Automated Pharmacogenomic Reports for Clinical Genome Sequencing.

Clinical laboratories offering genome sequencing have the opportunity to return pharmacogenomic findings to patients, providing the added benefit of preemptive testing that could help inform medication selection or dosing throughout the lifespan. Implementation of pharmacogenomic reporting must address several challenges, including inherent limitations in short-read genome sequencing methods, gene and variant selection, standardization of genotype and phenotype nomenclature, and choice of guidelines and drugs to report. An automated pipeline, lmPGX, was developed as an end-to-end solution that produces two versions of a pharmacogenomic report, presenting either Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium or US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for 12 genes. The pipeline was validated for performance using reference samples and pharmacogenetic data from the Genetic Testing Reference Materials Coordination Program. To determine performance and limitations, lmPGX was compared with three additional publicly available pharmacogenomic pipelines. The lmPGX pipeline offers clinical laboratories an opportunity for seamless integration of pharmacogenomic results with genome reporting.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

Association of Rare Pathogenic DNA Variants for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome With Disease Risk in Adults According to Family History.

Importance: Pathogenic DNA variants associated with familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome are widely recognized as clinically important and actionable when identified, leading some clinicians to recommend population-wide genomic screening. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and clinical importance of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with each of 3 genomic conditions (familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome) within the context of contemporary clinical care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used gene-sequencing data from 49 738 participants in the UK Biobank who were recruited from 22 sites across the UK between March 21, 2006, and October 1, 2010. Inpatient hospital data date back to 1977; cancer registry data, to 1957; and death registry data, to 2006. Statistical analysis was performed from July 22, 2019, to November 15, 2019. Exposures: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic DNA variants classified by a clinical laboratory geneticist. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point specific to each genomic condition based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events for familial hypercholesterolemia, breast or ovarian cancer for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and colorectal or uterine cancer for Lynch syndrome. Results: Among 49 738 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [8] years; 27 144 female [55%]), 441 (0.9%) harbored a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant associated with any of 3 genomic conditions, including 131 (0.3%) for familial hypercholesterolemia, 235 (0.5%) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and 76 (0.2%) for Lynch syndrome. Presence of these variants was associated with increased risk of disease: for familial hypercholesterolemia, 28 of 131 carriers (21.4%) vs 4663 of 49 607 noncarriers (9.4%) developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, 32 of 116 female carriers (27.6%) vs 2080 of 27 028 female noncarriers (7.7%) developed associated cancers; and for Lynch syndrome, 17 of 76 carriers (22.4%) vs 929 of 49 662 noncarriers (1.9%) developed colorectal or uterine cancer. The predicted probability of disease at age 75 years despite contemporary clinical care was 45.3% for carriers of familial hypercholesterolemia, 41.1% for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and 38.3% for Lynch syndrome. Across the 3 conditions, 39.7% (175 of 441) of the carriers reported a family history of disease vs 23.2% (34 517 of 148 772) of noncarriers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that approximately 1% of the middle-aged adult population in the UK Biobank harbored a pathogenic variant associated with any of 3 genomic conditions. These variants were associated with an increased risk of disease despite contemporary clinical care and were not reliably detected by family history.

Analyzing and Reanalyzing the Genome: Findings from the MedSeq Project.

Although genome sequencing is increasingly available in clinical and research settings, many questions remain about the interpretation of sequencing data. In the MedSeq Project, we explored how much effort is required to evaluate and report on more than 4,500 genes reportedly associated with monogenic conditions, as well as pharmacogenomic (PGx) markers, blood antigen serotyping, and polygenic risk scores in 100 individuals (50 with cardiomyopathy and 50 healthy) randomized to the sequencing arm. We defined the quality thresholds for determining the need for Sanger confirmation. Finally, we examined the effort needed and new findings revealed by reanalyzing each genome (6-23 months after initial analysis; mean 13 months). Monogenic disease risk and carrier status were reported in 21% and 94% of participants, respectively. Only two participants had no monogenic disease risk or carrier status identified. For the PGx results (18 genotypes in six genes for five drugs), the identified diplotypes prompted recommendation for non-standard dosing of at least one of the analyzed drugs in 95% of participants. For blood antigen studies, we found that 31% of participants had a rare blood antigen genotype. In the cardiomyopathy cohort, an explanation for disease was identified in 48% of individuals. Over the course of the study, 14 variants were reclassified and, upon reanalysis, 18 new variants met criteria for reporting. These findings highlight the quantity of medically relevant findings from a broad analysis of genomic sequencing data as well as the need for periodic reinterpretation and reanalysis of data for both diagnostic indications and secondary findings.

Interpretation of Genomic Sequencing Results in Healthy and Ill Newborns: Results from the BabySeq Project.

Genomic sequencing provides many opportunities in newborn clinical care, but the challenges of interpreting and reporting newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) results need to be addressed for its broader and effective application. The BabySeq Project is a pilot randomized clinical trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of nGS in well newborns and those admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Here we present childhood-onset and actionable adult-onset disease risk, carrier status, and pharmacogenomics findings from nGS of 159 newborns in the BabySeq Project. nGS revealed a risk of childhood-onset disease in 15/159 (9.4%) newborns; none of the disease risks were anticipated based on the infants' known clinical or family histories. nGS also revealed actionable adult-onset disease risk in 3/85 (3.5%) newborns whose parents consented to receive this information. Carrier status for recessive diseases and pharmacogenomics variants were reported in 88% and 5% of newborns, respectively. Additional indication-based analyses were performed in 29/32 (91%) NICU newborns and 6/127 (5%) healthy newborns who later had presentations that prompted a diagnostic analysis. No variants that sufficiently explained the reason for the indications were identified; however, suspicious but uncertain results were reported in five newborns. Testing parental samples contributed to the interpretation and reporting of results in 13/159 (8%) newborns. Our results suggest that nGS can effectively detect risk and carrier status for a wide range of disorders that are not detectable by current newborn screening assays or predicted based on the infant's known clinical or family history, and the interpretation of results can substantially benefit from parental testing.

Reconciling newborn screening and a novel splice variant in BTD associated with partial biotinidase deficiency: a BabySeq Project case report.

Here, we report a newborn female infant from the well-baby cohort of the BabySeq Project who was identified with compound heterozygous BTD gene variants. The two identified variants included a well-established pathogenic variant (c.1612C>T, p.Arg538Cys) that causes profound biotinidase deficiency (BTD) in homozygosity. In addition, a novel splice variant (c.44+1G>A, p.?) was identified in the invariant splice donor region of intron 1, potentially predictive of loss of function. The novel variant was predicted to impact splicing of exon 1; however, given the absence of any reported pathogenic variants in exon 1 and the presence of alternative splicing with exon 1 absent in most tissues in the GTEx database, we assigned an initial classification of uncertain significance. Follow-up medical record review of state-mandated newborn screen (NBS) results revealed an initial out-of-range biotinidase activity level. Levels from a repeat NBS sample barely passed cutoff into the normal range. To determine whether the infant was biotinidase-deficient, subsequent diagnostic enzyme activity testing was performed, confirming partial BTD, and resulted in a change of management for this patient. This led to reclassification of the novel splice variant based on these results. In conclusion, combining the genetic and NBS results together prompted clinical follow-up that confirmed partial BTD and informed this novel splice site's reclassification, emphasizing the importance of combining iterative genetic and phenotypic evaluations.

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months. RESULTS: The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95% confidence interval -$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings. METHODS: Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined how responses varied by secondary finding. RESULTS: Genetic specialists scored higher than other providers on four-point scales assessing understandings of reports (3.89 vs. 3.42, p = 0.0002), and lower on scales assessing reporting obligations (2.60 vs. 3.51, p < 0.0001) and burdens of responding (1.73 vs. 2.70, p < 0.0001). Nearly all attitudes differed between findings, although genetic specialists were more likely to assert that laboratories had no obligations when findings had less-established actionability (p < 0.0001 in interaction tests). The importance of reviewing personal and family histories, documenting findings, learning more about the variant, and recommending familial discussions also varied according to finding (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Genetic specialists felt better prepared to respond to secondary findings than providers without specialized genetics training, but perceived fewer obligations for laboratories to report them, and the two groups anticipated similar clinical responses. Findings may inform development of targeted education and support.

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing to Multigene Panel Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients.

BACKGROUND: As DNA sequencing costs decline, genetic testing options have expanded. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WGS) are entering clinical use, posing questions about their incremental value compared with disease-specific multigene panels that have been the cornerstone of genetic testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-one patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had undergone targeted hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic testing (either multigene panel or familial variant test) were recruited into the MedSeq Project, a clinical trial of WGS. Results from panel genetic testing and WGS were compared. In 20 of 41 participants, panel genetic testing identified variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or uncertain significance. WGS identified 19 of these 20 variants, but the variant detection algorithm missed a pathogenic 18 bp duplication in myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) because of low coverage. In 3 individuals, WGS identified variants in genes implicated in cardiomyopathy but not included in prior panel testing: a pathogenic protein tyrosine phosphatase, non-receptor type 11 (PTPN11) variant and variants of uncertain significance in integrin-linked kinase (ILK) and filamin-C (FLNC). WGS also identified 84 secondary findings (mean=2 per person, range=0-6), which mostly defined carrier status for recessive conditions. CONCLUSIONS: WGS detected nearly all variants identified on panel testing, provided 1 new diagnostic finding, and allowed interrogation of posited disease genes. Several variants of uncertain clinical use and numerous secondary genetic findings were also identified. Whereas panel testing and WGS provided similar diagnostic yield, WGS offers the advantage of reanalysis over time to incorporate advances in knowledge, but requires expertise in genomic interpretation to appropriately incorporate WGS into clinical care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01736566.

The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Background: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in asymptomatic adults might prevent disease but increase health care use without clinical value. Objective: To describe the effect on clinical care and outcomes of adding WGS to standardized family history assessment in primary care. Design: Pilot randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01736566). Setting: Academic primary care practices. Participants: 9 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 100 generally healthy patients recruited at ages 40 to 65 years. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a family history report alone (FH group) or in combination with an interpreted WGS report (FH + WGS group), which included monogenic disease risk (MDR) results (associated with Mendelian disorders), carrier variants, pharmacogenomic associations, and polygenic risk estimates for cardiometabolic traits. Each patient met with his or her PCP to discuss the report. Measurements: Clinical outcomes and health care use through 6 months were obtained from medical records and audio-recorded discussions between PCPs and patients. Patients' health behavior changes were surveyed 6 months after receiving results. A panel of clinician-geneticists rated the appropriateness of how PCPs managed MDR results. Results: Mean age was 55 years; 58% of patients were female. Eleven FH + WGS patients (22% [95% CI, 12% to 36%]) had new MDR results. Only 2 (4% [CI, 0.01% to 15%]) had evidence of the phenotypes predicted by an MDR result (fundus albipunctatus due to RDH5 and variegate porphyria due to PPOX). Primary care physicians recommended new clinical actions for 16% (CI, 8% to 30%) of FH patients and 34% (CI, 22% to 49%) of FH + WGS patients. Thirty percent (CI, 17% to 45%) and 41% (CI, 27% to 56%) of FH and FH + WGS patients, respectively, reported making a health behavior change after 6 months. Geneticists rated PCP management of 8 MDR results (73% [CI, 39% to 99%]) as appropriate and 2 results (18% [CI, 3% to 52%]) as inappropriate. Limitation: Limited sample size and ancestral and socioeconomic diversity. Conclusion: Adding WGS to primary care reveals new molecular findings of uncertain clinical utility. Nongeneticist providers may be able to manage WGS results appropriately, but WGS may prompt additional clinical actions of unclear value. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

A curated gene list for reporting results of newborn genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing (GS) for newborns may enable detection of conditions for which early knowledge can improve health outcomes. One of the major challenges hindering its broader application is the time it takes to assess the clinical relevance of detected variants and the genes they impact so that disease risk is reported appropriately. METHODS: To facilitate rapid interpretation of GS results in newborns, we curated a catalog of genes with putative pediatric relevance for their validity based on the ClinGen clinical validity classification framework criteria, age of onset, penetrance, and mode of inheritance through systematic evaluation of published evidence. Based on these attributes, we classified genes to guide the return of results in the BabySeq Project, a randomized, controlled trial exploring the use of newborn GS (nGS), and used our curated list for the first 15 newborns sequenced in this project. RESULTS: Here, we present our curated list for 1,514 gene-disease associations. Overall, 954 genes met our criteria for return in nGS. This reference list eliminated manual assessment for 41% of rare variants identified in 15 newborns. CONCLUSION: Our list provides a resource that can assist in guiding the interpretive scope of clinical GS for newborns and potentially other populations.Genet Med advance online publication 12 January 2017.

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.

Genetic counselors' views and experiences with the clinical integration of genome sequencing.

In recent years, new sequencing technologies known as next generation sequencing (NGS) have provided scientists the ability to rapidly sequence all known coding as well as non-coding sequences in the human genome. As the two emerging approaches, whole exome (WES) and whole genome (WGS) sequencing, have started to be integrated in the clinical arena, we sought to survey health care professionals who are likely to be involved in the implementation process now and/or in the future (e.g., genetic counselors, geneticists and nurse practitioners). Two hundred twenty-one genetic counselors- one third of whom currently offer WES/WGS-participated in an anonymous online survey. The aims of the survey were first, to identify barriers to the implementation of WES/WGS, as perceived by survey participants; second, to provide the first systematic report of current practices regarding the integration of WES/WGS in clinic and/or research across the US and Canada and to illuminate the roles and challenges of genetic counselors participating in this process; and third to evaluate the impact of WES/WGS on patient care. Our results showed that genetic counseling practices with respect to WES/WGS are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ACMG 2012 policy statement, which highlights indications for testing, reporting, and pre/post test considerations. Our respondents described challenges related to offering WES/WGS, which included billing issues, the duration and content of the consent process, result interpretation and disclosure of incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. In addition, respondents indicated that specialty area (i.e., prenatal and cancer), lack of clinical utility of WES/WGS and concerns about interpretation of test results were factors that prevented them from offering this technology to patients. Finally, study participants identified the aspects of their professional training which have been most beneficial in aiding with the integration of WES/WGS into the clinical setting (molecular/clinical genetics, counseling and bioethics) and suggested that counseling aids (to assist them when explaining aspects of these tests to patients) and webinars focused on WES/WGS (for genetic counselors and other health care professionals) would be useful educational tools. Future research should permit us to further enhance our knowledge of pitfalls and benefits associated with the introduction of these powerful technologies in patient care and to further explore the roles and opportunities for genetic counselors in this rapidly evolving field.

A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: The MedSeq Project is a randomized clinical trial developing approaches to assess the impact of integrating genome sequencing into clinical medicine. To facilitate the return of results of potential medical relevance to physicians and patients participating in the MedSeq Project, we sought to develop a reporting approach for the effective communication of such findings. METHODS: Genome sequencing was performed on the Illumina HiSeq platform. Variants were filtered, interpreted, and validated according to methods developed by the Laboratory for Molecular Medicine and consistent with current professional guidelines. The GeneInsight software suite, which is integrated with the Partners HealthCare electronic health record, was used for variant curation, report drafting, and delivery. RESULTS: We developed a concise 5-6 page Genome Report (GR) featuring a single-page summary of results of potential medical relevance with additional pages containing structured variant, gene, and disease information along with supporting evidence for reported variants and brief descriptions of associated diseases and clinical implications. The GR is formatted to provide a succinct summary of genomic findings, enabling physicians to take appropriate steps for disease diagnosis, prevention, and management in their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlights important considerations for the reporting of results of potential medical relevance and provides a framework for interpretation and reporting practices in clinical genome sequencing.