The options for genetic testing continue to grow for ocular conditions, including optic atrophy, anterior segment dysgenesis, cataracts, corneal dystrophy, nystagmus, and glaucoma. Gene panels can vary in content and coverage, as we and others have evaluated in inherited retinal disease (IRD).
To describe gene panel testing options for inherited eye disease phenotypes and their differences. This review is important for making diagnostic decisions.
A licensed, certified genetic counselor (RP) used Concert Genetics and the search terms optic atrophy, corneal dystrophy, cataract, glaucoma, anterior segment dysgenesis, microphthalmia/anophthalmia, and nystagmus to identify available testing options performed by CLIA-certified commercial genetic testing laboratories. Other co-authors were surveyed with respect to genetic panels used for the indications of interest. Ophthalmic panels were then compared using Concert Genetics in addition to their own websites.
Panels from each clinical category were included and summarized. This comparison highlighted the differences and similarities between panels so that clinicians can make informed decisions.
Access to genetic testing is increasing. The diagnostic yield of genetic testing is increasing. Each panel is different, so phenotyping or characterizing clinical characteristics that may help predict a specific genotype, as well as pre-test hypotheses regarding a genotype, should shape the choice of panels.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication.
RESULTS: Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in acute myeloid leukemia is increasingly being used to assess treatment response and stratify the risk of relapse for individual patients. Molecular methods for MRD testing began with PCR-based assays for individual recurrent mutations. To date, there is robust evidence for testing NPM1, CBFB-MYH11, and RUNX1/RUNXT1 mutations using this approach, though the best timing and threshold level for each mutation varies. More recent approaches have been with PCR-based multigene panels, occasionally combined with flow cytometric techniques, and next-generation sequencing techniques. This review outlines the various techniques used in molecular approaches to MRD, the evidence behind individual mutation testing, and the novel approaches for evaluating multigene MRD so that clinicians can understand and incorporate these evaluations into their practice.