Kotzer, Katrina E.

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.

Background— Postmortem genetic testing for heritable cardiovascular (CV) disorders is often lacking because ideal specimens (ie, whole blood) are not retained routinely at autopsy. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET) is ubiquitously collected at autopsy, but DNA quality hampers its use with traditional sequencing methods. Targeted next-generation sequencing may offer the ability to circumvent such limitations, but a method has not been previously described. The primary aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the use of FFPET for heritable CV disorders via next-generation sequencing. Methods and Results— Nineteen FFPET (heart) and blood (whole blood or dried blood spot) specimens underwent targeted next-generation sequencing using a custom panel of 101 CV-associated genes. Nucleic acid yield and quality metrics were evaluated in relation to FFPET specimen age (6 months to 15 years; n=14) and specimen type (FFPET versus whole blood and dried blood spot; n=12). Four FFPET cases with a clinical phenotype of heritable CV disorder were analyzed. Accuracy and precision were 100% concordant between all sample types, with read depths >100× for most regions tested. Lower read depth, as low as 40×, was occasionally observed with FFPET and dried blood spot. High-quality DNA was obtained from FFPET samples as old as 15 years. Genomic analysis of FFPET from the 4 phenotype-positive/genotype unknown cases all revealed putative disease-causing variants. Conclusions— Similar performance characteristics were observed for next-generation sequencing of FFPET, whole blood, and dried blood spot in the evaluation of inherited CV disorders. Although blood is preferable for genetic analyses, this study offers an alternative when only FFPET is available.

AbstractEthical dilemmas are encountered commonly in the setting of the clinical genetic testing laboratory due to the complexity of genetic testing and the number of relevant stakeholders involved in the genetic testing process. Based on their clinical training and role within the laboratory, genetic counselors are uniquely equipped to identify and facilitate management of ethical dilemmas. This paper reviews the historical context of ethical theory and its application to the field of genetic counseling. Theoretical and applied ethics are explored in the context of dilemmas arising in the laboratory setting, with a focus on the role of the laboratory genetic counselor in managing ethical dilemmas. Two illustrative case examples are provided.

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.