We evaluated the diagnostic yield using genome-slice panel reanalysis in the clinical setting using an automated phenotype/gene ranking system. We analyzed whole genome sequencing (WGS) data produced from clinically ordered panels built as bioinformatic slices for 16 clinically diverse, undiagnosed cases referred to the Pediatric Mendelian Genomics Research Center, an NHGRI-funded GREGoR Consortium site. Genome-wide reanalysis was performed using Moon™, a machine-learning-based tool for variant prioritization. In five out of 16 cases, we discovered a potentially clinically significant variant. In four of these cases, the variant was found in a gene not included in the original panel due to phenotypic expansion of a disorder or incomplete initial phenotyping of the patient. In the fifth case, the gene containing the variant was included in the original panel, but being a complex structural rearrangement with intronic breakpoints outside the clinically analyzed regions, it was not initially identified. Automated genome-wide reanalysis of clinical WGS data generated during targeted panels testing yielded a 25% increase in diagnostic findings and a possibly clinically relevant finding in one additional case, underscoring the added value of analyses versus those routinely performed in the clinical setting.

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.

UNASSIGNED: There is a significant lack of epidemiological data on hereditary cancer in Northeast Brazil. This is the largest study on the prevalence and mutational spectrum of cancer predisposition genes conducted in this region and the first in the State of Ceará.
UNASSIGNED: Patients ≥18 years of age that were referred to CHANCE (Grupo de Câncer Hereditário do Ceará) from March 2014 to December 2020 with testing criteria for breast cancer susceptibility genes according to NCCN v.1.2021 were eligible to participate. The inclusion of patients was limited to one individual per family and to those born in the State of Ceará. All patients underwent a hereditary cancer panel testing with at least 30 genes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 355 patients were included, and 97 (27.3%) carried a P/LP germline variant in 18 different genes. Among the 97 P/LP carriers, BRCA1 (31, 31.9%) and BRCA2 (25, 25.7%) were the most frequently mutated genes, followed by PALB2 (10, 10.3%), CHEK2 (7, 7.2%) and ATM (4, 4.1%). A small number of recurrent variants (detected in three or more individuals) in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and ATM represented the majority of the P/LP variants described in this cohort.
UNASSIGNED: In this cohort, the prevalence of L/PL was high, particularly involving the BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM genes and, to a lesser extent than expected, the TP53 gene. A high frequency of recurrent variants was also observed, for which further and larger analyses should clarify the presence of any possible founder effect. Characterizing the mutational profile of cancer predisposition genes in diverse populations may contribute to cancer prevention and therapeutic management.

UNASSIGNED: The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has established a multigene panel (TruRisk®) for the analysis of risk genes for familial breast and ovarian cancer.
UNASSIGNED: An interdisciplinary team of experts from the GC-HBOC has evaluated the available data on risk modification in the presence of pathogenic mutations in these genes based on a structured literature search and through a formal consensus process.
UNASSIGNED: The goal of this work is to better assess individual disease risk and, on this basis, to derive clinical recommendations for patient counseling and care at the centers of the GC-HBOC from the initial consultation prior to genetic testing to the use of individual risk-adapted preventive/therapeutic measures.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for referral to cancer genetics service for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer have changed over time. This study was conducted to assess the changing referral patterns and outcomes for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer across three regional cancer centres during the years 2014-2018.
METHODS: Following ethical approval, a retrospective electronic medical record review was performed to identify those women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and whether they were referred to a genetics service and if so, the outcome of that genetics assessment and/or genetic testing.
RESULTS: There were 2441 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seen at our cancer services during the years 2014-2018, of whom 237 women were diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer. Based on age of diagnosis criteria alone, 13% (31/237) of our cohort fulfilled criteria for genetic testing, with 81% (25/31) being referred to a cancer genetics service. Of this group 68% (21/31) were referred to genetics services within our regions and went on to have genetic testing with 10 pathogenic variants identified; 5x BRCA1, 4x BRCA2 and × 1 ATM:c.7271 T > G.
CONCLUSIONS: Referral pathways for women diagnosed with TNBC to cancer genetics services are performing well across our cancer centres. We identified a group of women who did not meet eligibility criteria for referral at their time of diagnosis, but would now be eligible, as guidelines have changed. The use of cross-discipline retrospective data reviews is a useful tool to identify patients who could benefit from being re-contacted over time for an updated cancer genetics assessment.

To determine the degree of testing consistency among commercially available diagnostic assays for hereditary hematopoietic malignancies (HHMs).
Next-generation sequencing assays designed for the diagnosis of HHMs were studied to determine which genes were sequenced, their ability to detect variant types relevant for HHMs, and clinical-grade characteristics such as price, turnaround time, and tissue types accepted.
Commercial assays varied in price (USD 250-4702), number of genes sequenced (12-73), and average turnaround time (14-42 days). A number of nongermline tissue types were accepted despite the tests being designed for germline diagnostic purposes. Multiple genes with well-characterized roles in HHM pathogenesis were omitted from more than one-third of panels intended for the evaluation of HHMs. Only 4 of 82 genes were consistently covered across all HHM diagnostic panels. The assays were highly variable in their sensitivity for structural alterations relevant to HHMs, such as copy-number variants.
A high degree of diagnostic heterogeneity exists among commercially available HHM diagnostic assays. Many of these assays are incapable of detecting the full spectrum of HHM-associated variants, leaving patients vulnerable to the consequences of underdiagnosis, missed opportunities for screening, and the potential for donor-derived malignancies.

Although next-generation sequencing-based panel testing is well practiced in the field of cancer medicine for the identification of target molecules in solid tumors, the clinical utility and clinical issues surrounding panel testing in hematological malignancies have yet to be fully evaluated. We conducted a multicenter prospective clinical sequencing study to verify the feasibility of a panel test for hematological tumors, including acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Out of 96 eligible patients, 79 patients (82%) showed potentially actionable findings, based on the clinical sequencing assays. We identified that genetic alterations with a strong clinical significance were found at a higher frequency in terms of diagnosis (n = 60; 63%) and prognosis (n = 61; 64%) than in terms of therapy (n = 8; 8%). Three patients who harbored a germline mutation in either DDX41 (n = 2) or BRCA2 (n = 1) were provided with genetic counseling. At 6 mo after sequencing, clinical actions based on the diagnostic (n = 5) or prognostic (n = 3) findings were reported, but no patients were enrolled in a clinical trial or received targeted therapies based on the sequencing results. These results suggest that panel testing for hematological malignancies would be feasible given the availability of useful diagnostic and prognostic information. This study is registered with the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000029879, multiple myeloma; UMIN000031343, adult acute myeloid leukemia; UMIN000033144, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and UMIN000034243, childhood leukemia).

Currently, the NCCN guidelines recommend testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 for females with multiple breast primaries, if her first diagnosis was ≤50 years old. With the increase in uptake of multigene panels, testing for genes outside of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has become more prevalent. This study looked at a single institution\'s cohort of women with multiple primary breast cancers that underwent panel testing to determine the rates of pathogenic mutations in non-BRCA genes. The genetic testing results for each individual were reviewed, along with patient characteristics. Descriptive analysis and two-tailed Z tests were used to analyze the data. Out of 85 eligible women, 33 (38.8%) tested positive for a pathogenic mutation in a cancer predisposition gene: 9 BRCA1, 5 BRCA2, 5 ATM, 1 BARD1, 4 CHEK2, 1 MSH2, 1 MSH6, 2 PALB2, 1 PMS2, 1 PTEN and 3 TP53. Overall, 17.6% tested positive for a non-BRCA breast cancer predisposition gene. There was no difference in the age of first or second breast cancer diagnosis in comparison with genetic testing outcomes. This study found a high positive rate for all individuals with multiple breast cancers, regardless of age, for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 and non-BRCA genes. Future studies should investigate whether individuals with multiple breast cancer primaries that do not meet BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing criteria should undergo genetic testing, regardless of the age of diagnosis.

This is a comprehensive review and analysis of 254 cases tested consecutively in the in-house College of American Pathologist-accredited molecular genetics laboratory within the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner between October 2015 and February 2018, using a multigene cardiac panel composed of 95 genes associated with cardiac channelopathy and cardiomyopathy. Demographics, autopsy findings, medical history, and postmortem genetic testing results were collected for each case. The majority of decedents were adults (>25 years old, 52.7%), followed by infants (<12 months, 25.6%), young adults (19-25 years old, 11.4%), and children (1-18 years old, 10.2%). There were more males (64.2%) than females (35.8%). The racial/ethnic composition of decedents was 40.2% Black, 29.9% Hispanic, 22.4% White, 5.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.8% mixed/unspecified. Overall, 45.7% of decedents had a negative autopsy, and the remaining had one to four cardiac findings (cardiac hypertrophy, dilation, atherosclerosis, and fatty change). Twenty-seven pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (P/LP) and 99 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were identified in 10.6% and 39% of decedents respectively. P/LP and VUS were found in 51 cardiac genes of the total 95 genes, where MYBPC3, TTN (predicted truncating variants), KCNH2, RYR2 and DSP genes had more than two P/LP variants identified. Among the 73 decedents who were suspected of having cardiac arrhythmia or cardiomyopathy, 20.3% had P/LP variants and 47.9% had VUS; among 23 decedents who had hypertensive cardiovascular diseases and 20 decedents with a history of substance use, 13% and 30% had P/LP variants, respectively. There were 26 referrals from medical examiners for genetic counseling and the outcomes are discussed. The study demonstrates characteristics of the diverse population typically seen by medical examiners in an urban center and our results support a broader implementation of molecular testing in sudden death.

Adolescents and young adults with colorectal cancer (CRC) have attracted recent attention, with a hereditary syndrome identified in one-third of patients diagnosed ≤ 35. We aimed to study this population to determine if a CRC-specific gene panel increased the yield of testing.
Patients with CRC ≤ 35 evaluated from 05/2014-11/2017 were identified from the genetic counseling database. Records were reviewed for personal/family history and genetic counseling outcomes.
One hundred forty-three patients with CRC ≤ 35 were included. One hundred four (72.7%) underwent CRC panel testing. Thirty-nine (27.2%) had syndrome-directed testing, declined, or were lost to follow-up. Forty-two patients had a genetic syndrome (29.4%). Twenty-four of the 42 hereditary patients (57.1%) were identified via syndrome-directed testing. Mutations identified via panel testing were consistent with patient personal/family history. Thirty-three patients had at least one variant of uncertain significance.
Hereditary syndromes were identified in 29.4% of patients. Panel testing in patients without a phenotype did not increase diagnostic yield, but identified variants in one-third. Disease-specific panel testing is of low yield in young patients without a suggestive personal/family history. Testing broader panels may increase the yield of mutation pick-up in this population, although at the expense of identifying variants.