Juliann M Savatt1,2, Danielle R Azzariti3, David H Ledbetter1,2, Emily Palen1, Heidi L Rehm3,4,5, Erin Rooney Riggs1, Christa Lese Martin6,7. 1. Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA. 2. Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA. 3. The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA. 4. Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA. clmartin@geisinger.edu. 7. Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA. clmartin@geisinger.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process. METHODS: GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them. RESULTS: Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories. CONCLUSION: Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.
PURPOSE: Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process. METHODS: GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them. RESULTS: Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories. CONCLUSION: Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.
Authors: Natasha T Strande; Erin Rooney Riggs; Adam H Buchanan; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Marina DiStefano; Selina S Dwight; Jenny Goldstein; Rajarshi Ghosh; Bryce A Seifert; Tam P Sneddon; Matt W Wright; Laura V Milko; J Michael Cherry; Monica A Giovanni; Michael F Murray; Julianne M O'Daniel; Erin M Ramos; Avni B Santani; Alan F Scott; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Christa L Martin; Jonathan S Berg Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Minerva A Romero Arenas; Thereasa A Rich; Samuel M Hyde; Naifa L Busaidy; Gilbert J Cote; Mimi I Hu; Robert F Gagel; Paul W Gidley; Camilo Jimenez; Michael E Kupferman; Susan K Peterson; Steven I Sherman; Anita Ying; Roland L Bassett; Steven G Waguespack; Nancy D Perrier; Elizabeth G Grubbs Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: D F Vears; K Sénécal; A J Clarke; L Jackson; A M Laberge; L Lovrecic; A Piton; K L I Van Gassen; H G Yntema; B M Knoppers; P Borry Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Heidi L Rehm; Jonathan S Berg; Lisa D Brooks; Carlos D Bustamante; James P Evans; Melissa J Landrum; David H Ledbetter; Donna R Maglott; Christa Lese Martin; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Erin M Ramos; Stephen T Sherry; Michael S Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua L Deignan; Wendy K Chung; Hutton M Kearney; Kristin G Monaghan; Catherine W Rehder; Elizabeth C Chao Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; Mark Benson; Garth R Brown; Chen Chao; Shanmuga Chitipiralla; Baoshan Gu; Jennifer Hart; Douglas Hoffman; Wonhee Jang; Karen Karapetyan; Kenneth Katz; Chunlei Liu; Zenith Maddipatla; Adriana Malheiro; Kurt McDaniel; Michael Ovetsky; George Riley; George Zhou; J Bradley Holmes; Brandi L Kattman; Donna R Maglott Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Daniele Carrieri; Heidi C Howard; Caroline Benjamin; Angus J Clarke; Sandi Dheensa; Shane Doheny; Naomi Hawkins; Tanya F Halbersma-Konings; Leigh Jackson; Hülya Kayserili; Susan E Kelly; Anneke M Lucassen; Álvaro Mendes; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Vigdís Stefánsdóttir; Peter D Turnpenny; Carla G van El; Irene M van Langen; Martina C Cornel; Francesca Forzano Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 4.246