PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop, operationalize, and pilot test a transparent, reproducible, and evidence-informed method to determine when to report incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. METHODS: Using evidence-based principles, we proposed a three-stage process. Stage I "rules out" incidental findings below a minimal threshold of evidence and is evaluated using inter-rater agreement and comparison with an expert-based approach. Stage II documents criteria for clinical actionability using a standardized approach to allow experts to consistently consider and recommend whether results should be routinely reported (stage III). We used expert opinion to determine the face validity of stages II and III using three case studies. We evaluated the time and effort for stages I and II. RESULTS: For stage I, we assessed 99 conditions and found high inter-rater agreement (89%), and strong agreement with a separate expert-based method. Case studies for familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary hemochromatosis, and α1-antitrypsin deficiency were all recommended for routine reporting as incidental findings. The method requires <3 days per topic. CONCLUSION: We establish an operational definition of clinically actionable incidental findings and provide documentation and pilot testing of a feasible method that is scalable to the whole genome.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop, operationalize, and pilot test a transparent, reproducible, and evidence-informed method to determine when to report incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. METHODS: Using evidence-based principles, we proposed a three-stage process. Stage I "rules out" incidental findings below a minimal threshold of evidence and is evaluated using inter-rater agreement and comparison with an expert-based approach. Stage II documents criteria for clinical actionability using a standardized approach to allow experts to consistently consider and recommend whether results should be routinely reported (stage III). We used expert opinion to determine the face validity of stages II and III using three case studies. We evaluated the time and effort for stages I and II. RESULTS: For stage I, we assessed 99 conditions and found high inter-rater agreement (89%), and strong agreement with a separate expert-based method. Case studies for familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary hemochromatosis, and α1-antitrypsin deficiency were all recommended for routine reporting as incidental findings. The method requires <3 days per topic. CONCLUSION: We establish an operational definition of clinically actionable incidental findings and provide documentation and pilot testing of a feasible method that is scalable to the whole genome.
Authors: Kevin Judd McKernan; Heather E Peckham; Gina L Costa; Stephen F McLaughlin; Yutao Fu; Eric F Tsung; Christopher R Clouser; Cisyla Duncan; Jeffrey K Ichikawa; Clarence C Lee; Zheng Zhang; Swati S Ranade; Eileen T Dimalanta; Fiona C Hyland; Tanya D Sokolsky; Lei Zhang; Andrew Sheridan; Haoning Fu; Cynthia L Hendrickson; Bin Li; Lev Kotler; Jeremy R Stuart; Joel A Malek; Jonathan M Manning; Alena A Antipova; Damon S Perez; Michael P Moore; Kathleen C Hayashibara; Michael R Lyons; Robert E Beaudoin; Brittany E Coleman; Michael W Laptewicz; Adam E Sannicandro; Michael D Rhodes; Rajesh K Gottimukkala; Shan Yang; Vineet Bafna; Ali Bashir; Andrew MacBride; Can Alkan; Jeffrey M Kidd; Evan E Eichler; Martin G Reese; Francisco M De La Vega; Alan P Blanchard Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; Steven M Teutsch; Celia I Kaye; Maxine Hayes; James E Haddow; Linda A Bradley; Kathleen Szegda; W David Dotson Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Jonathan S Berg; Michael Adams; Nassib Nassar; Chris Bizon; Kristy Lee; Charles P Schmitt; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; James P Evans Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: W D Dotson; M P Douglas; K Kolor; A C Stewart; M S Bowen; M Gwinn; A Wulf; H M Anders; C Q Chang; M Clyne; T K Lam; S D Schully; M Marrone; W G Feero; M J Khoury Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025