Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Genetic health professionals’ experiences with initiating reanalysis of genomic sequence data

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients’ inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients’ and clinicians’ roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Di Resta C, Ferrari M (2018) Next generation sequencing: from research area to clinical practice. Ejifcc 29(3):215–220

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Abolhassani H, Aghamohammadi A, Fang M, Rezaei N, Jiang C, Liu X et al (2019) Clinical implications of systematic phenotyping and exome sequencing in patients with primary antibody deficiency. Genet Med 21(1):243–251

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lindstrand A, Eisfeldt J, Pettersson M, Carvalho CMB, Kvarnung M, Grigelioniene G et al (2019) From cytogenetics to cytogenomics: whole-genome sequencing as a first-line test comprehensively captures the diverse spectrum of disease-causing genetic variation underlying intellectual disability. Genome Med 11(1):68

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar KR, Davis RL, Tchan MC, Wali GM, Mahant N, Ng K et al (2019) Whole genome sequencing for the genetic diagnosis of heterogenous dystonia phenotypes. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 69:111–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kingsmore SF, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Gaughran M, Feddock M, Batalov S et al (2019) A randomized, controlled trial of the analytic and diagnostic performance of singleton and trio, rapid genome and exome sequencing in Ill infants. Am J Hum Genet 105(4):719–733

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Jang SS, Kim SY, Kim H, Hwang H, Chae JH, Kim KJ et al (2019) Diagnostic yield of epilepsy panel testing in patients with seizure onset within the first year of life. Front Neurol 10:988

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gubbels CS, VanNoy GE, Madden JA, Copenheaver D, Yang S, Wojcik MH et al (2019) Prospective, phenotype-driven selection of critically ill neonates for rapid exome sequencing is associated with high diagnostic yield. Genet Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0708-6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Costain G, Cordeiro D, Matviychuk D, Mercimek-Andrews S (2019) Clinical application of targeted next-generation sequencing panels and whole exome sequencing in childhood epilepsy. Neuroscience 418:291–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Downie L, Halliday J, Burt R, Lunke S, Lynch E, Martyn M et al (2019) Exome sequencing in infants with congenital hearing impairment: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Hum Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0553-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. So MK, Jeong TD, Lim W, Moon BI, Paik NS, Kim SC et al (2019) Reinterpretation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer using the ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines. Breast Cancer 26(4):510–519

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruel AL, Nambot S, Quere V, Vitobello A, Thevenon J, Assoum M et al (2019) Increased diagnostic and new genes identification outcome using research reanalysis of singleton exome sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 27(10):1519–1531

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun Y, Xiang J, Liu Y, Chen S, Yu J, Peng J et al (2019) Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel. BMC Med Genomics 12(1):76

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmitz-Abe K, Li Q, Rosen SM, Nori N, Madden JA, Genetti CA et al (2019) Unique bioinformatic approach and comprehensive reanalysis improve diagnostic yield of clinical exomes. Eur J Hum Genet 27(9):1398–1405

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Salfati EL, Spencer EG, Topol SE, Muse ED, Rueda M, Lucas JR et al (2019) Re-analysis of whole-exome sequencing data uncovers novel diagnostic variants and improves molecular diagnostic yields for sudden death and idiopathic diseases. Genome Med 11(1):83

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hiatt SM, Amaral MD, Bowling KM, Finnila CR, Thompson ML, Gray DE et al (2018) Systematic reanalysis of genomic data improves quality of variant interpretation. Clin Genet 94(1):174–178

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu P, Meng L, Normand EA, Xia F, Song X, Ghazi A et al (2019) Reanalysis of clinical exome sequencing data. N Engl J Med 380(25):2478–2480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wright CF, McRae JF, Clayton S, Gallone G, Aitken S, FitzGerald TW et al (2018) Making new genetic diagnoses with old data: iterative reanalysis and reporting from genome-wide data in 1,133 families with developmental disorders. Genet Med 20:1216–1223

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wenger AM, Guturu H, Bernstein JA, Bejerano G (2017) Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet Med 19(2):209–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Machini K, Ceyhan-Birsoy O, Azzariti DR, Sharma H, Rossetti P, Mahanta L et al (2019) Analyzing and reanalyzing the genome: findings from the MedSeq project. Am J Hum Genet 105(1):177–188

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Vears DF, Niemiec E, Howard HC, Borry P (2018) Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms. Eur J Hum Genet 26(12):1743–1751

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Vears DF, Sénécal K, Borry P (2017) Reporting practices for variants of uncertain significance from next generation sequencing technologies. Eur J Med Genet 60(10):553–558

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vears DF, Sénécal K, Borry P (2017) Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next generation sequencing technologies: perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum Mutat 38(8):905–911

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schamber L (2000) Time-line interviews and inductive content analysis: their effectiveness for exploring cognitive behaviors. J Am Soc Inf Sci 51(8):734–744

    Google Scholar 

  24. Downe-Wamboldt B (1992) Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int 13:313–321

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell C, Ploem C, Retel V, Gevers S, Hennekam R (2019) Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines. Eur J Med Genet 63(2):103642

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sirchia F, Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Benjamin C, Kayserili H, Cordier C et al (2018) Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 26(7):946–954

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S, Clarke AJ, Turnpenny PD, Lucassen AM et al (2017) Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom. Eur J Hum Genet 25(3):275–279

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dheensa S, Carrieri D, Kelly S, Clarke A, Doheny S, Turnpenny P et al (2017) A ‘joint venture’ model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation. Eur J Med Genet 60(7):403–409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Otten E, Plantinga M, Birnie E, Verkerk MA, Lucassen AM, Ranchor AV et al (2015) Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 17(8):668–678

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baker SW, Murrell JR, Nesbitt AI, Pechter KB, Balciuniene J, Zhao X et al (2019) Automated clinical exome reanalysis reveals novel diagnoses. J Mol Diag 21(1):38–48

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ploem C, Mitchell C, van Harten W, Gevers S (2018) A duty to recontact in the context of genetics: futuristic or realistic? Eur J Health Law 25(5):537–553

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Danya Vears is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) and also acknowledges the infrastructure funding received from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danya F. Vears.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vears, D.F., Sénécal, K. & Borry, P. Genetic health professionals’ experiences with initiating reanalysis of genomic sequence data. Familial Cancer 19, 273–280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00172-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00172-7

Keywords

Navigation