TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings
T2 - Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group
AU - on behalf of the ClinGen Resource
AU - Webber, Elizabeth M.
AU - Hunter, Jessica Ezzell
AU - Biesecker, Leslie G.
AU - Buchanan, Adam H.
AU - Clarke, Elizabeth V.
AU - Currey, Erin
AU - Dagan-Rosenfeld, Orit
AU - Lee, Kristy
AU - Lindor, Noralane M.
AU - Martin, Christa Lese
AU - Milosavljevic, Aleksandar
AU - Mittendorf, Kathleen F.
AU - Muessig, Kristin R.
AU - O'Daniel, Julianne M.
AU - Patel, Ronak Y.
AU - Ramos, Erin M.
AU - Rego, Shannon
AU - Slavotinek, Anne M.
AU - Sobriera, Nara Lygia M.
AU - Weaver, Meredith A.
AU - Williams, Marc S.
AU - Evans, James P.
AU - Goddard, Katrina A.B.
N1 - Funding Information:
Ms. Webber had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. We thank Sameer Paithankar, Andrew R Jackson, Piotr Pawliczek, and Neethu Shah for their work on the development of the Actionability Curation Interface utilized by the AWG during curation and scoring. We also thank Kevin Lutz for editorial support and Michael Leo for statistical consultation on this manuscript. The efforts of L.G.B. were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The Clin-Gen consortium is funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health through the following grants and contracts: U41HG006834 (Rehm), U41HG009649, U41HG009650 (Berg), U01HG007436 (Bustamante), U01HG007437 (Berg), HHSN261200800001E.
Publisher Copyright:
© Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
N2 - The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.
AB - The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.
KW - clinical utility
KW - exome sequencing
KW - genome sequencing
KW - incidental findings
KW - secondary findings
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054628716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054628716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/humu.23631
DO - 10.1002/humu.23631
M3 - Article
C2 - 30311382
AN - SCOPUS:85054628716
SN - 1059-7794
VL - 39
SP - 1677
EP - 1685
JO - Human mutation
JF - Human mutation
IS - 11
ER -