Abstract Background Noninvasive prenatal screening for common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletions vary by methodology and laboratory practice. The fetal portion of all cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation defines the fetal fraction (FF). The minimum specimen FF levels for reporting results vary between laboratories as well as the screening target (e.g., common trisomies vs select microdeletions). This variability can lead to confusion for both healthcare providers and patients. Methods Participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing 2021-B Exercise provided FF estimates for 3 manufactured samples. Responses to supplemental questions were also collected and analyzed. Results Overall, 72 of 77 participants responded. FF was measured by 66 participants using sequence counts (40), single nucleotide polymorphisms (15), fragment length (24), and Y chromosome sequences (24). Nearly half (48%) used multiple methods. For common trisomies, minimum FFs were none or <1% (n = 7), 1.0% to 3.9% (n = 35), 4.0% to 6.9% (n = 23), and ≥7.0% (n = 1); 4 participants did not measure FF. Challenge-specific FFs were variable with CVs of 13%, 15%, and 36%; the latter rate appears due to that sample’s fetal karyotype of 47,XYY. Comparing adjusted FF results for the 3 samples shows that 85% of participant results were within 20% of the consensus. Conclusions Using multiple methods to estimate FF was common, and cutoff levels for sample suitability varied widely. Within-laboratory FFs were less variable than between laboratories. Current FF estimates from clinical laboratories are not standardized and should be considered laboratory-specific.
Pharmacogenomic Testing in the Clinical Laboratory: Historical Progress and Future Opportunities
Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Strategies of Adult Transplant‐Associated Thrombotic Microangiopathy: External Validation of Harmonizing Definitions and High‐Risk Criteria
ABSTRACTTransplant‐associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA‐TMA) is an endothelial dysfunction syndrome observed after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). Our aim was to externally validate the impact of high‐risk features on the clinical outcomes of adult patients meeting the updated TA‐TMA harmonizing criteria. Between 2005 and 2022, 99 patients were diagnosed with TA‐TMA at Mayo Clinic Rochester (incidence 6.2%) after a median of 137 days post alloHCT (IQR: 34–283 days). The development of TA‐TMA was associated with an inferior overall survival posttransplant (HR: 3.8, 95% CI: 2.97–4.72). High‐risk features, including concomitant infection, acute graft‐versus‐host disease (GVHD), and organ dysfunction, were associated with poor survival, while LDH elevation was not associated with inferior outcomes. The most common treatment strategy for TA‐TMA was discontinuation of calcineurin or mTOR inhibitors in 80 (81%) patients. Thirty (37.5%) patients experienced worsening of GVHD with this strategy, of which 26 (86.7%) patients had died at last follow‐up. The most common cause of death among these patients was worsening GVHD (69%; n = 18), followed by infection (11%; n = 3), disease relapse (8%; n = 2), other/unknown causes (8%; n = 2), or TA‐TMA (4%; n = 1). Objective response rate (ORR) to initial treatment for the cohort was 56.6%. Eculizumab was used in 11 patients with an observed ORR of 70%, including 5 complete responses. In conclusion, TA‐TMA remains a significant contributor to non‐relapse mortality and is associated with worse survival following alloHCT. Not all high‐risk features, particularly LDH elevation, have consistently demonstrated a negative impact in adult cohorts. Patients with TA‐TMA may benefit from immune suppression dose adjustment, rather than a discontinuation, and the addition of complement‐directed therapy, particularly among high‐risk patients.
Comparing the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic genotyping and next generation sequencing in a military health system adult medicine clinic
Abstract Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is focused on the relationship between an individual's genetic makeup and their response to medications, with the overarching aim of guiding prescribing decisions to improve drug efficacy and reduce adverse events. The PGx and genomic medicine communities have worked independently for over 2 decades, developing separate standards and terminology, making implementation of PGx across all areas of genomic medicine difficult. To address this issue, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Pharmacogenomics Working Group (PGxWG) was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded ClinGen to initially create frameworks for evaluating gene–drug response clinical validity and actionability aligned with the ClinGen frameworks for evaluating monogenic gene–disease relationships, and a framework for classifying germline PGx variants similar to the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP) system for interpretation of disease-causing variants. These frameworks will leverage decades of work from well-established PGx resources facilitating buy-in among PGx stakeholders. In this report, we describe the background and major activities of the ClinGen PGxWG, and how this initiative will facilitate the critical inclusion of PGx into the larger context of genomic medicine.
Abstract Objectives Protein-truncating variants in the TTN gene are a well-established cause of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). We report a novel case of DCM caused by a mobile element insertion (MEI) in TTN, through which we highlight the key features of MEIs in next-generation sequencing data. Because of the rarity of MEIs, the next-generation sequencing data features associated with these events may be mistaken as noise, potentially leading to missed diagnoses. Methods Next-generation sequencing gene panel testing for DCM was performed on a 17-year-old male patient presenting with severe left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction. Manta was used for structural variant detection, followed by manual review of NGS data for potential structural variants. Results Manta detected a potential insertion in TTN. Manual review identified hallmark features consistent with a LINE-1 MEI. This finding was orthogonally confirmed by long-range polymerase chain reaction and gel electrophoresis, which indicated an insertion of approximately 4 to 5 kilobase pairs. The insertion disrupted the reading frame of TTN within an A-band exon, resulting in protein truncation that was classified as likely pathogenic. Conclusions This case expands the mutational spectrum of TTN protein-truncating variants. It also underscores the importance of recognizing rarer types of pathogenic variants (eg, MEIs) to produce accurate genetic diagnostics.
Genomic Reporting Practices Across 5 Molecular Disciplines: A Study From the College of American Pathologists
Context.— Genomic reports are primarily organized in a narrative and unstructured format with variations in content and format. Regulatory requirements and professional guidelines for genetic test reporting exist but provide little guidance for effective communication of information. Objective.— To assess clinical genomic reporting practices across 5 disciplines within molecular diagnostics, including germline, somatic solid tumors, somatic hematologic malignancies, pharmacogenomics, and prenatal cell-free DNA screening. Design.— Reporting practices were assessed by using a structured review of clinical genomic reports from multiple laboratories in 5 molecular disciplines spanning different practice settings. Report content was reviewed by the presence/absence of from 27 to 44 elements, including 23 elements required by the College of American Pathologists and/or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). If present, the element’s location on the report was recorded. Results.— A total of 69 genomics reports from 31 laboratories were reviewed. Overall, the reports were compliant with regulatory requirements but showed variability in both format and content. Six of 7 required reporting elements (per CLIA, 42 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 493.1291) were included in 90% of the reports. However, these elements were often located in different report sections. Only patient demographics were always found in a specific report section (header). Conclusions.— These results show that reports are overall compliant with regulatory requirements, despite some reporting elements being less consistently reported. The lack of consistent presentation of the data elements presents an opportunity to improve the communication of molecular testing results to clinicians and patients.
Clinomics Implementation in the Mayo Clinic Nephrology Practice
Context.— Title 45, section 164.524 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that health care systems must provide patient health records upon that patient’s request. For complex testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), this raises questions related to what data should be released and the laboratory considerations regarding the release of this data. Objective.— To describe the laboratory implications of releasing different NGS data files and the limitations for the clinical use of different NGS data files. Design.— The College of American Pathologists workgroup, composed of laboratorians with expertise regarding NGS testing, reviewed pertinent literature, including title 45, section 164.524, and the Health and Human Services “Guidance on Individuals’ Right to Access Health Information.” Results.— From an accreditation standpoint, validation of NGS includes both the wet bench and data processing (bioinformatics) portions, and appropriately validated laboratory testing is required to ensure quality patient results. NGS testing generates intermediate data files that have not completed the fully validated process but are often kept by the laboratory. These files may be requested by patients, but most patients will not be aware of the test validation process and the limitations of data that have not gone through a fully validated process. Conclusions.— Laboratories should encourage patients to receive their health data and to help individuals understand the content, uses, and limitations of laboratory data they have requested or received. NGS data used in a nonvalidated manner should not be used for clinical purposes without confirmation by a clinically validated method.