@article {199, title = {Assessment of incidental findings in 232 whole-exome sequences from the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics.}, journal = {Genet Med}, volume = {17}, year = {2015}, month = {2015 Oct}, pages = {782-8}, abstract = {

PURPOSE: In March 2013 the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a list of 56 genes with the recommendation that pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants detected incidentally by clinical sequencing be reported to patients. As an initial step in determining the practical consequences of this recommendation in the research setting, we searched for variants in these genes in 232 whole-exome sequences from the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics.

METHODS: We identified rare, nonsynonymous, and splicing single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions and assessed variant classification using the Human Gene Mutation, Emory, and ClinVar databases. We analyzed the burden of mutation in each of the 56 genes and determined which variants should be reported to patients.

RESULTS: Our filtering resulted in 249 distinct variants, with a mean of 1.69 variants per individual. Half of these were novel missense mutations not classified by any of the three reference databases. Of 101 variants listed in the Human Gene Mutation Database, 48 were also in ClinVar and 3 were also in Emory; half of these shared variants were classified discordantly between databases. Some genes consistently had greater variation than others. In total, 0.86\% of individuals had a reportable incidental variant.

CONCLUSION: These observations demonstrate some current challenges of assessing phenotypic consequences of incidental variants for counseling patients.

}, keywords = {Databases, Nucleic Acid, Exome, Female, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Humans, Incidental Findings, Male, Mutation, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide}, issn = {1530-0366}, doi = {10.1038/gim.2014.196}, author = {Jurgens, Julie and Ling, Hua and Hetrick, Kurt and Pugh, Elizabeth and Schiettecatte, Fran{\c c}ois and Doheny, Kimberly and Hamosh, Ada and Avramopoulos, Dimitri and Valle, David and Sobreira, Nara} } @article {238, title = {Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.}, journal = {Am J Hum Genet}, volume = {95}, year = {2014}, month = {2014 Jul 03}, pages = {77-84}, abstract = {

Professional recommendations for the return of results from exome and whole-genome sequencing (ES/WGS) have been controversial. The lack of clear guidance about whether and, if so, how to return ES/WGS incidental results limits the extent to which individuals and families might benefit from ES/WGS. The perspectives of genetics professionals, particularly those at the forefront of using ES/WGS in clinics, are largely unknown. Data on stakeholder perspectives could help clarify how to weigh expert positions and recommendations. We conducted an online survey of 9,857 genetics professionals to learn their attitudes on the return of incidental results from ES/WGS and the recent American College of Medical Genetic and Genomics Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Of the 847 respondents, 760 completed the survey. The overwhelming majority of respondents thought that incidental ES/WGS results should be offered to adult patients (85\%), healthy adults (75\%), and the parents of a child with a medical condition (74\%). The majority thought that incidental results about adult-onset conditions (62\%) and carrier status (62\%) should be offered to the parents of a child with a medical condition. About half thought that offered results should not be limited to those deemed clinically actionable. The vast majority (81\%) thought that individual preferences should guide return. Genetics professionals{\textquoteright} perspectives on the return of ES/WGS results differed substantially from current recommendations, underscoring the need to establish clear purpose for recommendations on the return of incidental ES/WGS results as professional societies grapple with developing and updating recommendations.

}, keywords = {Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Exome, Genetics, Medical, Genome, Human, Humans, Incidental Findings, Workforce}, issn = {1537-6605}, doi = {10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004}, author = {Yu, Joon-Ho and Harrell, Tanya M and Jamal, Seema M and Tabor, Holly K and Bamshad, Michael J} } @article {221, title = {Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings.}, journal = {Am J Med Genet A}, volume = {164A}, year = {2014}, month = {2014 Nov}, pages = {2745-52}, abstract = {

Genomic sequencing technology is increasingly used in genetic research. Studies of informed consent for exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) research have largely involved hypothetical scenarios or healthy individuals enrolling in population-based studies. Studies have yet to explore the consent experiences of adults with inherited disease. We conducted a qualitative interview study of 15 adults recently enrolled in a large-scale ES/GS study (11 affected adults, four parents of affected children). Our study had two goals: (1) to explore three theoretical barriers to consent for ES/GS research (interpretive/technical complexity, possibility of incidental findings, and risks of loss of privacy); and (2) to explore how interviewees experienced the consent process. Interviewees could articulate study goals and processes, describe incidental findings, discuss risks of privacy loss, and reflect on their consent experience. Few expected the study would identify the genetic cause of their condition. All elected to receive incidental findings. Interviewees acknowledged paying little attention to potential implications of incidental findings in light of more pressing goals of supporting research regarding their own medical conditions. Interviewees suggested that experience living with a genetic condition prepared them to adjust to incidental findings. Interviewees also expressed little concern about loss of confidentiality of study data. Some experienced the consent process as very long. None desired reconsent prior to return of study results. Families with inherited disease likely would benefit from a consent process in which study risks and benefits were discussed in the context of prior experiences with genetic research and genetic disease.

}, keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Confidentiality, Ethics, Medical, Exome, Family, Female, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Genetic Research, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Humans, Incidental Findings, Informed Consent, Male, Middle Aged, Young Adult}, issn = {1552-4833}, doi = {10.1002/ajmg.a.36706}, author = {Bergner, Amanda L and Bollinger, Juli and Raraigh, Karen S and Tichnell, Crystal and Murray, Brittney and Blout, Carrie Lynn and Telegrafi, Aida Bytyci and James, Cynthia A} } @article {217, title = {Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing.}, journal = {JAMA}, volume = {312}, year = {2014}, month = {2014 Nov 12}, pages = {1870-9}, abstract = {

IMPORTANCE: Clinical whole-exome sequencing is increasingly used for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected genetic disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To perform clinical whole-exome sequencing and report (1) the rate of molecular diagnosis among phenotypic groups, (2) the spectrum of genetic alterations contributing to disease, and (3) the prevalence of medically actionable incidental findings such as FBN1 mutations causing Marfan syndrome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of 2000 consecutive patients with clinical whole-exome sequencing analyzed between June 2012 and August 2014. Whole-exome sequencing tests were performed at a clinical genetics laboratory in the United States. Results were reported by clinical molecular geneticists certified by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Tests were ordered by the patient{\textquoteright}s physician. The patients were primarily pediatric (1756 [88\%]; mean age, 6 years; 888 females [44\%], 1101 males [55\%], and 11 fetuses [1\% gender unknown]), demonstrating diverse clinical manifestations most often including nervous system dysfunction such as developmental delay.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Whole-exome sequencing diagnosis rate overall and by phenotypic category, mode of inheritance, spectrum of genetic events, and reporting of incidental findings.

RESULTS: A molecular diagnosis was reported for 504 patients (25.2\%) with 58\% of the diagnostic mutations not previously reported. Molecular diagnosis rates for each phenotypic category were 143/526 (27.2\%; 95\% CI, 23.5\%-31.2\%) for the neurological group, 282/1147 (24.6\%; 95\% CI, 22.1\%-27.2\%) for the neurological plus other organ systems group, 30/83 (36.1\%; 95\% CI, 26.1\%-47.5\%) for the specific neurological group, and 49/244 (20.1\%; 95\% CI, 15.6\%-25.8\%) for the nonneurological group. The Mendelian disease patterns of the 527 molecular diagnoses included 280 (53.1\%) autosomal dominant, 181 (34.3\%) autosomal recessive (including 5 with uniparental disomy), 65 (12.3\%) X-linked, and 1 (0.2\%) mitochondrial. Of 504 patients with a molecular diagnosis, 23 (4.6\%) had blended phenotypes resulting from 2 single gene defects. About 30\% of the positive cases harbored mutations in disease genes reported since 2011. There were 95 medically actionable incidental findings in genes unrelated to the phenotype but with immediate implications for management in 92 patients (4.6\%), including 59 patients (3\%) with mutations in genes recommended for reporting by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Whole-exome sequencing provided a potential molecular diagnosis for 25\% of a large cohort of patients referred for evaluation of suspected genetic conditions, including detection of rare genetic events and new mutations contributing to disease. The yield of whole-exome sequencing may offer advantages over traditional molecular diagnostic approaches in certain patients.

}, keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Exome, Female, Fetus, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Genetic Testing, Genomics, Humans, Incidental Findings, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Mutation, Phenotype, Referral and Consultation, Sequence Analysis, DNA}, issn = {1538-3598}, doi = {10.1001/jama.2014.14601}, author = {Yang, Yaping and Muzny, Donna M and Xia, Fan and Niu, Zhiyv and Person, Richard and Ding, Yan and Ward, Patricia and Braxton, Alicia and Wang, Min and Buhay, Christian and Veeraraghavan, Narayanan and Hawes, Alicia and Chiang, Theodore and Leduc, Magalie and Beuten, Joke and Zhang, Jing and He, Weimin and Scull, Jennifer and Willis, Alecia and Landsverk, Megan and Craigen, William J and Bekheirnia, Mir Reza and Stray-Pedersen, Asbjorg and Liu, Pengfei and Wen, Shu and Alcaraz, Wendy and Cui, Hong and Walkiewicz, Magdalena and Reid, Jeffrey and Bainbridge, Matthew and Patel, Ankita and Boerwinkle, Eric and Beaudet, Arthur L and Lupski, James R and Plon, Sharon E and Gibbs, Richard A and Eng, Christine M} } @article {291, title = {Reporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptional.}, journal = {JAMA}, volume = {310}, year = {2013}, month = {2013 Jul 24}, pages = {365-6}, keywords = {Disclosure, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genetic Testing, Humans, Incidental Findings, Mandatory Reporting, Mutation, Personal Autonomy, Risk, Sequence Analysis, DNA}, issn = {1538-3598}, doi = {10.1001/jama.2013.41703}, author = {Green, Robert C and Lupski, James R and Biesecker, Leslie G} }