Case report: Early use of whole exome sequencing unveils HNRNPU-related neurodevelopmental disorder and answers additional clinical questions through reanalysis.

This case report chronicles the diagnostic odyssey and resolution of a 27-year-old female with a complex neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) using Whole Exome Sequencing (WES). The patient presented to a precision medicine clinic with multiple diagnoses including intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), tics, seizures, and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS). Although this patient previously had chromosomal microarray and several single-gene tests, the underlying cause of this patient's symptoms remained elusive. WES revealed a pathogenic missense mutation in the HNRNPU gene, associated with HNRNPU-related neurodevelopmental disorder (HNRNPU-NDD) and developmental and epileptic encephalopathy-54 (DEE54, OMIM: # 617391). Following this diagnoses, other treating clinicians identified additional indications for genetic testing, however, as the WES data was readily available, the clinical team was able to re-analyze the WES data to address their inquiries without requiring additional tests. This emphasizes the pivotal role of WES in expediting diagnoses, reducing costs, and providing ongoing clinical utility throughout a patient's life. Accessible WES data in primary care settings can enhance patient care by informing future genetic inquiries, enhancing coordination of care, and facilitating precision medicine interventions, thereby mitigating the burden on families and the healthcare system.

Epilepsy panel testing criteria: A clinical assessment.

Epilepsy is a common, and often genetic, neurological disorder. Few guidelines exist to help medical providers or insurance companies decide when to order or cover epilepsy panels for patients with epilepsy. The most recent guidelines were published by NSGC after this study's data collection. Since 2017, the Genetic Testing Stewardship Program (GTSP) at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) has been utilizing a set of internally developed epilepsy panel (EP) testing criteria to facilitate appropriate EP ordering practices. The purpose of this study was to assess these testing criteria by determining their sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPV). Retrospective chart review of the electronic medical record (EMR) was performed for 1242 CHP Neurology patients that were evaluated for a primary diagnosis of epilepsy between 2016 and 2018. One hundred and nine patients had EPs at various testing laboratories. Of the patients that met criteria, 17 had diagnostic EPs and 54 had negative EPs. Criteria were organized into category groupings (C1-C4), and analyzed alone for C1, in pairs for C2, etc. The highest sensitivity and PPV results in each category grouping were: C1 (64.7%, 60%); C2, (88%, 30.3%); C3, (94.1%, 27.1%); C4, (94.1%, 25.4%). Family history was crucial to increasing sensitivity. Confidence intervals (CIs) narrowed as category grouping level increased, though this was not statistically significant due to the considerable CI overlap across category groupings. The PPV from C4 was applied to the untested population cohort and predicted 121 patients with unidentified positive EPs. This study presents data supporting the predictive capabilities of EP testing criteria and suggests the addition of a family history criterion. This study impacts public health by encouraging the adoption of evidence-driven insurance policies and by suggesting guidelines to ease EP ordering and coverage decisions, which could potentially improve patient access to EP testing.

Adverse Events in Genetic Testing: The Fourth Case Series.

PURPOSE: In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly. METHODS: An invitation to submit cases of adverse events in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission. RESULTS: All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered. DISCUSSION: As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing.