in silico pathogenicity scores. Among European-ancestry participants, 30 of 4300 (0.7%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.1%) had a disruptive variant that was expected to be pathogenic, whereas 52 (1.2%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. For African-ancestry participants, six of 2203 (0.3%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.3%) had an expected pathogenic disruptive variant, whereas 13 (0.6%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. Genomic Evolutionary Rate Profiling mammalian conservation score and the Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion summary score of conservation, substitution, regulation, and other evidence were compared across pathogenicity assignments and appear to have utility in variant classification. This work provides a refined estimate of the burden of adult onset, medically actionable incidental findings expected from exome sequencing, highlights challenges in variant classification, and demonstrates the need for a better curated variant interpretation knowledge base.

Venous thromboembolism laboratory testing (factor V Leiden and factor II c.*97G>A), 2018 update: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Factor V Leiden and factor II c.*97G>A (formerly referred to as prothrombin 20210G>A) are the two most common genetic variants associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Testing for these variants is one of the most common referrals in clinical genetics laboratories. While the methodologies for testing these two variants are relatively straightforward, the clinical implementation can be complicated with regard to test indications, risk assessment of occurrence and recurrence of VTE, and related genetic counseling. This document provides an overview of VTE, information about the variants and their influence on risk, considerations before initiating genetic testing, and the clinical and analytical sensitivity and specificity of the tests. Key information that should be included in the laboratory report is also provided. Disease-specific statements are intended to augment the general American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) technical standards for clinical genetics laboratories. Individual laboratories are responsible for meeting the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) quality assurance standards with respect to appropriate sample documentation, assay validation, general proficiency testing, and quality control measures. This 2018 edition of the ACMG technical standard updates and supersedes the 2005 edition on this topic. It is designed to be a checklist for genetic testing professionals who are already familiar with the disease and the methods of analysis.

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.

Genome sequencing and carrier testing: decisions on categorization and whether to disclose results of carrier testing.

PURPOSE: We investigated the use of genome sequencing for preconception carrier testing. Genome sequencing could identify one or more of thousands of X-linked or autosomal recessive conditions that could be disclosed during preconception or prenatal counseling. Therefore, a framework that helps both clinicians and patients understand the possible range of findings is needed to respect patient preferences by ensuring that information about only the desired types of genetic conditions are provided to a given patient. METHODS: We categorized gene-condition pairs into groups using a previously developed taxonomy of genetic conditions. Patients could elect to receive results from these categories. A Return of Results Committee (RORC) developed inclusion and exclusion criteria for each category. RESULTS: To date, the RORC has categorized 728 gene-condition pairs: 177 are categorized as life span-limiting, 406 are categorized as serious, 93 are categorized as mild, 41 are categorized as unpredictable, and 11 are categorized as adult-onset. An additional 64 gene-condition pairs were excluded from reporting to patients or put on a watch list, generally because evidence that a gene and condition were associated was limited. CONCLUSION: Categorization of gene-condition pairs using our taxonomy simplifies communication regarding patient preferences for carrier information from a genomic test.Genet Med advance online publication 12 January 2017.

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.

A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratories.

PURPOSE: While the diagnostic success of genomic sequencing expands, the complexity of this testing should not be overlooked. Numerous laboratory processes are required to support the identification, interpretation, and reporting of clinically significant variants. This study aimed to examine the workflow and reporting procedures among US laboratories to highlight shared practices and identify areas in need of standardization. METHODS: Surveys and follow-up interviews were conducted with laboratories offering exome and/or genome sequencing to support a research program or for routine clinical services. The 73-item survey elicited multiple choice and free-text responses that were later clarified with phone interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-one laboratories participated. Practices highly concordant across all groups included consent documentation, multiperson case review, and enabling patient opt-out of incidental or secondary findings analysis. Noted divergence included use of phenotypic data to inform case analysis and interpretation and reporting of case-specific quality metrics and methods. Few laboratory policies detailed procedures for data reanalysis, data sharing, or patient access to data. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of practices and policies of experienced exome and genome sequencing laboratories. The results enable broader consideration of which practices are becoming standard approaches, where divergence remains, and areas of development in best practice guidelines that may be helpful.Genet Med advance online publication 03 Novemeber 2016.

Results from an external proficiency testing program: 11 years of molecular genetics testing for myotonic dystrophy type 1.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the performance of laboratories offering assessment for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) using external proficiency testing samples. DM1, a dominant disorder, has a prevalence of 1:20,000 due to the expansion of CTG trinucleotide repeats in the DMPK gene. METHODS: External proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics distributes three samples twice yearly. Responses from 2003 through the first distribution of 2013 were analyzed after stratification by location (United States/international). Both the repeat sizes (analytic validity) and clinical interpretations were assessed. RESULTS: Over the 21 distributions, 45 US and 29 international laboratories participated. Analytic sensitivity for detecting and reporting expanded repeats (≥50) was 99.2% (382/385 challenges) and 97.1% (133/137 challenges), respectively. Analytic specificity (to within two repeats of the consensus) was 99.2% (1,790/1,805 alleles) and 98.6% (702/712 alleles), respectively. Clinical interpretations were correct for 99.3% (450/453) and 98.2% (224/228) of positive challenges and in 99.9% (936/937) and 99.6% (455/457) of negative challenges, respectively. Of four incorrect interpretations made in the United States, two were probably due to sample mix-up. CONCLUSION: This review of laboratory performance regarding laboratory-developed genetic tests indicates very high performance for both the analytic and interpretative challenges for DM1.Genet Med 18 12, 1290-1294.

Patients' ratings of genetic conditions validate a taxonomy to simplify decisions about preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.

Advances in genome sequencing and gene discovery have created opportunities to efficiently assess more genetic conditions than ever before. Given the large number of conditions that can be screened, the implementation of expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing will require practical methods of simplifying decisions about the conditions for which patients want to be screened. One method to simplify decision making is to generate a taxonomy based on expert judgment. However, expert perceptions of condition attributes used to classify these conditions may differ from those used by patients. To understand whether expert and patient perceptions differ, we asked women who had received preconception genetic carrier screening in the last 3 years to fill out a survey to rate the attributes (predictability, controllability, visibility, and severity) of several autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions. These conditions were classified into one of five taxonomy categories developed by subject experts (significantly shortened lifespan, serious medical problems, mild medical problems, unpredictable medical outcomes, and adult-onset conditions). A total of 193 women provided 739 usable ratings across 20 conditions. The mean ratings and correlations demonstrated that participants made distinctions across both attributes and categories. Aggregated mean attribute ratings across categories demonstrated logical consistency between the key features of each attribute and category, although participants perceived little difference between the mild and serious categories. This study provides empirical evidence for the validity of our proposed taxonomy, which will simplify patient decisions for results they would like to receive from preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.

Generating a taxonomy for genetic conditions relevant to reproductive planning.

As genome or exome sequencing (hereafter genome-scale sequencing) becomes more integrated into standard care, carrier testing is an important possible application. Carrier testing using genome-scale sequencing can identify a large number of conditions, but choosing which conditions/genes to evaluate as well as which results to disclose can be complicated. Carrier testing generally occurs in the context of reproductive decision-making and involves patient values in a way that other types of genetic testing may not. The Kaiser Permanente Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program is conducting a randomized clinical trial of preconception carrier testing that allows participants to select their preferences for results from among broad descriptive categories rather than selecting individual conditions. This paper describes (1) the criteria developed by the research team, the return of results committee (RORC), and stakeholders for defining the categories; (2) the process of refining the categories based on input from patient focus groups and validation through a patient survey; and (3) how the RORC then assigned specific gene-condition pairs to taxonomy categories being piloted in the trial. The development of four categories (serious, moderate/mild, unpredictable, late onset) for sharing results allows patients to select results based on their values without separately deciding their interest in knowing their carrier status for hundreds of conditions. A fifth category, lifespan limiting, was always shared. The lessons learned may be applicable in other results disclosure situations, such as incidental findings.