Explore the vast range of titles available.

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) can be performed on the proband only (singleton; sES) or with additional samples, often including both biological parents with the proband (trio; tES). In this study we sought to compare the efficiencies of exome sequencing (ES) by trio (tES) versus singleton (sES) approach, determine costs, and identify factors to consider when deciding on optimal implementation strategies for the diagnosis of monogenic disorders. We undertook ES in 30 trios and analysed each proband’s sES and tES data in parallel. Two teams were randomly allocated to either sES or tES analysis for each case and blinded to each other’s work. Each task was timed and cost analyses were based on time taken and diagnostic yield. We modelled three scenarios to determine the factors to consider in the implementation of tES. sES diagnosed 11/30 (36.7%) cases and tES identified one additional diagnosis (12/30 (40.0%)). tES obviated the need for Sanger segregation, reduced the number of variants for curation, and had lower cost-per-diagnosis when considering analysis alone. When sequencing costs were included, tES nearly doubled the cost of sES. Reflexing to tES in those who remain undiagnosed after sES was cost-saving over tES in all as first-line. This approach requires a large differential in diagnostic yield between sES and tES for maximal benefit given current sequencing costs. tES may be preferable when scaling up laboratory throughput due to efficiency gains and opportunity cost considerations. Our findings are relevant to clinicians, laboratories and health services considering tES over sES.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for 10–20% of total mortality, i.e., one in five individuals will eventually die suddenly. Given the substantial genetic component of SCD in younger cases, postmortem genetic testing may be particularly useful in elucidating etiological factors in the cause of death in this subset. The identification of genes responsible for inherited cardiac diseases have led to the organization of cardiogenetic consultations in many countries worldwide. Expert recommendations are available, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing and appropriate information provision of affected individuals, as well as their relatives. However, the context of postmortem genetic testing raises some particular ethical, legal, and practical (including economic or financial) challenges. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with international experts, developed recommendations on management of SCD after a workshop sponsored by the Brocher Foundation and ESHG in November 2016. These recommendations have been endorsed by the ESHG Board, the European Council of Legal Medicine, the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases, the ERN GUARD-HEART, and the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. They emphasize the importance of increasing the proportion of both medical and medicolegal autopsies and educating the professionals. Multidisciplinary collaboration is of utmost importance. Public funding should be allocated to reach these goals and allow public health evaluation.

Purpose Increasing use of genetic services (counseling/testing) among young breast cancer survivors (YBCS) can help decrease breast cancer incidence and mortality. The study examined use of genetic services between Black and White/Other YBCS, attitudes and knowledge of breast cancer risk factors, and reasons for disparities in using genetic services. Methods We used baseline data from a randomized control trial including a population-based, stratified random sample of 3000 potentially eligible YBCS, with oversampling of Black YBCS. Results Among 883 YBCS (353 Black, 530 White/Other) were significant disparities between the two racial groups. More White/Other YBCS had received genetic counseling and had genetic testing than Blacks. Although White/Other YBCS resided farther away from board-certified genetic counseling centers, they had fewer barriers to access these services. Black race, high out-of-pocket costs, older age, and more years since diagnosis were negatively associated with use of genetic services. Black YBCS had lower knowledge of breast cancer risk factors. Higher education and genetic counseling were associated with higher genetic knowledge. Conclusion Racial inequalities of cost-related access to care and education create disparities in genetic services utilization. System-based interventions that reduce socioeconomic disparities and empower YBCS with genetic knowledge, as well as physician referrals, can increase access to genetic services.

Purpose: This study aimed to quantify the probability of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer by polygenic risk. Methods: We calculated the polygenic risk score based on 66 known prostate cancer susceptibility variants for 17,012 men aged 50–69 years (9,404 men identified with prostate cancer and 7,608 with no cancer) derived from three UK-based ongoing studies. We derived the probabilities of overdiagnosis by quartiles of polygenic risk considering that the observed prevalence of screen-detected prostate cancer is a combination of underlying incidence, mean sojourn time (MST), test sensitivity, and overdiagnosis. Results: Polygenic risk quartiles 1 to 4 comprised 9, 18, 25, and 48% of the cases, respectively. For a prostate-specific antigen test sensitivity of 80% and MST of 9 years, 43, 30, 25, and 19% of the prevalent screen-detected cancers in quartiles 1 to 4, respectively, were likely to be overdiagnosed cancers. Overdiagnosis decreased with increasing polygenic risk, with 56% decrease between the lowest and the highest polygenic risk quartiles. Conclusion: Targeting screening to men at higher polygenic risk could reduce the problem of overdiagnosis and lead to a better benefit-to-harm balance in screening for prostate cancer. Genet Med 17 10, 789–795.

Copy-number analysis to detect disease-causing losses and gains across the genome is recommended for the evaluation of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or multiple congenital anomalies, as well as for fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. In the decade that this analysis has been in widespread clinical use, tremendous strides have been made in understanding the effects of copy-number variants (CNVs) in both affected individuals and the general population. However, continued broad implementation of array and next-generation sequencing–based technologies will expand the types of CNVs encountered in the clinical setting, as well as our understanding of their impact on human health. This Article was originally published without the accompanying supplementary file “All evaluated CNVs”. This file is now available in the HTML version of the Article; the PDF was correct from the time of publication. A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01150-9 To assist clinical laboratories in the classification and reporting of CNVs, irrespective of the technology used to identify them, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following professional standards in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) project. This update introduces a quantitative, evidence-based scoring framework; encourages the implementation of the five-tier classification system widely used in sequence variant classification; and recommends “uncoupling” the evidence-based classification of a variant from its potential implications for a particular individual. These professional standards will guide the evaluation of constitutional CNVs and encourage consistency and transparency across clinical laboratories.

Gene sequencing panels are a powerful diagnostic tool for many clinical presentations associated with genetic disorders. Advances in DNA sequencing technology have made gene panels more economical, flexible, and efficient. Because the genes included on gene panels vary widely between laboratories in gene content (e.g., number, reason for inclusion, evidence level for gene–disease association) and technical completeness (e.g., depth of coverage), standards that address technical and clinical aspects of gene panels are needed. This document serves as a technical standard for laboratories designing, offering, and reporting gene panel testing. Although these principles can apply to multiple indications for genetic testing, the primary focus is on diagnostic gene panels (as opposed to carrier screening or predictive testing) with emphasis on technical considerations for the specific genes being tested. This technical standard specifically addresses the impact of gene panel content on clinical sensitivity, specificity, and validity—in the context of gene evidence for contribution to and strength of evidence for gene–disease association—as well as technical considerations such as sequencing limitations, presence of pseudogenes/gene families, mosaicism, transcript choice, detection of copy-number variants, reporting, and disclosure of assay limitations.

Purpose Genetic testing is an integral diagnostic component of pediatric medicine. Standard of care is often a time-consuming stepwise approach involving chromosomal microarray analysis and targeted gene sequencing panels, which can be costly and inconclusive. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) provides a comprehensive testing platform that has the potential to streamline genetic assessments, but there are limited comparative data to guide its clinical use. Methods We prospectively recruited 103 patients from pediatric non-genetic subspecialty clinics, each with a clinical phenotype suggestive of an underlying genetic disorder, and compared the diagnostic yield and coverage of WGS with those of conventional genetic testing. Results WGS identified diagnostic variants in 41% of individuals, representing a significant increase over conventional testing results (24%; P  = 0.01). Genes clinically sequenced in the cohort ( n  = 1,226) were well covered by WGS, with a median exonic coverage of 40 × ±8 × (mean ±SD). All the molecular diagnoses made by conventional methods were captured by WGS. The 18 new diagnoses made with WGS included structural and non-exonic sequence variants not detectable with whole-exome sequencing, and confirmed recent disease associations with the genes PIGG , RNU4ATAC , TRIO , and UNC13A . Conclusion WGS as a primary clinical test provided a higher diagnostic yield than conventional genetic testing in a clinically heterogeneous cohort.