Current and new frontiers in hereditary cancer surveillance: Opportunities for liquid biopsy.

At least 5% of cancer diagnoses are attributed to a causal pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline genetic variant (hereditary cancer syndrome-HCS). These individuals are burdened with lifelong surveillance monitoring organs for a wide spectrum of cancers. This is associated with substantial uncertainty and anxiety in the time between screening tests and while the individuals are awaiting results. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing has recently shown potential as a non-invasive strategy for monitoring cancer. There is an opportunity for high-yield cancer early detection in HCS. To assess clinical validity of cfDNA in individuals with HCS, representatives from eight genetics centers from across Canada founded the CHARM (cfDNA in Hereditary and High-Risk Malignancies) Consortium in 2017. In this perspective, we discuss operationalization of this consortium and early data emerging from the most common and well-characterized HCSs: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis type 1. We identify opportunities for the incorporation of cfDNA sequencing into surveillance protocols; these opportunities are backed by examples of earlier cancer detection efficacy in HCSs from the CHARM Consortium. We seek to establish a paradigm shift in early cancer surveillance in individuals with HCSs, away from highly centralized, regimented medical screening visits and toward more accessible, frequent, and proactive care for these high-risk individuals.

Digital health-enabled genomics: Opportunities and challenges.

Digital health solutions, with apps, virtual care, and electronic medical records, are gaining momentum across all medical disciplines, and their adoption has been accelerated, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal wearables, sensors, and mobile technologies are increasingly being used to identify health risks and assist in diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of health and disease. Genomics is a vanguard of digital healthcare as we witness a convergence of the fields of genomic and digital medicine. Spurred by the acute need to increase health literacy, empower patients' preference-sensitive decisions, or integrate vast amounts of complex genomic data into the clinical workflow, there has been an emergence of digital support tools in genomics-enabled care. We present three use cases that demonstrate the application of these converging technologies: digital genomics decision support tools, conversational chatbots to scale the genetic counseling process, and the digital delivery of comprehensive genetic services. These digital solutions are important to facilitate patient-centered care delivery, improve patient outcomes, and increase healthcare efficiencies in genomic medicine. Yet the development of these innovative digital genomic technologies also reveals strategic challenges that need to be addressed before genomic digital health can be broadly adopted. Alongside key evidentiary gaps in clinical and cost-effectiveness, there is a paucity of clinical guidelines, policy, and regulatory frameworks that incorporate digital health. We propose a research agenda, guided by learning healthcare systems, to realize the vision of digital health-enabled genomics to ensure its sustainable and equitable deployment in clinical care.

Variant classification changes over time in the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory setting.

BACKGROUND: Variant classification in the setting of germline genetic testing is necessary for patients and their families to receive proper care. Variants are classified as pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign (LB) and benign (B) using the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology, with modifications for specific genes. As the literature continues to rapidly expand, and evidence continues to accumulate, prior classifications can be updated accordingly. In this study, we aim to characterise variant reclassifications in Ontario. METHODS: DNA samples from patients seen at hereditary cancer clinics in Ontario from January 2012 to April 2022 were submitted for testing. Patients met provincial eligibility criteria for testing for hereditary cancer syndromes or polycystic kidney disease. Reclassification events were determined to be within their broader category of significance (B to LB or vice versa, or P to LP or vice versa) or outside of their broader category as significance (ie, significant reclassifications from B/LB or VUS or P/LP, from P/LP to VUS or B/LB, or from VUS to any other category). RESULTS: Of the 8075 unique variants included in this study, 23.7% (1912) of variants were reassessed, and 7.2% (578) of variants were reclassified. Of these, 351 (60.7%) variants were reclassified outside of their broader category of significance. Overall, the final classification was significantly different for 336 (58.1%) variants. Importantly, most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification (n=245; 72.9%). Of note, most reclassified VUS was downgraded to B/LB (n=233; 84.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood for reclassification of variants on reassessment is high. Most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification. Our findings highlight the importance of periodic variant reassessment to ensure timely and appropriate care for patients and their families.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

Genetics providers' perspectives on the use of digital tools in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Digital tools are increasingly incorporated into genetics practice to address challenges with the current model of care. Yet, genetics providers' perspectives on digital tool use are not well characterized. METHODS: Genetics providers across Canada were recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted to ascertain their perspectives on digital tool use and the clinical practice factors that might inform digital tool integration. A qualitative interpretive description approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three genetics providers across 5 provinces were interviewed. Participants had favorable attitudes toward digital tool use. They were open to using digital tools in the pretest phase of the genetic testing pathway and for some posttest tasks or in a hybrid model of care. Participants expressed that digital tools could enhance efficiency and allow providers to spend more time practicing at the top of scope. Providers also described the need for careful consideration of the potential impact of digitalization on the clinician-patient dynamic, access to and equity of care, and unintended digital burden on providers. CONCLUSION: Genetics providers considered digital tools to represent a viable solution for improving access, efficiency, and quality of care in genetics practice. Successful use of digital tools in practice will require careful consideration of their potential unintended impacts.

Should secondary pharmacogenomic variants be actively screened and reported when diagnostic genome-wide sequencing is performed in a child?

This white paper was prepared by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Regulatory and Ethics Work Stream's Pediatric Task Team to review and provide perspective with respect to ethical, legal, and social issues regarding the return of secondary pharmacogenomic variants in children who have a serious disease or developmental disorder and are undergoing exome or genome sequencing to identify a genetic cause of their condition. We discuss actively searching for and reporting pharmacogenetic/genomic variants in pediatric patients, different methods of returning secondary pharmacogenomic findings to the patient/parents and/or treating clinicians, maintaining these data in the patient's health record over time, decision supports to assist using pharmacogenetic results in future treatment decisions, and sharing information in public databases to improve the clinical interpretation of pharmacogenetic variants identified in other children. We conclude by presenting a series of points to consider for clinicians and policymakers regarding whether, and under what circumstances, routine screening and return of pharmacogenomic variants unrelated to the indications for testing is appropriate in children who are undergoing genome-wide sequencing to assist in the diagnosis of a suspected genetic disease.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Finding the sweet spot: a qualitative study exploring patients' acceptability of chatbots in genetic service delivery.

Chatbots, web-based artificial intelligence tools that simulate human conversation, are increasingly in use to support many areas of genomic medicine. However, patient preferences towards using chatbots across the range of clinical settings are unknown. We conducted a qualitative study with individuals who underwent genetic testing for themselves or their child. Participants were asked about their preferences for using a chatbot within the genetic testing journey. Thematic analysis employing interpretive description was used. We interviewed 30 participants (67% female, 50% 50 + years). Participants considered chatbots to be inefficient for very simple tasks (e.g., answering FAQs) or very complex tasks (e.g., explaining results). Chatbots were acceptable for moderately complex tasks where participants perceived a favorable return on their investment of time and energy. In addition to achieving this "sweet spot," participants anticipated that their comfort with chatbots would increase if the chatbot was used as a complement to but not a replacement for usual care. Participants wanted a "safety net" (i.e., access to a clinician) for needs not addressed by the chatbot. This study provides timely insights into patients' comfort with and perceived limitations of chatbots for genomic medicine and can inform their implementation in practice.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations.

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

"I don't need any more unknowns hanging over my head": Views of patients with cancer on variants of uncertain significance and low/moderate risk results from genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: We sought to explore patient-reported utility of all types of cancer results from genomic sequencing (GS). METHODS: Qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent GS within a trial. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used. Two coders coded transcripts, with use of a third coder to resolve conflicts. RESULTS: 25 patients participated: female (22), >50 years (18), European (12), Ashkenazi Jewish (5), Middle Eastern (3), or other ethnicity (5), with breast cancer history (20). Patients' perceptions of the utility of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical action. For example, when patients were enrolled into high-risk breast cancer surveillance programs for low/moderate risk breast cancer genes, they perceived the results to be very "useful" and of moderate-high utility. In contrast, patients receiving low/moderate risk or primary variants of uncertain significance results without clinical action perceived results as "concerning," leading to harms, such as hypervigilance about cancer symptoms. Overall, having supportive relatives or providers enhanced perceptions of utility. CONCLUSION: Patients' perceptions of cancer GS results hinged on whether they triggered clinical management. Consequently, patients who received results without clinical action became hypervigilant, experiencing harms. Our findings call for a need to develop practice interventions to support patients with cancer undergoing GS.

How do members of the public expect to use variants of uncertain significance in their health care? A population-based survey.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can generate complex results, including variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In general, VUS should not inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the public's expected management of VUS. METHODS: An online, hypothetical survey was conducted among members of the Canadian public preceded by an educational video. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 arms, VUS or pathogenic variant in a colorectal cancer gene, and asked which types of health services they expected to use for this result. Expected health service use was compared between randomization arms, and associations between participants' sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and medical history were explored. RESULTS: Among 1003 respondents (completion rate 60%), more participants expected to use each type of health service for a pathogenic variant than for a VUS. However, a considerable proportion of participants expected to request monitoring (73.4%) and consult health care providers (60.9%) for a VUS. There was evidence to support associations between expectation to use health services for a VUS with family history of genetic disease, family history of cancer, education, and attitudes toward health care and technology. CONCLUSION: Many participants expected to use health services for a VUS in a colorectal cancer predisposition gene, suggesting a potential disconnect between patients' expectations for VUS management and guideline-recommended care.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions.

INTRODUCTION: The unique evidentiary, economic and ethical challenges associated with health technology assessment (HTA) of precision therapies limit access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth, for whom such challenges are amplified. We elicited citizens' perspectives about values-based criteria relevant to the assessment of paediatric precision therapies to inform the development of a child-tailored HTA framework. METHODS: We held four citizen panels virtually in May-June 2021, informed by a plain-language citizen brief summarizing global and local evidence about the challenges, policy and programmatic options and implementation strategies related to enhancing access to precision therapies for Canadian children and youth. Panellists were recruited through a nationally representative database, medical/patient networks and social media. We inductively coded and thematically analysed panel transcripts to generate themes and identify priority values. RESULTS: The perspectives of panellists (n = 45) coalesced into four overlapping themes, with attendant subthemes, relevant to a child-tailored HTA framework: (1) Childhood Distinctions: vulnerability, 'fair innings', future potential, family impacts; (2) Voice: agency of children and youth; lived versus no lived experience; (3) One versus Many: disease severity, rarity, equity, unmet need and (4) Health System Governance: funding, implementation inequities, effectiveness and safety. Participants broadly agreed that childhood distinctions, particularly family impacts, justify child-tailored HTA. Dissent arose over whose voice should inform HTA and how such perspectives are best incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: Citizens can offer unique insights into criteria relevant to the development or revision of HTA frameworks to capture holistic, societally responsive dimensions of value attached to unique contexts or populations, including children. Balancing the hopes and expectations of patients and caregivers for access to expensive but potential life-altering therapies against the opportunity costs borne by encompassing health systems is a fundamental challenge that will require rigorous methods to elicit, weigh and reconcile varied views. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient advocate served on the steering committee of this study and co-authored this article. Key informants for the Citizen Brief included patient advocates and caregivers; a separate patient advocate reviewed the Brief before dissemination. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the general public and caregivers of children, with written consent.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

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.

"Game Changer": Health Professionals' Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management.

BACKGROUND: We explored health professionals' views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data. RESULTS: Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as "transformative" and a "game-changer". However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA's role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA's invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA's role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption.

"Doctors shouldn't have to cheat the system": Clinicians' real-world experiences of the utility of genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: Emerging genetic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS) can generate a broad range of benefits, but funding criteria only prioritize diagnosis and clinical management. There is limited evidence on all types of benefits obtained from GS in practice. We aimed to explore real-world experiences of Canadian clinicians across specialties on the full range of benefits obtained from the results from GS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with Canadian clinicians. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using constant comparison. RESULTS: In total, 25 clinicians participated, including 12 geneticists, 7 genetic counselors, 4 oncologists, 1 neurologist, and 1 family physician. Although diagnoses and management were the most valued benefits of GS, clinicians also prioritized nontraditional utility, such as access to community supports. However, clinicians felt "restricted" by funding bodies, which only approved funding when GS would inform diagnoses and management. Consequently, clinicians sought ways to "cheat the system" to access GS (eg, research testing) but acknowledged workarounds were burdensome, drove inequity, and undermined patient care. CONCLUSION: Current governance structures undervalue real-world benefits of GS leading clinicians to adopt workarounds, which jeopardize patient care. These results support calls for the expansion of the definition of clinical utility and research to quantify the additional benefits.

"I have to start learning how to live with becoming sick": A scoping review of the lived experiences of people with Huntington's disease.

Person-centered care (PCC) is recognized as a key component of the delivery of quality healthcare and a model for healthcare systems worldwide. The experience of illness through a person's perspective is one domain defining PCC contributing to a growing interest in examining the lived experiences of illness. This scoping review sought to examine what is known from the existing literature about the lived experiences of persons gene-positive for or living with Huntington's disease (HD) as described in their own voices and to outline prominent psychosocial themes of those experiences. Five databases were systematically searched and analyzed resulting in 19 publications for inclusion. Using a thematic analysis, five prominent psychosocial themes were identified: grappling with control, avoidance as an escape from realities, adaptation to new realities, managing emotions, and appreciation for life. Variation in themes existed across HD life stage of being undiagnosed or diagnosed with HD. The findings of this review demonstrate that individuals who are gene-positive for or living with HD require support well beyond the disclosure of genetic testing and that it may be beneficial for healthcare providers to consider where along the life stage trajectory a person affected by HD may be to ensure the delivery of quality PCC.

Exome and genome sequencing in adults with undiagnosed disease: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing have been demonstrated to increase diagnostic yield in paediatric populations, improving treatment options and providing risk information for relatives. There are limited studies examining the clinical utility of these tests in adults, who currently have limited access to this technology. METHODS: Patients from adult and cancer genetics clinics across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were recruited into a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in adults. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and suspected of having a hereditary disorder but had received previous uninformative genetic test results. In total, we examined the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in 47 probands and 34 of their relatives who consented to participate and underwent exome or genome sequencing. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (8/47) of probands had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified in a gene associated with their primary indication for testing. The diagnostic yield for patients with a cancer history was similar to the yield for patients with a non-cancer history (4/18 (22%) vs 4/29 (14%)). An additional 24 probands (51%) had an inconclusive result. Secondary findings were identified in 10 patients (21%); three had medically actionable results. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends evidence to the diagnostic utility of exome or genome sequencing in an undiagnosed adult population. The significant increase in diagnostic yield warrants the use of this technology. The identification and communication of secondary findings may provide added value when using this testing modality as a first-line test.