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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Di Resta C, Ferrari M (2018) Next generation sequencing: from research area to clinical practice. Ejifcc 29(3):215–220
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Downe-Wamboldt B (1992) Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int 13:313–321
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00172-7