OBJECTIVE: Early-onset Parkinson\'s disease (EOPD) commonly recognizes a genetic basis; thus, patients with EOPD are often addressed to diagnostic testing based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) of PD-associated multigene panels. However, NGS interpretation can be challenging in a diagnostic setting, and few studies have addressed this issue so far.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 648 patients with PD with age at onset younger than 55 years who underwent NGS of a minimal shared panel of 15 PD-related genes, as well as PD-multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in eight Italian diagnostic laboratories. Data included a minimal clinical dataset, the complete list of variants included in the diagnostic report, and final interpretation (positive/negative/inconclusive). Patients were further stratified based on age at onset ≤40 years (very EOPD, n = 157). All variants were reclassified according to the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics criteria. For classification purposes, PD-associated GBA1 variants were considered diagnostic.
RESULTS: In 186 of 648 (29%) patients, the diagnostic report listed at least one variant, and the outcome was considered diagnostic (positive) in 105 (16%). After reanalysis, diagnosis changed in 18 of 186 (10%) patients, with 5 shifting from inconclusive to positive and 13 former positive being reclassified as inconclusive. A definite diagnosis was eventually reached in 97 (15%) patients, of whom the majority carried GBA1 variants or, less frequently, biallelic PRKN variants. In 89 (14%) cases, the genetic report was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: This study attempts to harmonize reporting of PD genetic testing across several diagnostic labs and highlights current difficulties in interpreting genetic variants emerging from NGS-multigene panels, with relevant implications for counseling. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

PRSS1 was the first reported chronic pancreatitis (CP) gene. The existence of both gain-of-function (GoF) and gain-of-proteotoxicity (GoP) pathological PRSS1 variants, together with the fact that PRSS1 variants have been identified in CP subtypes spanning the range from monogenic to multifactorial, has made the classification of PRSS1 variants very challenging.
All currently reported PRSS1 variants (derived primarily from two databases) were manually reviewed with respect to their clinical genetics, functional analysis and population allele frequency. They were classified by variant type and pathological mechanism within the framework of our recently proposed ACMG/AMP guidelines-based seven-category system.
The total number of distinct germline PRSS1 variants included for analysis was 100, comprising 3 copy number variants (CNVs), 12 5\' and 3\' variants, 19 intronic variants, 5 nonsense variants, 1 frameshift deletion variant, 6 synonymous variants, 1 in-frame duplication, 3 gene conversions and 50 missense variants. Based upon a combination of clinical genetic and functional analysis, population data and in silico analysis, we classified 26 variants (all 3 CNVs, the in-frame duplication, all 3 gene conversions and 19 missense) as \"pathogenic\", 3 variants (missense) as \"likely pathogenic\", 5 variants (four missense and one promoter) as \"predisposing\", 13 variants (all missense) as \"unknown significance\", 2 variants (missense) as \"likely benign\", and all remaining 51 variants as \"benign\".
We describe an expert classification of the 100 PRSS1 variants reported to date. The results have immediate implications for reclassifying many ClinVar-registered PRSS1 variants as well as providing optimal guidelines/standards for reporting PRSS1 variants.

Automation has been introduced into variant interpretation, but it is not known how automated variant interpretation performs on a stand-alone basis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a fully automated computerized approach.
We reviewed all variants encountered in a set of carrier screening panels over a 1-year interval. Observed variants with high-confidence ClinVar interpretations were included in the analysis; those without high-confidence ClinVar entries were excluded.
Discrepancy rates between automated interpretations and high-confidence ClinVar entries were analyzed. Of the variants interpreted as positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic) based on ClinVar information, 22.6% were classified as negative (variants of uncertain significance, likely benign or benign) variants by the automated method. Of the ClinVar negative variants, 1.7% were classified as positive by the automated software. On a per-case basis, which accounts for variant frequency, 63.4% of cases with a ClinVar high-confidence positive variant were classified as negative by the automated method.
While automation in genetic variant interpretation holds promise, there is still a need for manual review of the output. Additional validation of automated variant interpretation methods should be conducted.

For the past two decades, the guidelines put forth by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) detailing providers\' clinical responsibility to recontact patients have remained mostly unchanged, despite evolving variant interpretation practices which have yielded substantial rates of reclassification and amended reports. In fact, there is little information regarding genetic counselors\' roles in informing patients of reclassified variants, or the process by which these amended reports are currently being handled. In this study, we developed a survey to measure current experiences with amended variant reports and preferences for ideal management, which was completed by 96 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada. All respondents indicated they were the individuals responsible for disclosing initial positive genetic testing results and any clinically actionable reclassified variant reports, and over half (56%) received at least a few amended variant reports each year. Nearly a quarter (20/87) of respondents reported having a standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing amended reports and all were very satisfied (12/20) or satisfied (8/20) with the SOP. Of those without a protocol, 76% (51/67) would prefer to have an SOP implemented. Respondents reported a preference for (1) laboratories to send amended variant reports directly to the genetic counselor or ordering physician through email or an online portal, and (2) notification to patients ideally occurring through a phone call. In the event that the original genetic counselor is inaccessible, respondents reported a preference for reports to be sent directly to another genetic counselor (36%) on the team or the clinic in general (27%). Information from this study provides insight into the current practices of genetic counselors as applied to amended reports and what improvements may increase the efficiency of the reporting process. Moreover, these results suggest a need for an updated statement addressing duty to recontact, specifically as it applies to amended variant reports.

Effective communication of genetic information within families depends on several factors. Few studies explore intra-familial communication of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results or active collaboration between family members to classify VUS. Our qualitative study aimed to describe the experiences of individuals asked by family members to participate in the FindMyVariant study, a patient-driven family study which aimed to reclassify a clinically identified familial VUS in a hereditary cancer gene. We collected feedback from 56 individuals from 21 different families through phone interviews and written correspondence, transcribed the interviews, and performed thematic analysis on all text. We describe themes from three main topics: participation, ethical considerations, and study impacts. Participation in the FindMyVariant study, defined as returning a sample for targeted genotyping, was motivated by convenience and a desire to help the family, oneself, and science. Relatives were generally responsive to invitations to participate in FindMyVariant from another family member. Those who declined to participate did so due to concerns about research program confidentiality rather than family dynamics. No major ethical issues arose in response to the patient-driven study structure, and no major changes in stress and anxiety, medical care, or behavior occurred. Participation in patient-driven familial VUS classification studies has a neutral or positive impact on family health communication. While it is important to design studies to minimize familial coercion, intra-familial confidentiality breaches, and misinterpretation of genetic results, these were not major concerns among relatives in this study. Clinicians and laboratories may consider encouraging familial communication about genetic variants using family members as liaisons.

Family studies to reclassify clinically ascertained variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can impact risk assessment, medical management, and psychological outcomes for patients and their families. There are limited avenues for patients and their families to actively participate in VUS reclassification, and access to family studies at most commercial laboratories is restricted by multiple factors. To explore patient attitudes about participation in family studies for VUS reclassification, we conducted semistructured pre- and post-participation telephone interviews with 38 participants in a family-based VUS reclassification study that utilized a patient-driven approach for family ascertainment and recruitment. Participants had VUS from multigene panel testing performed at multiple clinical laboratories for cancer or other disease risk. Inductive thematic analysis of transcribed interviews highlighted four major themes: (a) Participants\' study goals were driven by the desire to resolve uncertainty related to the VUS, (b) Participants had mixed reactions to the VUS reclassification outcomes of the study, (c) Personal, public, and familial knowledge increased through study participation and (d) Participants used study participation to actively cope with the uncertainty of a VUS. As personalized genomic medicine becomes more prevalent, clinicians, clinical laboratories, and researchers could consider creating more opportunities for active partnership with patients and families, who are motivated to contribute data to familial VUS studies.