Thoreson, Emily

Abstract Background DPYD testing can identify patients at risk for severe toxicity when a standard fluoropyrimidine antineoplastic dose is prescribed. Sequencing-based methods detect rare variants, which require classification. Methods DPYD sequencing results over a 9-year period through to 2024 were analyzed. The dataset was filtered to calculate the positive test rate for different genotyping strategies, including targeted analysis of the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) Tier 1 and 2 recommended alleles, and as compared to sequencing. Variant classifications based on the laboratory’s clinical protocol were compared to ClinVar classifications and designations by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) expert panel. Results A DPYD variant was reported in 12.79% (896/7003) of those tested, with 2.53% (170/7003) of all reports including a variant of uncertain significance. Had only AMP Tier 1 or both Tier 1 and 2 been tested, 9.30% and 9.44% of patients would have received a positive report, respectively. Among the 281 unique, non-Tier 1/Tier 2 variants encountered during sequencing, >80% were not classified by the CPIC expert panel, while >48% were not reported in ClinVar. Variant classifications by our laboratory and those in ClinVar were generally concordant with the CPIC expert panel, despite the lack of a standardized classification system. Conclusions While AMP Tier 1 genotyping would have identified most patients at risk for fluoropyrimidine toxicity, sequencing is more comprehensive, identifying 26% more reportable variants compared to targeted genotyping. A standard framework for pharmacogenomic variant classification could facilitate consistent variant classification and a transition from targeted genotyping to sequencing.

AbstractPathogenic variants in COL1A1 and COL1A2 are involved in osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) and, rarely, Ehlers‐Danlos syndrome (EDS) subtypes and OI‐EDS overlap syndromes (OIEDS1 and OIEDS2, respectively). Here we describe a cohort of 34 individuals with likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants in COL1A1 and COL1A2, 15 of whom have potential OIEDS1 (n = 5) or OIEDS2 (n = 10). A predominant OI phenotype and COL1A1 frameshift variants are present in 4/5 cases with potential OIEDS1. On the other hand, 9/10 potential OIEDS2 cases have a predominant EDS phenotype, including four with an initial diagnosis of hypermobile EDS (hEDS). An additional case with a predominant EDS phenotype had a COL1A1 arginine‐to‐cysteine variant that was originally misclassified as a variant of uncertain significance despite this type of variant being associated with classical EDS with vascular fragility. Vascular/arterial fragility was observed in 4/15 individuals (including one individual with an original diagnosis of hEDS), which underscores the unique clinical surveillance and management needs in these patients. In comparison to previously described OIEDS1/2, we observed differentiating features that should be considered to refine currently proposed criteria for genetic testing in OIEDS, which will be beneficial for diagnosis and management. Additionally, these results highlight the importance of gene‐specific knowledge for informed variant classification and point to a potential genetic resolution (COL1A2) for some cases of clinically diagnosed hEDS.

AbstractGenesurance counseling has been identified as an integral part of many genetic counseling sessions, but little is known about the workflow impacts and genetic counselor perceptions of genesurance‐related tasks. In this study, we aimed to characterize how insurance and billing considerations for genetic testing are being incorporated into genetic counselors' practice in the United States, as well as describe current attitudes and challenges associated with their integration. An electronic survey was sent by email to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). A total of 325 American Board of Genetic Counselors‐certified genetic counselors who provide direct patient care in the United States for at least 50% of their time were included in data analysis. Results showed that the frequency and timing of various insurance‐ and billing‐related tasks were not consistent among respondents, even those practicing in similar settings. Inadequate training to complete tasks was reported by 64% of respondents, and 47% reported a lack of resources from their employer and/or institution to complete genesurance tasks. Additionally, only 38% of respondents agreed that insurance‐ and billing‐related tasks were within the scope of the genetic counseling practice, and there was little consensus on who respondents believe is the most appropriate person to complete these tasks. When asked how genesurance considerations affected job satisfaction, 85% of respondents reported a negative impact. This study found an inconsistent genesurance workflow among genetic counselors practicing in the United States, a lack of consensus on who should be responsible for genesurance tasks, several challenges associated with completing these tasks, and identifies genesurance considerations as potential risk factors for genetic counselor burnout.