Moyer, Ann M.

AbstractObjectiveDetermine current analytical methods and number of cell‐free (cf) DNA prenatal screening tests performed for common trisomies.MethodsThe College of American Pathologists 2022‐B Noninvasive Prenatal Testing exercise was distributed in December 2022 to 93 participants in 22 countries. Supplemental questions included the number of tests performed in a recent month and the proportion of samples originating outside the United States (US).ResultsEighty‐three participants from three continents returned results; 74 (89%) were suitable for the analyses. Nine manufacturer/platform combinations were identified, most commonly Illumina/Nextseq (55%). The most common methodology was whole genome sequencing (76%). Annualized cfDNA tests were 2.80 million, with Asian, European and North American participants representing 10.6%, 6.5% and 82.9% of tests, respectively. When restricted to US in‐country tests, the annualized rate was 2.18 million, with four of 20 participants testing 79.2%. Among 73 respondents, 63 (86%) were for‐profit, eight (11%) were non‐profit academic or government supported and the remaining two included hospital‐based and private non‐profit. Eighteen (25%) supported relevant academic training.ConclusionIn 2011, screening for common trisomies was based on serum/ultrasound markers with an estimated 2.96 million US pregnancies screened in 131 laboratories. In 2022, cfDNA‐based screening was offered by 20 laboratories testing 2.18 million US pregnancies.

Context.— Next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based assays are used for diagnosis of diverse inherited disorders. Limited data are available pertaining to interlaboratory analytical performance of these assays. Objective.— To report on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) NGS Germline Program, which is methods based, and explore the evolution in laboratory testing practices. Design.— Results from the NGS Germline Program from 2016–2020 were analyzed for interlaboratory analytical performance. Self-reported laboratory testing practices were also evaluated. Results.— From 2016–2020, a total of 297 laboratories participated in at least 1 program mailing. Of the 289 laboratories that provided information on tests offered, 138 (47.8%) offered only panel testing throughout their enrollment, while 35 (12.1%) offered panels and exome testing, 30 (10.4%) offered only exomes, 9 (3.1%) offered only genomes, and 15 (5.2%) offered panels, exomes, and genomes. The remainder (62 laboratories, 21.4%) changed their test offerings during the 2016–2020 timeframe. Considering each genomic position/interval, the median detection percentage at variant positions across the 2016–2020 mailings ranged from 94.3% to 100%, while at reference positions (no variant detected), the median correct response percentage was 100% across all mailings. When considering performance of individual laboratories, 89.5% (136 of 152) to 98.0% (149 of 152) of laboratories successfully met the detection threshold (≥90% of the variants present), while 94.6% (87 of 92) to 100% (163 of 163) of laboratories met the 95% specificity threshold across mailings. Conclusions.— Since the inception of this program, laboratories have consistently performed well. The median sensitivity and specificity of detection of sequence variants included in this program (eg, single nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions) were 100.0%.

The Pharmacogene Variation Consortium (PharmVar) provides nomenclature for the highly polymorphic human CYP2D6 gene locus and a comprehensive summary of structural variation. CYP2D6 contributes to the metabolism of numerous drugs and, thus, genetic variation in its gene impacts drug efficacy and safety. To accurately predict a patient's CYP2D6 phenotype, testing must include structural variants including gene deletions, duplications, hybrid genes, and combinations thereof. This tutorial offers a comprehensive overview of CYP2D6 structural variation, terms, and definitions, a review of methods suitable for their detection and characterization, and practical examples to address the lack of standards to describe CYP2D6 structural variants or any other pharmacogene. This PharmVar tutorial offers practical guidance on how to detect the many, often complex, structural variants, as well as recommends terms and definitions for clinical and research reporting. Uniform reporting is not only essential for electronic health record‐keeping but also for accurate translation of a patient's genotype into phenotype which is typically utilized to guide drug therapy.

Abstract Background Despite clinically demonstrated accuracy in next generation sequencing (NGS) data, many clinical laboratories continue to confirm variants with Sanger sequencing, which increases cost of testing and turnaround time. Several studies have assessed the accuracy of NGS in detecting single nucleotide variants; however, less has been reported about insertion, deletion, and deletion-insertion variants (indels). Methods We performed a retrospective analysis from 2015–2022 of indel results from a subset of NGS targeted gene panel tests offered through the Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratories. We compared results from NGS and Sanger sequencing of indels observed in clinical runs and during the intra-assay validation of the tests. Results Results demonstrated 100% concordance between NGS and Sanger sequencing for over 490 indels (217 unique), ranging in size from 1 to 68 basepairs (bp). The majority of indels were deletions (77%) and 1 to 5 bp in length (90%). Variant frequencies ranged from 11.4% to 67.4% and 85.1% to 100% for heterozygous and homozygous variants, respectively, with a median depth of coverage of 2562×. A subset of indels (7%) were located in complex regions of the genome, and these were accurately detected by NGS. We also demonstrated 100% reproducibility of indel detection (n = 179) during intra-assay validation. Conclusions Together this data demonstrates that reportable indel variants up to 68 bp can be accurately assessed using NGS, even when they occur in complex regions. Depending on the complexity of the region or variant, Sanger sequence confirmation of indels is usually not necessary if the variants meet appropriate coverage and allele frequency thresholds.

Background: Adequate response to moderate (conscious) sedation varies significantly between individuals. Polymorphisms in genes encoding drug metabolizing enzymes can lead to inter-individual variability in drug efficacy, potentially influencing sedation requirements during endoscopic procedures. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of inter-individual variation in inherited polymorphisms of drug-metabolizing enzymes, cytochrome P450 (CYP450), specifically CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, in sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of sedation requirements and pharmacogenomics data in 106 unique patients who received outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, or both between December 2011 and February 2019 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on their sedation requirements during endoscopy (high vs. normal sedation). Results: Patients with reduced a CYP2C19 metabolism (poor + intermediate metabolizers) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16–0.91, p = 0.03), poor CYP3A5 metabolism (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.095–0.65, p = 0.0046), and poor UGT1A1 (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.07–7.13, p = 0.08) had higher odds of requiring normal sedation compared to those with CYP2C19 increased metabolism, CYP3A5 intermediate metabolism, and UGT1A1 intermediate metabolism. Conclusion: Information about inter-individual variation in (CYP450) genes may be useful for determining the sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures. We found that patients with reduced CYP2C19 metabolism, poor CYP3A5 metabolism, and poor UGT1A1 metabolism were more likely to require normal sedation requirements during outpatient endoscopic procedures.

CYP2D6 duplication has important pharmacogenomic implications. Reflex testing with long-range PCR (LR-PCR) can resolve the genotype when a duplication and alleles with differing activity scores are detected. We evaluated whether visual inspection of plots from real-time-PCR-based targeted genotyping with copy number variation (CNV) detection could reliably determine the duplicated CYP2D6 allele. Six reviewers evaluated QuantStudio OpenArray CYP2D6 genotyping results and the TaqMan Genotyper plots for seventy-three well-characterized cases with three copies of CYP2D6 and two different alleles. Reviewers blinded to the final genotype visually assessed the plots to determine the duplicated allele or opt for reflex sequencing. Reviewers achieved 100% accuracy for cases with three CYP2D6 copies that they opted to report. Reviewers did not request reflex sequencing in 49–67 (67–92%) cases (and correctly identified the duplicated allele in each case); all remaining cases (6–24) were marked by at least one reviewer for reflex sequencing. In most cases with three copies of CYP2D6, the duplicated allele can be determined using a combination of targeted genotyping using real-time PCR with CNV detection without need for reflex sequencing. In ambiguous cases and those with >3 copies, LR-PCR and Sanger sequencing may still be necessary for determination of the duplicated allele.

Abstract The literature regarding the neuropathological findings in cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is expanding. We identified 72 patients who died of COVID-19 (n = 48) or had recovered shortly before death (n = 24) and had autopsies performed at our institution (49 males, 23 females; median age at death 76.4 years, range: 0.0–95.0 years). Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 was performed (n = 58) in multiple brain regions. In cases the assay was successfully completed (n = 50), 98.0% were negative (n = 49) and 2% were indeterminate (n = 1). Most histologic findings were typical of the patient age demographic, such as neurodegenerative disease and arteriolosclerosis. A subset of cases demonstrated findings which may be associated with sequelae of critical illness. We identified 3 cases with destructive perivascular lesions with axonal injury, one of which also harbored perivascular demyelinating lesions. These rare cases may represent a parainfectious process versus sequelae of vascular injury. The lack of detectable SARS-CoV-2 by ddPCR or significant histologic evidence of direct infection suggests that active encephalitis is not a feature of COVID-19.