Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

9 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Berg JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4752935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Incidental and secondary findings in trio exome sequencing.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10958690 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description: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.

| S-EPMC6211797 | biostudies-literature

ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

Project description:In clinical exome and genome sequencing, there is a potential for the recognition and reporting of incidental or secondary findings unrelated to the indication for ordering the sequencing but of medical value for patient care. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recently published a policy statement on clinical sequencing that emphasized the importance of alerting the patient to the possibility of such results in pretest patient discussions, clinical testing, and reporting of results. The ACMG appointed a Working Group on Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing to make recommendations about responsible management of incidental findings when patients undergo exome or genome sequencing. This Working Group conducted a year-long consensus process, including an open forum at the 2012 Annual Meeting and review by outside experts, and produced recommendations that have been approved by the ACMG Board. Specific and detailed recommendations, and the background and rationale for these recommendations, are described herein. The ACMG recommends that laboratories performing clinical sequencing seek and report mutations of the specified classes or types in the genes listed here. This evaluation and reporting should be performed for all clinical germline (constitutional) exome and genome sequencing, including the "normal" of tumor-normal subtractive analyses in all subjects, irrespective of age but excluding fetal samples. We recognize that there are insufficient data on penetrance and clinical utility to fully support these recommendations, and we encourage the creation of an ongoing process for updating these recommendations at least annually as further data are collected.

| S-EPMC3727274 | biostudies-literature

Incidental findings from cancer next generation sequencing panels.

Project description:Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have facilitated multi-gene panel (MGP) testing to detect germline DNA variants in hereditary cancer patients. This sensitive technique can uncover unexpected, non-germline incidental findings indicative of mosaicism, clonal hematopoiesis (CH), or hematologic malignancies. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify cases of incidental findings from NGS-MGP testing. Inclusion criteria included: 1) multiple pathogenic variants in the same patient; 2) pathogenic variants at a low allele fraction; and/or 3) the presence of pathogenic variants not consistent with family history. Secondary tissue analysis, complete blood count (CBC) and medical record review were conducted to further delineate the etiology of the pathogenic variants. Of 6060 NGS-MGP tests, 24 cases fulfilling our inclusion criteria were identified. Pathogenic variants were detected in TP53, ATM, CHEK2, BRCA1 and APC. 18/24 (75.0%) patients were classified as CH, 3/24 (12.5%) as mosaic, 2/24 (8.3%) related to a hematologic malignancy, and 1/24 (4.2%) as true germline. We describe a case-specific workflow to identify and interpret the nature of incidental findings on NGS-MGP. This workflow will provide oncology and genetic clinics a practical guide for the management and counselling of patients with unexpected NGS-MGP findings.

| S-EPMC8289933 | biostudies-literature

The impact of reporting incidental findings from exome and whole-genome sequencing: predicted frequencies based on modeling.

Project description:The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics released practice guidelines recommending reporting of incidental findings from exome and whole-genome sequencing by massively parallel (next-generation) sequencing for multiple conditions. Policy statements from other agencies are still being developed, and many attempt to take into consideration the predicted increase in workload caused by reporting incidental findings. We describe the effects of changing the sensitivity and the specificity, as well as the implications of varying diagnostic criteria and a priori prevalence, and those of increasing the number of included conditions, on rates of incidental findings.We developed a simple mathematical model based on binomial probability for predicting rates of incidental findings. We primed and validated the model using published variant frequencies.The model correctly calculates observed rates of incidental findings. Changing the model's parameters shows that even minor changes in diagnostic criteria or sequencing accuracy cause large variation in rates of incidental findings.Our model correctly explains observed rates of incidental findings. Key drivers of rates include diagnostic criteria, variant frequency, disease penetrance, and sequencing and bioinformatics accuracy. Rates of incidental findings are relatively insensitive to even large increases in the number of conditions included.

| S-EPMC4350155 | biostudies-other

Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop, operationalize, and pilot test a transparent, reproducible, and evidence-informed method to determine when to report incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies.MethodsUsing evidence-based principles, we proposed a three-stage process. Stage I "rules out" incidental findings below a minimal threshold of evidence and is evaluated using inter-rater agreement and comparison with an expert-based approach. Stage II documents criteria for clinical actionability using a standardized approach to allow experts to consistently consider and recommend whether results should be routinely reported (stage III). We used expert opinion to determine the face validity of stages II and III using three case studies. We evaluated the time and effort for stages I and II.ResultsFor stage I, we assessed 99 conditions and found high inter-rater agreement (89%), and strong agreement with a separate expert-based method. Case studies for familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary hemochromatosis, and α1-antitrypsin deficiency were all recommended for routine reporting as incidental findings. The method requires <3 days per topic.ConclusionWe establish an operational definition of clinically actionable incidental findings and provide documentation and pilot testing of a feasible method that is scalable to the whole genome.

| S-EPMC3927794 | biostudies-literature

Secondary findings in a large Pakistani cohort tested with whole genome sequencing.

Project description:Studies on genomic secondary findings (SFs) are diverse in participants' characteristics, sequencing methods, and versions of the ACMG SF list. Based on whole genome sequencing and the version 3.1 of the ACMG SF list, we studied SFs in 863 individuals from five different regions in Pakistan. We identified 24 ACMG SFs in 23 (2.7%) of 863 individuals: 18 of 24 were related to cardiovascular disease and four to cancer syndromes. In addition to ACMG SFs, we identified 16 (1.9%) participants with pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in genes that were not related to the participants' clinical conditions but with clear medical actionability (non-ACMG SFs): 4 of 16 were related to eye diseases, two to metabolic disorders, and two to urinary system disorders. By testing a large Pakistani cohort with whole genome sequencing, we concluded that in countries such as Pakistan, the ACMG SF list could be expanded, and our non-ACMG SF list is one example.

| S-EPMC9838216 | biostudies-literature

The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing.

Project description:The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing analyze and return pathogenic variants for 56 specific genes it considered medically actionable. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of returning these results.We developed a decision-analytic policy model to project the quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs associated with returning ACMG-recommended incidental findings in three hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 patients.Returning incidental findings to cardiomyopathy patients, colorectal cancer patients, or healthy individuals would increase costs by $896,000, $2.9 million, and $3.9 million, respectively, and would increase quality-adjusted life-years by 20, 25.4, and 67 years, respectively, for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $44,800, $115,020, and $58,600, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, returning incidental findings cost less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 85, 28, and 91%, respectively, of simulations. Assuming next-generation sequencing costs $500, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for primary screening of healthy individuals was $133,400 (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 10% of simulations). Results were sensitive to the cohort age and assumptions about gene penetrance.Returning incidental findings is likely cost-effective for certain patient populations. Screening of generally healthy individuals is likely not cost-effective based on current data, unless next-generation sequencing costs less than $500.

| S-EPMC4430464 | biostudies-literature

Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Project description:While experts have made recommendations, information is needed regarding what genome sequencing results patients would want returned. We investigated what results women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want returned and why. We conducted 60 semi-structured, in-person individual interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined interest in six types of incidental findings and reasons for interest or disinterest in each type. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Most participants were at least somewhat interested in all six result types, but strongest interest was in actionable results (i.e. variants affecting risk of a preventable or treatable disease and treatment response). Reasons for interest varied between different result types. Some participants were not interested or ambivalent about results not seen as currently actionable. Participants wanted to be able to choose what results are returned. Participants distinguished between types of individual genome sequencing results, with different reasons for wanting different types of information. The findings suggest that a focus on actionable results can be a common ground for all stakeholders in developing a policy for returning individual genome sequencing results.

| S-EPMC4856148 | biostudies-literature

An Age-Based Framework for Evaluating Genome-Scale Sequencing Results in Newborn Screening.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the performance of a standardized, age-based metric for scoring clinical actionability to evaluate conditions for inclusion in newborn screening and compare it with the results from other contemporary methods.Study designThe North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study developed an age-based, semiquantitative metric to assess the clinical actionability of gene-disease pairs and classify them with respect to age of onset or timing of interventions. This categorization was compared with the gold standard Recommended Uniform Screening Panel and other methods to evaluate gene-disease pairs for newborn genomic sequencing.ResultsWe assessed 822 gene-disease pairs, enriched for pediatric onset of disease and suspected actionability. Of these, 466 were classified as having childhood onset and high actionability, analogous to conditions selected for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel core panel. Another 245 were classified as having childhood onset and low to no actionability, 25 were classified as having adult onset and high actionability, 19 were classified as having adult onset and low to no actionability, and 67 were excluded due to controversial evidence and/or prenatal onset.ConclusionsThis study describes a novel method to facilitate decisions about the potential use of genomic sequencing for newborn screening. These categories may assist parents and physicians in making informed decisions about the disclosure of results from voluntary genomic sequencing in children.

| S-EPMC6535354 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data