Genomic knowledge in the context of diagnostic exome sequencing: changes over time, persistent subgroup differences, and associations with psychological sequencing outcomes.

PURPOSE: People undergoing diagnostic genome-scale sequencing are expected to have better psychological outcomes when they can incorporate and act on accurate, relevant knowledge that supports informed decision making. METHODS: This longitudinal study used data from the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing Study (NCGENES) of diagnostic exome sequencing to evaluate associations between factual genomic knowledge (measured with the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale at three assessments from baseline to after return of results) and sequencing outcomes that reflected participants' perceived understanding of the study and sequencing, regret for joining the study, and responses to learning sequencing results. It also investigated differences in genomic knowledge associated with subgroups differing in race/ethnicity, income, education, health literacy, English proficiency, and prior genetic testing. RESULTS: Multivariate models revealed higher genomic knowledge at baseline for non-Hispanic Whites and those with higher income, education, and health literacy (p values < 0.001). These subgroup differences persisted across study assessments despite a general increase in knowledge among all groups. Greater baseline genomic knowledge was associated with lower test-related distress (p = 0.047) and greater perceived understanding of diagnostic genomic sequencing (p values 0.04 to <0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings extend understanding of the role of genomic knowledge in psychological outcomes of diagnostic exome sequencing, providing guidance for additional research and interventions.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned.

PURPOSE: In genomics, the return of negative screening results for rare, medically actionable conditions in large unselected populations with low prior risk of disease is novel and may involve important and nuanced concerns for communicating their meaning. Recruitment may result in self-selection because of participants' personal or family history, changing the characteristics of the screened population and interpretation of both positive and negative findings; prior motivations may also affect responses to results. METHODS: Using data from GeneScreen, an exploratory adult screening project that targets 17 genes related to 11 medically actionable conditions, we address four questions: (1) Do participants self-select based on actual or perceived risk for one of the conditions? (2) Do participants understand negative results? (3) What are their psychosocial responses? (4) Are negative results related to changes in reported health-related behaviors? RESULTS: We found disproportionate enrollment of individuals at elevated prior risk for conditions being screened, and a need to improve communication about the nature of screening and meaning of negative screening results. Participants expressed no decision regret and did not report intention to change health-related behaviors. CONCLUSION: This study illuminates critical challenges to overcome if genomic screening is to benefit the general population.

Improving recommendations for genomic medicine: building an evolutionary process from clinical practice advisory documents to guidelines.

Genomic sequencing and multigene panel tests are moving rapidly into clinical practice for a range of indications, but the evidence to guide appropriate use is currently limited. Well-crafted advice is needed to reduce unjustified practice variation, minimize risk of error and harm to patients, and encourage best practices. In the absence of definitive evidence, provisional advice can be helpful if it clarifies the potential benefits and risks of different courses of action and identifies the knowledge gaps most important to address in future research. This paper proposes an evolutionary process starting with clinical practice advisory documents (CPADs) and culminating in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), using two case examples to illustrate the need for this process. When evidence is limited, CPADs can clarify current practice options and identify key knowledge gaps. Added evidence can then support updates to the CPADs over time. Ultimately CPADs can provide the foundation for definitive CPGs as the evidence base matures. This approach addresses an important challenge in genomics and may be applicable to other fields in which technology and practice are outpacing evidence generation.

Correction: Genomic knowledge in the context of diagnostic exome sequencing: changes over time, persistent subgroup differences, and associations with psychological sequencing outcomes.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Factors influencing NCGENES research participants' requests for non-medically actionable secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can reveal variants with limited to no medical actionability. Previous research has assessed individuals' intentions to learn this information, but few report the decisions they made and why. METHODS: The North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next Generation Exome Sequencing (NCGENES) project evaluated adult patients randomized to learn up to six types of non-medically actionable secondary findings (NMASF). We previously found that most participants intended to request NMASF and intentions were strongly predicted by anticipated regret. Here we examine discrepancies between intentions and decisions to request NMASF, hypothesizing that anticipated regret would predict requests but that this association would be mediated by participants' intentions. RESULTS: Of the 76% who expressed intentions to learn results, only 42% made one or more requests. Overall, only 32% of the 155 eligible participants requested NMASF. Analyses support a plausible causal link between anticipated regret, intentions, and requests. CONCLUSIONS: The discordance between participants' expressed intentions and their actions provides insight into factors that influence patients' preferences for genomic information that has little to no actionability. These findings have implications for the timing and methods of eliciting preferences for NMASF and suggest that decisions to learn this information have cognitive and emotional components.

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource.

On autopsy, a patient is found to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The patient's family pursues genetic testing that shows a "likely pathogenic" variant for the condition on the basis of a study in an original research publication. Given the dominant inheritance of the condition and the risk of sudden cardiac death, other family members are tested for the genetic variant to determine their risk. Several family members test negative and are told that they are not at risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death, and those who test positive are told that they need to be regularly monitored for cardiomyopathy on echocardiography. Five years later, during a routine clinic visit of one of the genotype-positive family members, the cardiologist queries a database for current knowledge on the genetic variant and discovers that the variant is now interpreted as "likely benign" by another laboratory that uses more recently derived population-frequency data. A newly available testing panel for additional genes that are implicated in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is initiated on an affected family member, and a different variant is found that is determined to be pathogenic. Family members are retested, and one member who previously tested negative is now found to be positive for this new variant. An immediate clinical workup detects evidence of cardiomyopathy, and an intracardiac defibrillator is implanted to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death.

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.

"Possibly positive or certainly uncertain?": participants' responses to uncertain diagnostic results from exome sequencing.

PurposeClinical genome sequencing produces uncertain diagnostic results, raising concerns about how to communicate the method's inherent complexities in ways that reduce potential misunderstandings and harm. This study investigates clinicians' communications and patient/participant responses to uncertain diagnostic results arising from a clinical exome sequencing research study, contributing empirical data to the debate surrounding disclosure of uncertain genomic information.MethodsWe investigated the communication and impact of uncertain diagnostic results using ethnographic observations of result disclosures with 21 adults and 11 parents of child patients, followed by two semistructured interviews with these same participants.ResultsParticipants understood their uncertain results in ways that were congruent with clinical geneticists' communications. They followed recommendations for further consultation, although family testing to resolve uncertainty was not always done. Participants were prepared for learning an uncertain result and grasped the key concept that it should not be used to guide health-care or other decisions. They did not express regret for having learned the uncertain result; most regarded it as potentially valuable in the future.ConclusionThis study suggests that uncertain diagnostic results from genome sequencing can be relayed to patients in ways they can understand and consistent with providers' interpretations, without causing undue harm.

The who, what, and why of research participants' intentions to request a broad range of secondary findings in a diagnostic genomic sequencing study.

PURPOSE: In a diagnostic exome sequencing study (the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-Generation Exome Sequencing project, NCGENES), we investigated adult patients' intentions to request six categories of secondary findings (SFs) with low or no medical actionability and correlates of their intentions. METHODS: At enrollment, eligible participants (n = 152) completed measures assessing their sociodemographic, clinical, and literacy-related characteristics. Prior to and during an in-person diagnostic result disclosure visit, they received education about categories of SFs they could request. Immediately after receiving education at the visit, participants completed measures of intention to learn SFs, interest in each category, and anticipated regret for learning and not learning each category. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of participants intended to learn at least some SFs. Logistic regressions examined their intention to learn any or all of these findings (versus none) and interest in each of the six individual categories (yes/no). Results revealed little association between intentions and sociodemographic, clinical, or literacy-related factors. Across outcomes, participants who anticipated regret for learning SFs reported weaker intention to learn them (odds ratios (ORs) from 0.47 to 0.71), and participants who anticipated regret for not learning these findings reported stronger intention to learn them (OR 1.61-2.22). CONCLUSION: Intentions to request SFs with low or no medical actionability may be strongly influenced by participants' desire to avoid regret.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Prenatal exome sequencing in anomalous fetuses: new opportunities and challenges.

PurposeWe investigated the diagnostic and clinical performance of exome sequencing in fetuses with sonographic abnormalities with normal karyotype and microarray and, in some cases, normal gene-specific sequencing.MethodsExome sequencing was performed on DNA from 15 anomalous fetuses and from the peripheral blood of their parents. Parents provided consent to be informed of diagnostic results in the fetus, medically actionable findings in the parents, and their identification as carrier couples for significant autosomal recessive conditions. We assessed the perceptions and understanding of exome sequencing using mixed methods in 15 mother-father dyads.ResultsIn seven (47%) of 15 fetuses, exome sequencing provided a diagnosis or possible diagnosis with identification of variants in the following genes: COL1A1, MUSK, KCTD1, RTTN, TMEM67, PIEZO1 and DYNC2H1. One additional case revealed a de novo nonsense mutation in a novel candidate gene (MAP4K4). The perceived likelihood that exome sequencing would explain the results (5.2 on a 10-point scale) was higher than the approximately 30% diagnostic yield discussed in pretest counseling.ConclusionExome sequencing had diagnostic utility in a highly select population of fetuses where a genetic diagnosis was highly suspected. Challenges related to genetics literacy and variant interpretation must be addressed by highly tailored pre- and posttest genetic counseling.

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.

Genetic Complexity of Mitral Valve Prolapse Revealed by Clinical and Genetic Evaluation of a Large Family.

BACKGROUND: A genetic component to familial mitral valve prolapse (MVP) has been proposed for decades. Despite this, very few genes have been linked to MVP. Herein is described a four-generation pedigree with numerous individuals affected with severe MVP, some at strikingly young ages. METHODS: A detailed clinical evaluation performed on all affected family members demonstrated a spectrum of MVP morphologies and associated phenotypes. RESULTS: Linkage analysis failed to identify strong candidate loci, but revealed significant regions, which were investigated further using whole-exome sequencing of one of the severely affected family members. Whole-exome sequencing identified variants in this individual that fell within linkage analysis peak regions, but none was an obvious pathogenic candidate. Follow up segregation analysis of all exome-identified variants was performed to genotype other affected and unaffected individuals in the family, but no variants emerged as clear pathogenic candidates. Two notable variants of uncertain significance in candidate genes were identified: p.I1013S in PTPRJ at 11p11.2 and FLYWCH1 p.R540Q at 16p13.3. Neither gene has been previously linked to MVP in humans, although PTPRJ mutant mice display defects in endocardial cushions, which give rise to the cardiac valves. PTPRJ and FLYWCH1 expression was detected in adult human mitral valve cells, and in-silico analysis of these variants suggests they may be deleterious. However, neither variant segregated completely with all of the affected individuals in the family, particularly when 'affected' was broadly defined. CONCLUSIONS: While a contributory role for PTPRJ and FLYWCH1 in this family cannot be excluded, the study results underscored the difficulties involved in uncovering the genomic contribution to MVP, even in apparently Mendelian families.

Tamoxifen Dose Escalation in Patients With Diminished CYP2D6 Activity Normalizes Endoxifen Concentrations Without Increasing Toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Polymorphic CYP2D6 is primarily responsible for metabolic activation of tamoxifen to endoxifen. We previously reported that by increasing the daily tamoxifen dose to 40 mg/day in CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizer (IM), but not poor metabolizer (PM), patients achieve endoxifen concentrations similar to those of extensive metabolizer patients on 20 mg/day. We expanded enrollment to assess the safety of CYP2D6 genotype-guided dose escalation and investigate concentration differences between races. METHODS: PM and IM breast cancer patients currently receiving tamoxifen at 20 mg/day were enrolled for genotype-guided escalation to 40 mg/day. Endoxifen was measured at baseline and after 4 months. Quality-of-life data were collected using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Menopausal Symptom Scale at baseline and after 4 months. RESULTS: In 353 newly enrolled patients, genotype-guided dose escalation eliminated baseline concentration differences in IM (p = .08), but not PM (p = .009), patients. Endoxifen concentrations were similar in black and white patients overall (p = .63) and within CYP2D6 phenotype groups (p > .05). In the quality-of-life analysis of 480 patients, dose escalation did not meaningfully diminish quality of life; in fact, improvements were seen in several measures including the FACT Breast Cancer subscale (p = .004) and limitations in range of motion (p < .0001) in IM patients. CONCLUSION: Differences in endoxifen concentration during treatment can be eliminated by doubling the tamoxifen dose in IM patients, without an appreciable effect on quality of life. Validation of the association between endoxifen concentration and efficacy or prospective demonstration of improved efficacy is necessary to warrant clinical uptake of this personalized treatment strategy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This secondary analysis of a prospective CYP2D6 genotype-guided tamoxifen dose escalation study confirms that escalation to 40 mg/day in patients with low-activity CYP2D6 phenotypes (poor or intermediate metabolizers) increases endoxifen concentrations without any obvious increases in treatment-related toxicity. It remains unknown whether endoxifen concentration is a useful predictor of tamoxifen efficacy, and thus, there is no current role in clinical practice for CYP2D6 genotype-guided tamoxifen dose adjustment. If future studies confirm the importance of endoxifen concentrations for tamoxifen efficacy and report a target concentration, this study provides guidance for a dose-adjustment approach that could maximize efficacy while maintaining patient quality of life.

The promise and peril of genomic screening in the general population.

PURPOSE: Utilization of sequencing to screen the general population for preventable monogenic conditions is receiving substantial attention because of its potential to decrease morbidity and mortality. However, the selection of which variants to return is a serious implementation challenge. Procedures must be investigated to ensure optimal test characteristics and avoidance of harm from false-positive test results. METHODS: We scanned exome sequences from 478 well-phenotyped individuals for potentially pathogenic variants in 17 genes representing 11 conditions that are among the most medically actionable Mendelian disorders in adults. We developed five variant selection algorithms with increasing sensitivity and measured their specificity in these 17 genes. RESULTS: Variant selection algorithms with increasing sensitivity exhibited decreased specificity, and performance was highly dependent on the genes analyzed. The most sensitive algorithm ranged from 88.8 to 99.6% specificity among the 17 genes. CONCLUSION: For conditions with very low prevalence, small reductions in specificity greatly increase false positives. This inescapable test characteristic governs the predictive value of genomic sequencing in the general population. To address this issue, test performance must be evaluated systematically for each condition so that the false negatives and false positives can be tailored for optimal outcomes, depending on the downstream clinical consequences.Genet Med 18 6, 593-599.

A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing.

PURPOSE: As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision making about their analysis. METHODS: We established a semiquantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0 to 15. RESULTS: The semiquantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1,000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (P < 0.0001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test). CONCLUSION: Gene-disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semiquantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.Genet Med 18 5, 467-475.

A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation.

PURPOSE: Genome and exome sequencing can identify variants unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing. Detecting pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk of a medical disorder enables clinical interventions to improve future health outcomes in patients and their at-risk relatives. The Clinical Genome Resource, or ClinGen, aims to assess clinical actionability of genes and associated disorders as part of a larger effort to build a central resource of information regarding the clinical relevance of genomic variation for use in precision medicine and research. METHODS: We developed a practical, standardized protocol to identify available evidence and generate qualitative summary reports of actionability for disorders and associated genes. We applied a semiquantitative metric to score actionability. RESULTS: We generated summary reports and actionability scores for the 56 genes and associated disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing. We also describe the challenges that arose during the development of the protocol that highlight important issues in characterizing actionability across a range of disorders. CONCLUSION: The ClinGen framework for actionability assessment will assist research and clinical communities in making clear, efficient, and consistent determinations of actionability based on transparent criteria to guide analysis and reporting of findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.Genet Med 18 12, 1258-1268.