Wain, Karen E.

Importance Completion of the Human Genome Project prompted predictions that genomics would transform medicine, including through genomic screening that identifies potentially medically actionable findings that could prevent disease, detect it earlier, or treat it better. However, genomic screening remains anchored in research and largely unavailable as part of routine care. Objective To summarize 11 years of experience with genomic screening and explore the landscape of genomic screening efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was based in Geisinger’s MyCode Community Health Initiative, a genomic screening program in a rural Pennsylvania health care system in which patient-participants exomes are analyzed. Main Outcomes and Measures Genomic screen-positive rates were evaluated and stratified by condition type (cancer, cardiovascular, other) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 designation. The proportion of participants previously unaware of their genomic result was assessed. Other large-scale population-based genomic screening efforts with genomic results disclosure were compiled from public resources. Results A total of 354 957 patients participated in Geisinger’s genomic screening program (median [IQR] age, 54 [36-69] years; 194 037 [59.7%] assigned female sex at birth). As of June 2024, 175 500 participants had exome sequencing available for analysis, and 5934 participants (3.4%) had a pathogenic variant in 81 genes known to increase risk for disease. Between 2013 and July 2024, 5119 results were disclosed to 5052 eligible participants, with 2267 (44.2%) associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, 2031 (39.7%) with risk for cancer, and 821 (16.0%) with risk for other conditions. Most results (3040 [59.4%]) were in genes outside of those with a CDC Tier 1 designation. Nearly 90% of participants (4425 [87.6%]) were unaware of their genomic risk prior to disclosure. In a survey of large-scale biobanks with genomic and electronic health record (EHR) data, only 25.0% (6 of 24) disclosed potentially actionable genomic results. Conclusions and Relevance In this large, genomics-informed cohort study from a single health system, 1 in 30 participants had a potentially actionable genomic finding. However, nearly 90% were unaware of their risk prior to screening, demonstrating the utility of genomic screening in identifying at-risk individuals. Most large-scale biobanks with genomic and EHR data did not return genomic results with potential medical relevance, missing opportunities to significantly improve genomic risk ascertainment for these individuals and to perform longitudinal studies of clinical and implementation outcomes in diverse settings.

Background High-impact pathogenic variants in more than a thousand genes are involved in Mendelian forms of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). Methods This study describes the molecular and clinical characterisation of 28 probands with NDD harbouring heterozygous AGO1 coding variants, occurring de novo for all those whose transmission could have been verified (26/28). Results A total of 15 unique variants leading to amino acid changes or deletions were identified: 12 missense variants, two in-frame deletions of one codon, and one canonical splice variant leading to a deletion of two amino acid residues. Recurrently identified variants were present in several unrelated individuals: p.(Phe180del), p.(Leu190Pro), p.(Leu190Arg), p.(Gly199Ser), p.(Val254Ile) and p.(Glu376del). AGO1 encodes the Argonaute 1 protein, which functions in gene-silencing pathways mediated by small non-coding RNAs. Three-dimensional protein structure predictions suggest that these variants might alter the flexibility of the AGO1 linker domains, which likely would impair its function in mRNA processing. Affected individuals present with intellectual disability of varying severity, as well as speech and motor delay, autistic behaviour and additional behavioural manifestations. Conclusion Our study establishes that de novo coding variants in AGO1 are involved in a novel monogenic form of NDD, highly similar to the recently reported AGO2 -related NDD.

AbstractThe number of available genetic testing options and the nuances associated with these options continue to expand. In addition, the scope of genetic testing has broadened to areas and specialties beyond Medical Genetics. In response to these changes, diagnostic laboratories have employed genetic counselors to help navigate the increasing complexity of genetic testing, given their expertise and training in human genetics. However a largely unrecognized aspect of this role involves the use of counseling skills. Counseling skills are used by laboratory genetic counselors in a variety of situations to convey information and facilitate understanding among clinicians and medical staff. This helps to reduce test ordering errors, promote optimal test utilization, and ensure best patient care practices. The specific counseling skills used by laboratory counselors will be explored using three fictional case vignettes, followed by a discussion of the applicability of these skills in other contexts. Exploration of the unique ways in which laboratory genetic counselors apply their counseling skills can be useful for professional development and instructive for graduate training programs.

AbstractDespite a consistent increase in genetic counselors who report working in laboratory positions, there is a relative dearth of literature on laboratory genetic counseling. Semi‐structured interviews were completed with nine laboratory genetic counselors to document how positions were created and have changed with time. Interview transcriptions were analyzed for emerging themes. Several common themes were identified, including that early positions were often part‐time, laboratory‐initiated and had a lack of job definition. Laboratory genetic counselors commented on their evolving roles and responsibilities, with their positions becoming more technical and specialized over time and many taking on managerial and supervisory roles. All genetic counselors surveyed reported using core genetic counseling skills in their positions. The expansion of diagnostic testing and quickly evolving technology were common themes in regards to the future of laboratory genetic counselors, and participants commented on laboratory genetic counselors having expanding roles with data management, result interpretation and reporting, and guidance of other healthcare providers. Other comments included the impact of competition among laboratories and how training programs can better prepare genetic counseling students for a career in the laboratory setting. This study describes the emergence, and subsequent evolution, of laboratory genetic counseling positions as a significant subspecialty of genetic counseling.

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is standard of care, first‐tier clinical testing for detection of genomic copy number variation among patients with developmental disabilities. Although diagnostic yield is higher than traditional cytogenetic testing, management impact has not been well studied. We surveyed genetic services providers regarding CMA ordering practices and perceptions about reimbursement. Lack of insurance coverage because of perceived lack of clinical utility was cited among the most frequent reasons why CMA was not ordered when warranted. We compiled a list of genomic regions where haploinsufficiency or triplosensitivity cause genetic conditions with documented management recommendations, estimating that at least 146 conditions potentially diagnosable by CMA testing have published literature supporting specific clinical management implications. Comparison with an existing clinical CMA database to determine the proportion of cases involving these regions showed that CMA diagnoses associated with such recommendations are found in approximately 7% of all cases (n = 28,526). We conclude that CMA impacts clinical management at a rate similar to other genetic tests for which insurance coverage is more readily approved. The information presented here can be used to address barriers that continue to contribute to inequities in patient access and care in regard to CMA testing.

AbstractThe International Standards for Cytogenomic Arrays (ISCA) Consortium is a worldwide collaborative effort dedicated to optimizing patient care by improving the quality of chromosomal microarray testing. The primary effort of the ISCA Consortium has been the development of a database of copy number variants (CNVs) identified during the course of clinical microarray testing. This database is a powerful resource for clinicians, laboratories, and researchers, and can be utilized for a variety of applications, such as facilitating standardized interpretations of certain CNVs across laboratories or providing phenotypic information for counseling purposes when published data is sparse. A recognized limitation to the clinical utility of this database, however, is the quality of clinical information available for each patient. Clinical genetic counselors are uniquely suited to facilitate the communication of this information to the laboratory by virtue of their existing clinical responsibilities, case management skills, and appreciation of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. We intend to highlight the critical role that genetic counselors play in ensuring optimal patient care through contributing to the clinical utility of the ISCA Consortium's database, as well as the quality of individual patient microarray reports provided by contributing laboratories. Current tools, paper and electronic forms, created to maximize this collaboration are shared. In addition to making a professional commitment to providing complete clinical information, genetic counselors are invited to become ISCA members and to become involved in the discussions and initiatives within the Consortium.

AbstractEarly‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) is an increasingly diagnosed condition and is associated with genetic risk factors. This is one of the first studies exploring the lived experience of siblings of individuals with EOAD. We used structured questionnaires and semi‐structured interviews to assess a broad range of siblings’ experiences with and beliefs about EOAD, including knowledge, perceptions of personal risk, level of worry, and effects on life decisions. Participants (n = 24) were predominantly female (62.5%) and middle‐aged (mean = 56.8 years; range 37–83). When asked about risk factors, genetics was cited most frequently (62.5%). Several potential means of reducing AD risk were endorsed, with 54% reporting engagement in behaviors for this purpose (e.g., keeping mentally active). Participants ranged widely in their perceived personal risk of AD (range: 0–100; mean = 35.6%), with higher perceived risk associated with worry about AD (p < 0.01). Understanding siblings’ experiences with EOAD can inform how genetic counselors and healthcare professionals work with this population to facilitate risk communication and decision‐making about testing and healthcare.