Search

Elective genetic testing (EGT) to identify disease risk in individuals who may or may not meet clinical criteria for testing is increasingly being offered in clinical practice. However, little is known about how EGT is currently implemented and how genetics professionals perceive this type of testing. We conducted a mixed‐methods survey study to evaluate genetics professionals' perspectives and attitudes about EGT and describe the current landscape of EGT practices in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Six clinical geneticists and 131 genetic counselors responded to the online survey, among whom 44% reported offering EGT in their practice. Over 84% of survey respondents agreed that EGT may improve health outcomes and understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations, and 85% agreed that potential risks include result misinterpretation and contribution to economic health disparities. Though most respondents felt comfortable providing pretest (77%) and post‐test (86%) counseling for EGT, lack of provider resources (such as time and personnel) and prioritization of diagnostic testing were cited most frequently in free‐text responses as reasons for not offering EGT. Of those offering EGT, 88% reported positive overall experiences. Qualitative analysis of open‐ended questions identified benefits of EGT as expanding access to genetic testing, providing potential health benefits, and providing psychological benefits for patients. Disadvantages included prohibitive costs, limited clinical utility, and strain on resources. Overall, we found that genetics providers perceive both potential benefits and harms of EGT and that those offering this testing had generally positive experiences, although ethical reservations and practical limitations exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Germline pathogenic variants in DICER1 predispose individuals to develop a variety of benign and malignant tumors. Accurate variant curation and classification are essential for reliable diagnosis of DICER1-related tumor predisposition and the identification of individuals who may benefit from surveillance. Since 2015, most labs have followed the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) sequence variant classification guidelines for DICER1 germline variant curation. However, these general guidelines lack gene-specific nuances and leave room for subjectivity. Consequently, a group of DICER1 experts joined ClinGen to form the DICER1 and miRNA-Processing Genes Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) to create DICER1-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines for germline variant curation. The VCEP followed the FDA-approved ClinGen protocol for adapting and piloting these guidelines. A diverse set of 40 DICER1 variants were selected for piloting, including 14 known pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants, 12 known benign/likely benign (B/LB) variants, and 14 variants classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) or with conflicting interpretations in ClinVar. Clinically meaningful classifications (i.e., P, LP, LB, or B) were achieved for 82.5% (33/40) of the pilot variants, with 100% concordance among the known P/LP and known B/LB variants. Half of the VUS or conflicting variants were resolved with four variants classified as LB and three as LP. These results demonstrate that the DICER1-specific guidelines for germline variant curation effectively classify known pathogenic and benign variants while reducing the frequency of uncertain classifications. Individuals and labs curating DICER1 variants should consider adopting this classification framework to encourage consistency and improve objectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) lead to increased risk of breast, ovarian, and other cancers, but most variant-positive individuals in the general population are unaware of their risk, and little is known about prevalence in non-European populations. We investigated BRCA1/2 prevalence and impact in the electronic health record (EHR)-linked BioMe Biobank in New York City. Methods: Exome sequence data from 30,223 adult BioMe participants were evaluated for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. Prevalence estimates were made in population groups defined by genetic ancestry and self-report. EHR data were used to evaluate clinical characteristics of variant-positive individuals. Results: There were 218 (0.7%) individuals harboring expected pathogenic variants, resulting in an overall prevalence of 1 in 139. The highest prevalence was in individuals with Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ; 1 in 49), Filipino and other Southeast Asian (1 in 81), and non-AJ European (1 in 103) ancestry. Among 218 variant-positive individuals, 112 (51.4%) harbored known founder variants: 80 had AJ founder variants (BRCA1 c.5266dupC and c.68_69delAG, and BRCA2 c.5946delT), 8 had a Puerto Rican founder variant (BRCA2 c.3922G>T), and 24 had one of 19 other founder variants. Non-European populations were more likely to harbor BRCA1/2 variants that were not classified in ClinVar or that had uncertain or conflicting evidence for pathogenicity (uncertain/conflicting). Within mixed ancestry populations, such as Hispanic/Latinos with genetic ancestry from Africa, Europe, and the Americas, there was a strong correlation between the proportion of African genetic ancestry and the likelihood of harboring an uncertain/conflicting variant. Approximately 28% of variant-positive individuals had a personal history, and 45% had a personal or family history of BRCA1/2-associated cancers. Approximately 27% of variant-positive individuals had prior clinical genetic testing for BRCA1/2. However, individuals with AJ founder variants were twice as likely to have had a clinical test (39%) than those with other pathogenic variants (20%). Conclusions: These findings deepen our knowledge about BRCA1/2 variants and associated cancer risk in diverse populations, indicate a gap in knowledge about potential cancer-related variants in non-European populations, and suggest that genomic screening in diverse patient populations may be an effective tool to identify at-risk individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]