Insurance coverage does not predict outcomes of genetic testing: The search for meaning in payer decisions for germline cancer tests.

In this work, we explore the results of germline cancer genetic tests in individuals whose insurance would not cover this testing. We enrolled 31 patients with a personal history of cancer whose health insurer denied coverage for a clinical germline cancer panel genetic test recommended by a medical genetics provider into a study providing exome sequencing and return of cancer-related results. Five participants (16%) had a pathogenic variant identified related to increased cancer risk. Three participants (10%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene related to their cancer history. These rates are not significantly different than the 12% rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and VUS in 1,462 patients approved by insurance to have a similar clinical germline cancer test (p = .59 for P/LP variants; p = .87 for VUS; Shirts et al., Genet Med, 18:974, 2016). Health insurance guidelines may not meaningfully differentiate between patients with cancer who are likely to benefit from germline cancer genetic testing and those who will not. Failure to identify pathogenic variants in this research cohort would have led to suboptimal care. Strategic evaluation of current germline cancer genetic testing coverage policies is needed to appropriately deliver precision medicine.

Rare loss of function variants in candidate genes and risk of colorectal cancer.

Although ~ 25% of colorectal cancer or polyp (CRC/P) cases show familial aggregation, current germline genetic testing identifies a causal genotype in the 16 major genes associated with high penetrance CRC/P in only 20% of these cases. As there are likely other genes underlying heritable CRC/P, we evaluated the association of variation at novel loci with CRC/P. We evaluated 158 a priori selected candidate genes by comparing the number of rare potentially disruptive variants (PDVs) found in 84 CRC/P cases without an identified CRC/P risk-associated variant and 2440 controls. We repeated this analysis using an additional 73 CRC/P cases. We also compared the frequency of PDVs in select genes among CRC/P cases with two publicly available data sets. We found a significant enrichment of PDVs in cases vs. controls: 20% of cases vs. 11.5% of controls with ≥ 1 PDV (OR = 1.9, p = 0.01) in the original set of cases. Among the second cohort of CRC/P cases, 18% had a PDV, significantly different from 11.5% (p = 0.02). Logistic regression, adjusting for ancestry and multiple testing, indicated association between CRC/P and PDVs in NTHL1 (p = 0.0001), BRCA2 (p = 0.01) and BRIP1 (p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference in the frequency of PDVs at each of these genes between all 157 CRC/P cases and two publicly available data sets. These results suggest an increased presence of PDVs in CRC/P cases and support further investigation of the association of NTHL1, BRCA2 and BRIP1 variation with CRC/P.

Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences.

PURPOSE: There is debate within the genetics community about the optimal term to describe genetic variants unrelated to the test indication but potentially important for health. Given the lack of consensus and the importance of adopting terminology that promotes effective clinical communication, we sought the opinion of clinical genetics patients. METHODS: Surveys and focus groups with two patient populations were conducted. Eighty-eight survey participants were asked to rank four terms according to how well each describes results unrelated to the test indication: incidental findings, secondary findings, additional findings, and ancillary findings. Participants in six focus groups were guided through a free-thought exercise to describe the desired attributes of such a term and then asked to formulate the best term to represent this concept. RESULTS: The term additional findings had the most first-choice rankings by survey participants, followed by secondary findings, incidental findings, and ancillary findings. Most focus group participants preferred the term additional findings; they also gave reasons why other terms were not optimal. CONCLUSION: Additional findings was preferred because it was more neutral and accessible than other terms currently in use. Patient perceptions and comprehension will be framed by the terminology used by healthcare providers. Thus, patient opinions should be considered by medical genetics professionals.Genet Med 19 2, 176-181.

Assessment of a Peer Physician Coaching Partnership Between a Designated Cancer Center Genetics Service and a Community Cancer Network Hospital.

Background: Patients with cancer seen in rural and underserved areas disproportionately face barriers to access genetic services. Genetic testing is critical to inform treatment decisions, for early detection of another cancer, and to identify at-risk family members who may benefit from screening and prevention. Objective: To examine medical oncologists' genetic testing ordering trends for patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective quality improvement study was performed in 2 phases over 6 months between August 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at a community network hospital. Phase 1 focused on observation of clinic processes. Phase 2 incorporated peer coaching from cancer genetics experts for medical oncologists at the community network hospital. The follow-up period lasted 9 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of genetic tests ordered was compared between phases. Results: The study included 634 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [10.8] years [range, 39-90 years]; 409 women [64.5%]; 585 White [92.3%]); 353 (55.7%) had breast cancer, 184 (29.0%) had prostate cancer, and 218 (34.4%) had a family history of cancer. Of the 634 patients with cancer, 29 of 415 (7.0%) received genetic testing in phase 1, and 25 of 219 (11.4%) received genetic testing in phase 2. Of the 29 patients who received testing in phase 1, 20 (69.0%) had germline genetic testing; 23 of 25 patients (92.0%) had germline genetic testing in phase 2. Uptake of germline genetic testing increased by 23.0% between phases, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .06). Uptake of germline genetic testing was highest among patients with pancreatic cancer (4 of 19 [21.1%]) and ovarian cancer (6 of 35 [17.1%]); the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends offering genetic testing to all patients with pancreatic cancer and ovarian cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that peer coaching from cancer genetics experts was associated with an increase in ordering of genetic testing by medical oncologists. Efforts made to (1) standardize gathering of personal and family history of cancer, (2) review biomarker data suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome, (3) facilitate ordering tumor and/or germline genetic testing every time NCCN criteria are met, (4) encourage data sharing between institutions, and (5) advocate for universal coverage for genetic testing may help realize the benefits associated with precision oncology for patients and their families seeking care at community cancer centers.

Full-length isoform sequencing for resolving the molecular basis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth 2A.

Objectives: Transcript sequencing of patient derived samples has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield for solving cases of likely Mendelian disorders, yet the added benefit of full-length long-read transcript sequencing is largely unexplored. Methods: We applied short-read and full-length isoform cDNA sequencing and mitochondrial functional studies to a patient-derived fibroblast cell line from an individual with neuropathy that previously lacked a molecular diagnosis. Results: We identified an intronic homozygous MFN2 c.600-31T>G variant that disrupts a branch point critical for intron 6 spicing. Full-length long-read isoform cDNA sequencing after treatment with a nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) inhibitor revealed that this variant creates five distinct altered splicing transcripts. All five altered splicing transcripts have disrupted open reading frames and are subject to NMD. Furthermore, a patient-derived fibroblast line demonstrated abnormal lipid droplet formation, consistent with MFN2 dysfunction. Although correctly spliced full-length MFN2 transcripts are still produced, this branch point variant results in deficient MFN2 protein levels and autosomal recessive Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, axonal, type 2A (CMT2A). Discussion: This case highlights the utility of full-length isoform sequencing for characterizing the molecular mechanism of undiagnosed rare diseases and expands our understanding of the genetic basis for CMT2A.

Full-length Isoform Sequencing for Resolving the Molecular Basis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth 2A.

Objectives: Transcript sequencing of patient-derived samples has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield for solving cases of suspected Mendelian conditions, yet the added benefit of full-length long-read transcript sequencing is largely unexplored. Methods: We applied short-read and full-length transcript sequencing and mitochondrial functional studies to a patient-derived fibroblast cell line from an individual with neuropathy that previously lacked a molecular diagnosis. Results: We identified an intronic homozygous MFN2 c.600-31T>G variant that disrupts the branch point critical for intron 6 splicing. Full-length long-read isoform complementary DNA (cDNA) sequencing after treatment with a nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) inhibitor revealed that this variant creates 5 distinct altered splicing transcripts. All 5 altered splicing transcripts have disrupted open reading frames and are subject to NMD. Furthermore, a patient-derived fibroblast line demonstrated abnormal lipid droplet formation, consistent with MFN2 dysfunction. Although correctly spliced full-length MFN2 transcripts are still produced, this branch point variant results in deficient MFN2 levels and autosomal recessive Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, axonal, type 2A (CMT2A). Discussion: This case highlights the utility of full-length isoform sequencing for characterizing the molecular mechanism of undiagnosed rare diseases and expands our understanding of the genetic basis for CMT2A.

Dominant-negative variant in SLC1A4 causes an autosomal dominant epilepsy syndrome.

SLC1A4 is a trimeric neutral amino acid transporter essential for shuttling L-serine from astrocytes into neurons. Individuals with biallelic variants in SLC1A4 are known to have spastic tetraplegia, thin corpus callosum, and progressive microcephaly (SPATCCM) syndrome, but individuals with heterozygous variants are not thought to have disease. We identify an 8-year-old patient with global developmental delay, spasticity, epilepsy, and microcephaly who has a de novo heterozygous three amino acid duplication in SLC1A4 (L86_M88dup). We demonstrate that L86_M88dup causes a dominant-negative N-glycosylation defect of SLC1A4, which in turn reduces the plasma membrane localization of SLC1A4 and the transport rate of SLC1A4 for L-serine.

Synchronized long-read genome, methylome, epigenome, and transcriptome for resolving a Mendelian condition.

Resolving the molecular basis of a Mendelian condition (MC) remains challenging owing to the diverse mechanisms by which genetic variants cause disease. To address this, we developed a synchronized long-read genome, methylome, epigenome, and transcriptome sequencing approach, which enables accurate single-nucleotide, insertion-deletion, and structural variant calling and diploid de novo genome assembly, and permits the simultaneous elucidation of haplotype-resolved CpG methylation, chromatin accessibility, and full-length transcript information in a single long-read sequencing run. Application of this approach to an Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) participant with a chromosome X;13 balanced translocation of uncertain significance revealed that this translocation disrupted the functioning of four separate genes (NBEA, PDK3, MAB21L1, and RB1) previously associated with single-gene MCs. Notably, the function of each gene was disrupted via a distinct mechanism that required integration of the four 'omes' to resolve. These included nonsense-mediated decay, fusion transcript formation, enhancer adoption, transcriptional readthrough silencing, and inappropriate X chromosome inactivation of autosomal genes. Overall, this highlights the utility of synchronized long-read multi-omic profiling for mechanistically resolving complex phenotypes.

Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES. PURPOSE: To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year. RESULTS: Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.

Discordance in selected designee for return of genomic findings in the event of participant death and estate executor.

BACKGROUND: Legal and ethical questions arise regarding disseminating genetic research results to family members in the event of a research participant's death; failure to return or return to legal next of kin or estate executor may not reflect participant desires. We sought to determine participant preferences for whether and to whom they would like their data released in the case of their death prior to receiving genomic results, focusing on whether the person selected was also their estate executor. METHODS: The University of Washington NEXT Medicine Study of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program previously reported participant preferences regarding designating an individual to receive genomic results in the event of death, including whether they want results shared, and if so, with what person. Participants were also asked whether this designee is executor of their will or estate. RESULTS: To date, 61 individuals were asked about the concordance of their study designee and legal representative: 42 (69%) reported having a will or estate plan and of these, 14 (33%) chose someone other than their executor to receive their results. For the 14 who chose someone other than their estate executor to receive genetic results, 12 (86%) chose a family member, typically a biological relative, as their designee. Those with a different genomic designee than their executor were less likely to be partnered (P = 0.0024). For those partnered participants without an estate plan, spouses were not always chosen for return of genomic results. CONCLUSION: For one-third of our participants, the individual deemed most appropriate by the participant to receive their genomic results was not the executor. In the absence of an explicit designation, HIPAA may prohibit access to genomic results to persons other than the executor; hence asking for designation at the time of study enrollment (or initiation of clinical testing) is important.

Patients' Choices for Return of Exome Sequencing Results to Relatives in the Event of Their Death.

The informed consent process for genetic testing does not commonly address preferences regarding disclosure of results in the event of the patient's death. Adults being tested for familial colorectal cancer were asked whether they want their exome sequencing results disclosed to another person in the event of their death prior to receiving the results. Of 78 participants, 92% designated an individual and 8% declined to. Further research will help refine practices for informed consent.

Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis (CRCP) syndromes in patients referred to cancer genetics clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a decision model to evaluate NGS panel testing compared with current standard of care in patients referred to a cancer genetics clinic. We obtained data on the prevalence of genetic variants from a large academic laboratory and calculated the costs and health benefits of identifying relatives with a pathogenic variant, in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We classified the CRCP syndromes according to their type of inheritance and penetrance of colorectal cancer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Evaluation with an NGS panel that included Lynch syndrome genes and other genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes led to an average increase of 0.151 year of life, 0.128 QALY, and $4,650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared with standard care and a 99% probability that this panel was cost effective at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When compared with this panel, the addition of genes with low colorectal cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The use of an NGS panel that includes genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes in addition to Lynch syndrome genes as a first-line test is likely to provide meaningful clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner at a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are applications of next generation sequencing transforming clinical care, but there is little evidence whether these tests improve patient outcomes or if they are cost effective compared to current standard of care. These gaps in knowledge can be addressed by comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. We designed a randomized controlled trial that incorporates these research methods to evaluate whole exome sequencing compared to usual care in patients being evaluated for hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Approximately 220 patients will be randomized and followed for 12 months after return of genomic findings. Patients will receive findings associated with colorectal cancer in a first return of results visit, and findings not associated with colorectal cancer (incidental findings) during a second return of results visit. The primary outcome is efficacy to detect mutations associated with these syndromes; secondary outcomes include psychosocial impact, cost-effectiveness and comparative costs. The secondary outcomes will be obtained via surveys before and after each return visit. The expected challenges in conducting this randomized controlled trial include the relatively low prevalence of genetic disease, difficult interpretation of some genetic variants, and uncertainty about which incidental findings should be returned to patients. The approaches utilized in this study may help guide other investigators in clinical genomics to identify useful outcome measures and strategies to address comparative effectiveness questions about the clinical implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical care.