Jeffrey A SoRelle1, Drew M Thodeson2,3, Susan Arnold3, Garrett Gotway4,5, Jason Y Park1,4. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 3. Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 4. Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth & Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical genomic tests that examine the DNA sequence of large numbers of genes are commonly used in the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in pediatric patients. The permanence of genomic test result interpretations is not known. Objective: To investigate the value of reinterpreting previously reported genomic test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study retrospectively reviewed and reinterpreted genomic test results from July 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, for pediatric patients who previously underwent genomic epilepsy testing at a single tertiary care pediatric health care facility. Reinterpretation of previously reported variants was conducted in May 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient reports from clinical genomic epilepsy tests were reviewed, and all reported genetic variants were reinterpreted using 2015 consensus standards and guidelines for interpreting hereditary genetic variants. Three classification tiers were used in the reinterpretation: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), or benign or likely benign variant. Results: A total of 309 patients had genomic epilepsy tests performed (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [0.8] years; 163 [52.8%] male), and 185 patients had a genetic variant reported. The reported variants resulted in 61 patients with and 124 patients without a genetic diagnosis (VUS variants only). On reinterpretation of all reported variants, 67 of the 185 patients (36.2%) had a change in variant classification. Of the 67 patients with a genetic variant change in interpretation, 21 (31.3%) experienced a change in diagnosis. During the 5 years of the study, 19 of 61 patients (31.1%) with a genetic diagnosis and 48 of 124 patients (38.7%) with undiagnosed conditions (VUS only) had their results reclassified. Review of genomic reports issued during the final 2 years of the study identified reclassification of variants in 4 of 16 patients (25.0%) with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and 11 of 41 patients (26.8%) with a VUS. Conclusions and Relevance: The identified high rate of reinterpretation in this study suggests that interpretation of genomic test results has rapidly evolved during the past 5 years. These findings suggest that reinterpretation of genomic test results should be performed at least every 2 years.
Importance: Clinical genomic tests that examine the DNA sequence of large numbers of genes are commonly used in the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in pediatric patients. The permanence of genomic test result interpretations is not known. Objective: To investigate the value of reinterpreting previously reported genomic test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study retrospectively reviewed and reinterpreted genomic test results from July 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, for pediatric patients who previously underwent genomic epilepsy testing at a single tertiary care pediatric health care facility. Reinterpretation of previously reported variants was conducted in May 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient reports from clinical genomic epilepsy tests were reviewed, and all reported genetic variants were reinterpreted using 2015 consensus standards and guidelines for interpreting hereditary genetic variants. Three classification tiers were used in the reinterpretation: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), or benign or likely benign variant. Results: A total of 309 patients had genomic epilepsy tests performed (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [0.8] years; 163 [52.8%] male), and 185 patients had a genetic variant reported. The reported variants resulted in 61 patients with and 124 patients without a genetic diagnosis (VUS variants only). On reinterpretation of all reported variants, 67 of the 185 patients (36.2%) had a change in variant classification. Of the 67 patients with a genetic variant change in interpretation, 21 (31.3%) experienced a change in diagnosis. During the 5 years of the study, 19 of 61 patients (31.1%) with a genetic diagnosis and 48 of 124 patients (38.7%) with undiagnosed conditions (VUS only) had their results reclassified. Review of genomic reports issued during the final 2 years of the study identified reclassification of variants in 4 of 16 patients (25.0%) with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and 11 of 41 patients (26.8%) with a VUS. Conclusions and Relevance: The identified high rate of reinterpretation in this study suggests that interpretation of genomic test results has rapidly evolved during the past 5 years. These findings suggest that reinterpretation of genomic test results should be performed at least every 2 years.
Authors: S M Hiatt; M D Amaral; K M Bowling; C R Finnila; M L Thompson; D E Gray; J M J Lawlor; J N Cochran; E M Bebin; K B Brothers; K M East; W V Kelley; N E Lamb; S E Levy; E J Lose; M B Neu; C A Rich; S Simmons; R M Myers; G S Barsh; G M Cooper Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Gregory Costain; Rebekah Jobling; Susan Walker; Miriam S Reuter; Meaghan Snell; Sarah Bowdin; Ronald D Cohn; Lucie Dupuis; Stacy Hewson; Saadet Mercimek-Andrews; Cheryl Shuman; Neal Sondheimer; Rosanna Weksberg; Grace Yoon; M Stephen Meyn; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Stephen W Scherer; Roberto Mendoza-Londono; Christian R Marshall Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Roddy Walsh; Kate L Thomson; James S Ware; Birgit H Funke; Jessica Woodley; Karen J McGuire; Francesco Mazzarotto; Edward Blair; Anneke Seller; Jenny C Taylor; Eric V Minikel; Daniel G MacArthur; Martin Farrall; Stuart A Cook; Hugh Watkins Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Monkol Lek; Konrad J Karczewski; Eric V Minikel; Kaitlin E Samocha; Eric Banks; Timothy Fennell; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; James S Ware; Andrew J Hill; Beryl B Cummings; Taru Tukiainen; Daniel P Birnbaum; Jack A Kosmicki; Laramie E Duncan; Karol Estrada; Fengmei Zhao; James Zou; Emma Pierce-Hoffman; Joanne Berghout; David N Cooper; Nicole Deflaux; Mark DePristo; Ron Do; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Laura Gauthier; Jackie Goldstein; Namrata Gupta; Daniel Howrigan; Adam Kiezun; Mitja I Kurki; Ami Levy Moonshine; Pradeep Natarajan; Lorena Orozco; Gina M Peloso; Ryan Poplin; Manuel A Rivas; Valentin Ruano-Rubio; Samuel A Rose; Douglas M Ruderfer; Khalid Shakir; Peter D Stenson; Christine Stevens; Brett P Thomas; Grace Tiao; Maria T Tusie-Luna; Ben Weisburd; Hong-Hee Won; Dongmei Yu; David M Altshuler; Diego Ardissino; Michael Boehnke; John Danesh; Stacey Donnelly; Roberto Elosua; Jose C Florez; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Stephen J Glatt; Christina M Hultman; Sekar Kathiresan; Markku Laakso; Steven McCarroll; Mark I McCarthy; Dermot McGovern; Ruth McPherson; Benjamin M Neale; Aarno Palotie; Shaun M Purcell; Danish Saleheen; Jeremiah M Scharf; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Ming T Tsuang; Hugh C Watkins; James G Wilson; Mark J Daly; Daniel G MacArthur Journal: Nature Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Caroline F Wright; Jeremy F McRae; Stephen Clayton; Giuseppe Gallone; Stuart Aitken; Tomas W FitzGerald; Philip Jones; Elena Prigmore; Diana Rajan; Jenny Lord; Alejandro Sifrim; Rosemary Kelsell; Michael J Parker; Jeffrey C Barrett; Matthew E Hurles; David R FitzPatrick; Helen V Firth Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Samuel J Aronson; Eugene H Clark; Matthew Varugheese; Samantha Baxter; Lawrence J Babb; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Barbara J Evans; Gail Javitt; Ralph Hall; Megan Robertson; Pilar Ossorio; Susan M Wolf; Thomas Morgan; Ellen Wright Clayton Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Catherine Rehder; Lora J H Bean; David Bick; Elizabeth Chao; Wendy Chung; Soma Das; Julianne O'Daniel; Heidi Rehm; Vandana Shashi; Lisa M Vincent Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Colin M E Halverson; Laurie M Connors; Bronson C Wessinger; Ellen W Clayton; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 2.183