Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.

Copy number analysis to detect disease-causing losses and gains across the genome is recommended for the evaluation of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or multiple congenital anomalies, as well as for fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. In the decade that this analysis has been in widespread clinical use, tremendous strides have been made in understanding the effects of copy number variants (CNVs) in both affected individuals and the general population. However, continued broad implementation of array- and next-generation sequencing-based technologies will expand the types of CNVs encountered in the clinical setting, as well as our understanding of their impact on human health. To assist clinical laboratories in the classification and reporting of CNVs, irrespective of the technology used to identify them, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following professional standards in collaboration with the NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) project. This update introduces a quantitative, evidence-based scoring framework; encourages the implementation of the 5-tier classification system widely used in sequence variant classification; and recommends “uncoupling” the evidence-based classification of a variant from its potential implications for a particular individual. These professional standards will guide the evaluation of constitutional CNVs and encourage consistency and transparency across clinical laboratories.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.Genet Med 19 2, 249-255.