Misattributed parentage identified through diagnostic exome sequencing: Frequency of detection and reporting practices.

Access to genetic testing, namely, diagnostic exome sequencing (DES), has significantly improved, subsequently increasing the likelihood of discovering incidental findings, such as misattributed relationships and specifically misattributed parentage (MP). Until the recently published ACMG statement, there had been no consensus for laboratories and clinicians to follow when addressing such findings. Family-based genomic testing is valuable for accurate variant interpretation but has the potential to uncover misattributed familial relationships. Here, we present the first published data on the frequency of MP identified through DES at a clinical laboratory. We also investigated clinicians' decisions on how to proceed with analysis, reporting, and disclosure. A database of 6,752 families who underwent parent-proband ('trio') DES was retrospectively reviewed for molecular identification of MP and clinicians' MP disclosure decisions. Among 6,752 trios, 39 cases of MP were detected (0.58%). Non-paternity was detected in all cases, and in one instance, non-maternity was also identified. All clinicians decided to proceed by omitting the MP individual from the analysis. Clinicians chose to proceed with duo analysis (87.2%), modify information on the report (74.4%), and communicate MP results to the mother (71.8%), suggesting a trend toward not disclosing to the putative father or proband. The data show that trio DES involves a chance of detecting MP and that clinician disclosure practices do not appear to routinely include direct disclosure to the putative father. MP identified in our parent-proband trios sent in for DES is lower than the reported frequency of MP in the general population due in part to ascertainment bias as families with known or suspected MP are presumably less likely to pursue trio testing. These data may inform laboratory policies and clinician practices for addressing incidental findings such as MP.

A retrospective review of multiple findings in diagnostic exome sequencing: half are distinct and half are overlapping diagnoses.

PURPOSE: We evaluated clinical and genetic features enriched in patients with multiple Mendelian conditions to determine which patients are more likely to have multiple potentially relevant genetic findings (MPRF). METHODS: Results of the first 7698 patients who underwent exome sequencing at Ambry Genetics were reviewed. Clinical and genetic features were examined and degree of phenotypic overlap between the genetic diagnoses was evaluated. RESULTS: Among patients referred for exome sequencing, 2% had MPRF. MPRF were more common in patients from consanguineous families and patients with greater clinical complexity. The difference in average number of organ systems affected is small: 4.3 (multiple findings) vs. 3.9 (single finding) and may not be distinguished in clinic. CONCLUSION: Patients with multiple genetic diagnoses had a slightly higher number of organ systems affected than patients with single genetic diagnoses, largely because the comorbid conditions affected overlapping organ systems. Exome testing may be beneficial for all cases with multiple organ systems affected. The identification of multiple relevant genetic findings in 2% of exome patients highlights the utility of a comprehensive molecular workup and updated interpretation of existing genomic data; a single definitive molecular diagnosis from analysis of a limited number of genes may not be the end of a diagnostic odyssey.

Misattributed parentage as an unanticipated finding during exome/genome sequencing: current clinical laboratory practices and an opportunity for standardization.

PURPOSE: Clinical laboratories performing exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS) are familiar with the challenges associated with proper consenting for and reporting of medically actionable secondary findings based on recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Misattributed parentage is another type of unanticipated finding a laboratory may encounter during family-based ES/GS; however, there are currently no professional recommendations related to the proper consenting for and reporting of misattributed parentage encountered during ES/GS. METHODS: We surveyed 10 clinical laboratories offering family-based ES/GS regarding their consent language, discovery, and reporting of misattributed parentage. RESULTS: Many laboratories have already developed their own practices/policies for these issues, which do not necessarily agree with those from other labs. CONCLUSION: There are several other possibilities besides true misattributed parentage that could result in similar laboratory findings, and laboratories often feel they lack sufficient information to make formal conclusions on a report regarding the true genetic relatedness of the submitted samples. However, understanding the genetic relatedness (or lack thereof) of the samples submitted for family-based ES/GS has medical relevance. Therefore, professional recommendations for the appropriate handling of suspected misattributed parentage encountered during ES/GS are needed to help standardize current clinical laboratory practices.