Hereditary eye disorders can affect all ocular structures and can be accompanied by structural malformations (e.g. coloboma) or functional disorders (e.g. retinal dystrophy). Ocular phenotypes can also be the presenting symptom of many complex syndromic disorders. The majority of hereditary eye disorders are extremely heterogeneous but can be routinely diagnosed by modern high-throughput sequencing technologies. Molecular testing is highly important not only in in the evaluation of differential diagnoses but is also of increasing relevance due to individual treatment options.
UNASSIGNED: Hereditäre Augenerkrankungen können alle okulären Strukturen betreffen und mit strukturellen Auffälligkeiten (z. B. Kolobome) oder funktionellen Einschränkungen (z. B. Netzhautdystrophien) einhergehen. Zudem zeigen viele komplexe syndromale Krankheitsbilder als erstes Symptom eine Augenbeteiligung. Hereditäre Augenerkrankungen sind ausgesprochen heterogen, durch die modernen Hochdurchsatzsequenzierungen ist eine diagnostische Abklärung jedoch in der Routinediagnostik möglich. Dies ist nicht nur in der Differenzialdiagnostik, sondern auch zunehmend aufgrund individueller Therapieoptionen von hoher Relevanz.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine appropriate utilization of antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening tests with follow-up subserology tests (reflex testing) for diagnosing systemic autoimmune rheumatic disorder (SARD).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 3003 SARD-test orders at an academic teaching hospital from January to December 2019. Testing patterns were categorized as American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-recommended reflex testing, panel testing, or single subserology testing. We described testing patterns, assessed their diagnostic accuracy, and explored factors associated with reflex testing.
RESULTS: Reflex testing accounted for 79.7% of SARD test-ordering, whereas improper testing (panel or single subserology) accounted for the other 20.3%. Reflex testing was associated with significantly more SARD diagnoses than improper testing (P = .004). Testing patterns were significantly associated with race/ethnicity (P = .008), with reflex testing being less frequent than improper testing in Hispanics and Whites.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, one-fifth (20.3%) of testing patterns for suspected SARD did not follow the ACR-recommended guidelines for using reflex testing. Use of reflex testing was associated with an increased frequency of SARD diagnosis.

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.

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.

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.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panel testing enables assessment of the mutational status of a few hundred genes associated with cancer pathogenesis. Although such tests have been approved by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency for use in patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors,there are no currently available tests for hematologic malignancies. The resultant information from these panel tests is primarily used to identify a potential treatment regimen or targeted therapy for solid tumors. However, genome profiling in hematologic malignancies also guides the clinical management of patients by providing diagnostic and prognostic information. This review summarizes the potential advantage of NGS-based multigene panel tests over conventional tests to determine therapeutic strategies for hematologic malignancies.

Precision medicine refers to a medical model wherein treatments are customized for the patients according to their lifestyles, genetic background, and other molecular and physiological test results. Herein, I discuss the utility of comprehensive genomic profiling of hematologic malignancies and provide a perspective on the future of genomics-based precision medicine in the field of hematology/oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Lobular breast cancer (LBC) accounts for ~ 15% of breast cancer. Here, we studied the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in an extended panel of genes in women affected with LBC.
METHODS: 302 women with LBC and 1567 without breast cancer were tested for BRCA1/2 PGVs. A subset of 134 LBC affected women who tested negative for BRCA1/2 PGVs underwent extended screening, including: ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51D, and TP53.
RESULTS: 35 PGVs were identified in the group with LBC, of which 22 were in BRCA1/2. Ten actionable PGVs were identified in additional genes (ATM(4), CDH1(1), CHEK2(1), PALB2(2) and TP53(2)). Overall, PGVs in three genes conferred a significant increased risk for LBC. Odds ratios (ORs) were: BRCA1: OR = 13.17 (95%CI 2.83-66.38; P = 0.0017), BRCA2: OR = 10.33 (95%CI 4.58-23.95; P < 0.0001); and ATM: OR = 8.01 (95%CI 2.52-29.92; P = 0.0053). We did not detect an increased risk of LBC for PALB2, CDH1 or CHEK2.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall PGV detection rate was 11.59%, with similar rates of BRCA1/2 (7.28%) PGVs as for other actionable PGVs (7.46%), indicating a benefit for extended panel genetic testing in LBC. We also report a previously unrecognised association of pathogenic variants in ATM with LBC.