Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

- Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a technology being used by many laboratories to test for inherited disorders and tumor mutations. This technology is new for many practicing pathologists, who may not be familiar with the uses, methodology, and limitations of NGS. - To familiarize pathologists with several aspects of NGS, including current and expanding uses; methodology including wet bench aspects, bioinformatics, and interpretation; validation and proficiency; limitations; and issues related to the integration of NGS data into patient care. - The review is based on peer-reviewed literature and personal experience using NGS in a clinical setting at a major academic center. - The clinical applications of NGS will increase as the technology, bioinformatics, and resources evolve to address the limitations and improve quality of results. The challenge for clinical laboratories is to ensure testing is clinically relevant, cost-effective, and can be integrated into clinical care.

\"This book presents the candid stories of women who chose to have their breasts surgically removed while they were still healthy, after genetic testing showed they possessed a gene that heightens their risk of developing breast cancer\"--Provided by publisher.

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.

Purpose: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is caused primarily by pathogenic variants in genes encoding sarcomere proteins. We report genetic testing results for HCM in 2,912 unrelated individuals with nonsyndromic presentations from a broad referral population over 10 years. Methods: Genetic testing was performed by Sanger sequencing for 10 genes from 2004 to 2007, by HCM CardioChip for 11 genes from 2007 to 2011 and by next-generation sequencing for 18, 46, or 51 genes from 2011 onward. Results: The detection rate is ~32% among unselected probands, with inconclusive results in an additional 15%. Detection rates were not significantly different between adult and pediatric probands but were higher in females compared with males. An expanded gene panel encompassing more than 50 genes identified only a very small number of additional pathogenic variants beyond those identifiable in our original panels, which examined 11 genes. Familial genetic testing in at-risk family members eliminated the need for longitudinal cardiac evaluations in 691 individuals. Based on the projected costs derived from Medicare fee schedules for the recommended clinical evaluations of HCM family members by the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association, our data indicate that genetic testing resulted in a minimum cost savings of about $0.7 million. Conclusion: Clinical HCM genetic testing provides a definitive molecular diagnosis for many patients and provides cost savings to families. Expanded gene panels have not substantively increased the clinical sensitivity of HCM testing, suggesting major additional causes of HCM still remain to be identified. Genet Med 17 11, 880–888.

Key Points Clinical molecular genetic testing is transforming personalized medicine and is appropriate for a range of applications, such as rare disease diagnostics and predictive testing for common disorders. Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing may become a first-line clinical test for some naive diagnostic cases, but classic genetic tests will continue to be used for the high analytical sensitivity of specific defects and for the confirmation of genome findings. There remains no single test to detect the wide array of genetic defects that may be inherited or arise de novo ; clinical diagnostics requires multiple approaches to determine a causal genetic defect. Although genome sequencing may transform diagnostic approaches in large academic medical centres, access to expensive and sophisticated tests are not universal. Genetic testing must be available globally through validated simple technologies for molecular diagnostics (such as direct PCR, linkage analysis or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification). The greatest challenge to clinical genomics is the reliable interpretation of the multiple and novel variants found through genome sequencing. Pathogenicity of genetic variants can be examined with bioinformatics prediction approaches, protein stability studies, transcriptional activity studies and allele- and/or gene-specific animal models. As broader genomic information becomes available to providers and patients, partnerships will develop to convey patient-centred data, including incidental findings. The regulatory environment must adapt to the coming volume of genomic information to maximize benefit to patients and health-care systems and to match the expectations of the patient population with regard to these technologies. The authors review current technologies for clinical genetic testing. Moves are being made towards whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in the clinic, although other technologies will continue to be of value. Genomic technologies are reaching the point of being able to detect genetic variation in patients at high accuracy and reduced cost, offering the promise of fundamentally altering medicine. Still, although scientists and policy advisers grapple with how to interpret and how to handle the onslaught and ambiguity of genome-wide data, established and well-validated molecular technologies continue to have an important role, especially in regions of the world that have more limited access to next-generation sequencing capabilities. Here we review the range of methods currently available in a clinical setting as well as emerging approaches in clinical molecular diagnostics. In parallel, we outline implementation challenges that will be necessary to address to ensure the future of genetic medicine.

Epilepsy is a frequent feature of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), but little is known about genetic differences between NDDs with and without epilepsy. We analyzed de novo variants (DNVs) in 6,753 parent–offspring trios ascertained to have different NDDs. In the subset of 1,942 individuals with NDDs with epilepsy, we identified 33 genes with a significant excess of DNVs, of which SNAP25 and GABRB2 had previously only limited evidence of disease association. Joint analysis of all individuals with NDDs also implicated CACNA1E as a novel disease-associated gene. Comparing NDDs with and without epilepsy, we found missense DNVs, DNVs in specific genes, age of recruitment, and severity of intellectual disability to be associated with epilepsy. We further demonstrate the extent to which our results affect current genetic testing as well as treatment, emphasizing the benefit of accurate genetic diagnosis in NDDs with epilepsy. Analysis of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) with epilepsy identifies 33 genes with a significant excess of de novo variants. Comparison of rates of de novo variants between NDDs with or without epilepsy highlights differences between these phenotypic groups.

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.