Search

Women with germline pathogenic variants (PV) in the fumarate hydratase (FH) gene develop cutaneous and uterine leiomyomata and have an increased risk of developing aggressive renal cell carcinomas. Many of these women are unaware of their cancer predisposition until an atypical uterine leiomyoma is diagnosed during a myomectomy or hysterectomy, making a streamlined genetic counseling process after a pathology-based atypical uterine leiomyoma diagnosis critical. However, the prevalence of germline pathogenic/likely PVs in FH among atypical uterine leiomyomata cases is unknown. To better understand FH germline PV prevalence and current patterns of genetic counseling and germline genetic testing, we undertook a retrospective review of atypical uterine leiomyomata cases at a single large center. We compared clinical characteristics between the FH PV, FH wild-type (WT), and unknown genetic testing cohorts. Of the 144 cases with atypical uterine leiomyomata with evaluable clinical data, only 49 (34%) had documented genetic test results, and 12 (8.3%) had a germline FH PV. There were 48 IHC-defined FH-deficient cases, of which 41 (85%) had FH testing and nine had a germline FH PV, representing 22% of the tested cohort and 18.8% of the FH-deficient cohort. Germline FH PVs were present in 8.3% of evaluable patients, representing 24.5% of the cohort that completed genetic testing. These data highlight the disconnect between pathology and genetic counseling, and help to refine risk estimates that can be used when counseling patients with atypical uterine leiomyomata., Prevention Relevance: Women diagnosed with fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient uterine leiomyomata are at increased risk of renal cancer. This work suggests a more standardized pathology-genetic counseling referral pathway for these patients, and that research on underlying causes of FH-deficient uterine leiomyomata in the absence of germline FH pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants is needed., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs)., Methods: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions., Results: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care., Conclusion: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: While the diagnostic success of genomic sequencing expands, the complexity of this testing should not be overlooked. Numerous laboratory processes are required to support the identification, interpretation, and reporting of clinically significant variants. This study aimed to examine the workflow and reporting procedures among US laboratories to highlight shared practices and identify areas in need of standardization., Methods: Surveys and follow-up interviews were conducted with laboratories offering exome and/or genome sequencing to support a research program or for routine clinical services. The 73-item survey elicited multiple choice and free-text responses that were later clarified with phone interviews., Results: Twenty-one laboratories participated. Practices highly concordant across all groups included consent documentation, multiperson case review, and enabling patient opt-out of incidental or secondary findings analysis. Noted divergence included use of phenotypic data to inform case analysis and interpretation and reporting of case-specific quality metrics and methods. Few laboratory policies detailed procedures for data reanalysis, data sharing, or patient access to data., Conclusion: This study provides an overview of practices and policies of experienced exome and genome sequencing laboratories. The results enable broader consideration of which practices are becoming standard approaches, where divergence remains, and areas of development in best practice guidelines that may be helpful.Genet Med advance online publication 03 Novemeber 2016.

Evaluating the pathogenicity of a variant is challenging given the plethora of types of genetic evidence that laboratories consider. Deciding how to weigh each type of evidence is difficult, and standards have been needed. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for the assessment of variants in genes associated with Mendelian diseases. Nine molecular diagnostic laboratories involved in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium piloted these guidelines on 99 variants spanning all categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign). Nine variants were distributed to all laboratories, and the remaining 90 were evaluated by three laboratories. The laboratories classified each variant by using both the laboratory's own method and the ACMG-AMP criteria. The agreement between the two methods used within laboratories was high (K-alpha = 0.91) with 79% concordance. However, there was only 34% concordance for either classification system across laboratories. After consensus discussions and detailed review of the ACMG-AMP criteria, concordance increased to 71%. Causes of initial discordance in ACMG-AMP classifications were identified, and recommendations on clarification and increased specification of the ACMG-AMP criteria were made. In summary, although an initial pilot of the ACMG-AMP guidelines did not lead to increased concordance in variant interpretation, comparing variant interpretations to identify differences and having a common framework to facilitate resolution of those differences were beneficial for improving agreement, allowing iterative movement toward increased reporting consistency for variants in genes associated with monogenic disease., (Copyright © 2016 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)