Evidence‐based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group
- 11 October 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Hindawi Limited in Human Mutation
- Vol. 39 (11), 1677-1685
- https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23631
Abstract
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.Funding Information
- National Human Genome Research Institute (U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650, U01HG007436, U01HG007437, HHSN261200800001E)
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about ‘incidental’ findings—From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs)PLOS ONE, 2017
- A survey of current practices for genomic sequencing test interpretation and reporting processes in US laboratoriesGenetics in Medicine, 2017
- Which Results to Return: Subjective Judgments in Selecting Medically Actionable GenesGenetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 2017
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studiesGenetics in Medicine, 2017
- Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi studyClinical Genetics, 2017
- Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsGenetics in Medicine, 2017
- A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variationGenetics in Medicine, 2016
- A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencingGenetics in Medicine, 2016
- The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical GeneticistsJournal of Medical Genetics, 2015
- ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencingGenetics in Medicine, 2013