Analysis of VUS Reporting, Variant Reinterpretation and Recontact Policies in Clinical Genomic Sequencing Consent Forms

Overview

Journal Eur J Hum Genet

Specialty Genetics

Date 2018 Aug 26

PMID 30143804

Citations 35

Authors

Danya F Vears

Emilia Niemiec

Heidi Carmen Howard

Pascal Borry

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

Citing Articles

Consent for genomic sequencing: a conversation, not just a form.

Vears D Eur J Hum Genet. 2025; .

PMID: 40033099 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-025-01805-0.

Advances in DNA/RNA Sequencing and Their Applications in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).

Ahmed F, Zhong J Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(1.

PMID: 39795930 PMC: 11720148. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26010071.

Methylation assay in KMT2B-related dystonia: a novel diagnostic validation tool.

da Silva Carvalho G, de Gusmao C, Wolff B, Vieira L, de Oliveira Y, Costa M Clin Epigenetics. 2024; 16(1):169.

PMID: 39587624 PMC: 11590325. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-024-01780-1.

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing.

Goh E, Chad L, Richer J, Bombard Y, Mighton C, Agatep R J Med Genet. 2024; 61(12):1123-1131.

PMID: 39362754 PMC: 11672037. DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2024-110330.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

van der Geest M, Maeckelberghe E, van Gijn M, Lucassen A, Swertz M, van Langen I Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; 32(5):489-497.

PMID: 38480795 PMC: 11061183. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01529-z.

References

Thorogood A, Cook-Deegan R, Knoppers B . Public variant databases: liability?. Genet Med. 2016; 19(7):838-841. PMC: 5527130. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.189. View

Fowler S, Saunders C, Hoffman M . Variation among Consent Forms for Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing. J Genet Couns. 2017; 27(1):104-114. PMC: 5794809. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0127-2. View

Bernhardt B, Roche M, Perry D, Scollon S, Tomlinson A, Skinner D . Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A. 2015; 167A(11):2635-46. PMC: 4980577. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37256. View

Beskow L, Friedman J, Hardy N, Lin L, Weinfurt K . Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking. PLoS One. 2010; 5(10):e13302. PMC: 2951917. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013302. View

Jamal S, Yu J, Chong J, Dent K, Conta J, Tabor H . Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. Am J Med Genet A. 2013; 161A(5):935-50. PMC: 3708985. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35942. View

Atwal P, Brennan M, Cox R, Niaki M, Platt J, Homeyer M . Clinical whole-exome sequencing: are we there yet?. Genet Med. 2014; 16(9):717-9. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.10. View

Carrieri D, Howard H, Benjamin C, Clarke A, Dheensa S, Doheny S . Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018; 27(2):169-182. PMC: 6336881. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0285-1. View

Dheensa S, Carrieri D, Kelly S, Clarke A, Doheny S, Turnpenny P . A 'joint venture' model of recontacting in clinical genomics: challenges for responsible implementation. Eur J Med Genet. 2017; 60(7):403-409. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.05.001. View

Carrieri D, Lucassen A, Clarke A, Dheensa S, Doheny S, Turnpenny P . Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2016; 18(9):876-81. PMC: 5052431. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.194. View

10.

Carrieri D, Dheensa S, Doheny S, Clarke A, Turnpenny P, Lucassen A . Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017; 25(3):275-279. PMC: 5315519. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.188. View

11.

. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992; 13(3):313-21. DOI: 10.1080/07399339209516006. View

12.

Bertier G, Senecal K, Borry P, Vears D . Unsolved challenges in pediatric whole-exome sequencing: A literature analysis. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2017; 54(2):134-142. DOI: 10.1080/10408363.2016.1275516. View

13.

Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, Bernier F, Chong K, Fernandez B . The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet. 2015; 52(7):431-7. PMC: 4501167. DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103144. View

14.

Rehm H, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P, Berg J, Brown K, Deignan J . ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med. 2013; 15(9):733-47. PMC: 4098820. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.92. View

15.

Wenger A, Guturu H, Bernstein J, Bejerano G . Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet Med. 2016; 19(2):209-214. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.88. View

16.

Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L . Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(9):e13-4. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341. View

17.

Belkadi A, Bolze A, Itan Y, Cobat A, Vincent Q, Antipenko A . Whole-genome sequencing is more powerful than whole-exome sequencing for detecting exome variants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(17):5473-8. PMC: 4418901. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418631112. View

18.

Matthijs G, Souche E, Alders M, Corveleyn A, Eck S, Feenstra I . Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 24(10):1515. PMC: 5027692. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.63. View

19.

Ewans L, Schofield D, Shrestha R, Zhu Y, Gayevskiy V, Ying K . Whole-exome sequencing reanalysis at 12 months boosts diagnosis and is cost-effective when applied early in Mendelian disorders. Genet Med. 2018; 20(12):1564-1574. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2018.39. View

20.

Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J . Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015; 17(5):405-24. PMC: 4544753. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30. View