Top

Published in:

08-05-2023 | Neurology | Review

Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider

Authors: Avi Fellner, Yael Goldberg, Lina Basel-Salmon

Published in: Journal of Neurology | Issue 8/2023

Abstract

A significant challenge limiting the comprehensive utilization of genomic medicine is the lack of timely access to genetics specialists. Although neurologists see patients for whom genetic testing should be considered, the knowledge regarding the choice of the optimal genetic test for each case and the management of the test results are out of the scope of their everyday practice. In this review, we provide a step-by-step guide for non-geneticist physicians through the decision-making process when ordering diagnostic genetic testing for monogenic neurological diseases and when dealing with their results.

Shields AE, Burke W, Levy DE (2008) Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the United States: results of a national survey. Genet Med 10(6):404–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181770184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mancuso M, Houlden H, Molnar MJ et al (2022) How to approach a neurogenetics diagnosis in different European countries: the European Academy of Neurology Neurogenetics Panel survey. Eur J Neurol 29(7):1885–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bradley L, Lynch SA (2021) Dying to see you? Deaths on a clinical genetics waiting list in the Republic of Ireland; what are the consequences? J Community Genet 12(1):121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00491-3CrossRefPubMed

Shaw T, Metras J, Ting ZAL, Courtney E, Li ST, Ngeow J (2018) Impact of appointment waiting time on attendance rates at a clinical cancer genetics service. J Genet Couns 27(6):1473–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0259-zCrossRefPubMed

Maiese DR, Keehn A, Lyon M, Flannery D, Watson M, Working groups of the national coordinating center for seven regional genetics service collaboratives (2019) Current conditions in medical genetics practice. Genet Med 21(8):1874–1877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0417-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kotzer KE, Riley JD, Conta JH, Anderson CM, Schahl KA, Goodenberger ML (2014) Genetic testing utilization and the role of the laboratory genetic counselor. Clin Chim Acta 427:193–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.09.033CrossRefPubMed

Miller CE, Krautscheid P, Baldwin EE et al (2014) Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet A 164A(5):1094–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.36453CrossRefPubMed

Sandhaus LM, Singer ME, Dawson NV, Wiesner GL (2001) Reporting BRCA test results to primary care physicians. Genet Med 3(5):327–334. https://doi.org/10.1097/00125817-200109000-00001CrossRefPubMed

McGovern MM, Benach M, Zinberg R (2003) Interaction of genetic counselors with molecular genetic testing laboratories: implications for non-geneticist health care providers. Am J Med Genet 119A(3):297–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.20196CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lalonde E, Rentas S, Lin F, Dulik MC, Skraban CM, Spinner NB (2020) Genomic diagnosis for pediatric disorders: revolution and evolution. Front Pediatr 8:373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Feldman EL, Goutman SA, Petri S et al (2022) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Lancet 400(10360):1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01272-7CrossRefPubMed

12.

Guo MH, Bardakjian TM, Brzozowski MR et al (2021) Temporal trends and yield of clinical diagnostic genetic testing in adult neurology. Am J Med Genet A 185(10):2922–2928. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.62372CrossRefPubMed

13.

Thomas Q, Vitobello A, Tran Mau-Them F et al (2022) High efficiency and clinical relevance of exome sequencing in the daily practice of neurogenetics. J Med Genet 59(5):445–452. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107369CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wright CF, FitzPatrick DR, Firth HV (2018) Paediatric genomics: diagnosing rare disease in children. Nat Rev Genet 19(5):253–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.116CrossRefPubMed

15.

Xue Y, Ankala A, Wilcox WR, Hegde MR (2015) Solving the molecular diagnostic testing conundrum for Mendelian disorders in the era of next-generation sequencing: single-gene, gene panel, or exome/genome sequencing. Genet Med 17(6):444–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.122CrossRefPubMed

16.

Stevanovski I, Chintalaphani SR, Gammarachchi H et al (2022) Comprehensive genetic diagnosis of tandem repeat expansion disorders with programmable targeted nanopore sequencing. Sci Adv 8(9):eabm5386. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm5386CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Dillon OJ, Lunke S, Stark Z et al (2018) Exome sequencing has higher diagnostic yield compared to simulated disease-specific panels in children with suspected monogenic disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 26(5):644–651. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0099-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Truty R, Rojahn S, Quyang K et al (2023) Patterns of mosaicism for sequence and copy-number variants discovered through clinical deep sequencing of disease-related genes in one million individuals. Am J Hum Genet 110(4):551–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.02.013CrossRefPubMed

19.

Saudi Mendeliome Group (2015) Comprehensive gene panels provide advantages over clinical exome sequencing for Mendelian diseases. Genome Biol 16(1):134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0693-2CrossRefPubMedCentral

20.

Sawyer SL, Hartley T, Dyment DA et al (2016) Utility of whole-exome sequencing for those near the end of the diagnostic odyssey: time to address gaps in care. Clin Genet 89(3):275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12654CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wang X, Shen X, Fang F et al (2019) Phenotype-driven virtual panel is an effective method to analyze WES data of neurological disease. Front Pharmacol 9:1529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01529CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Lionel AC, Costain G, Monfared N et al (2018) Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test. Genet Med 20(4):435–443. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.119CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wenger AM, Guturu H, Bernstein JA, Bejerano G (2017) Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet Med 19(2):209–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.88CrossRefPubMed

24.

Basel-Salmon L, Orenstein N, Markus-Bustani K et al (2019) Improved diagnostics by exome sequencing following raw data reevaluation by clinical geneticists involved in the medical care of individuals tested. Genet Med 21(6):1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0343-7CrossRefPubMed

25.

Basel-Salmon L, Ruhrman-Shahar N, Orenstein N et al (2021) When phenotype does not match genotype: importance of “real-time” refining of phenotypic information for exome data interpretation. Genet Med 23(1):215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-00938-5CrossRefPubMed

26.

Meng L, Attali R, Talmy T et al (2023) Evaluation of an automated genome interpretation model for rare disease routinely used in a clinical genetic laboratory. Genet Med 25(6):100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2023.100830CrossRefPubMed

27.

Tan TY, Lunke S, Chong B et al (2019) A head-to-head evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy and costs of trio versus singleton exome sequencing analysis. Eur J Hum Genet 27(12):1791–1799. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0471-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Retterer K, Juusola J, Cho MT et al (2016) Clinical application of whole-exome sequencing across clinical indications. Genet Med 18(7):696–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.148CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ et al (2017) Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 19(2):249–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.190CrossRefPubMed

30.

Miller DT, Lee K, Abul-Husn NS et al (2022) ACMG SF v3.1 list for reporting for secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 24(7):1407–1414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.04.006CrossRefPubMed

31.

Fridman H, Behar DM, Carmi S, Levy-Lahad E (2020) Preconception carrier screening yield: effect of variants of unknown significance in partners of carriers with clinically significant variants. Genet Med 22(3):646–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0676-xCrossRefPubMed

32.

Liu P, Meng L, Normand EA et al (2019) Reanalysis of clinical exome sequencing data. N Engl J Med 380(25):2478–2480. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1812033CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Godino L, Turchetti D, Jackson L, Hennessy C, Skirton H (2016) Impact of presymptomatic genetic testing on young adults: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 24(4):496–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.153CrossRefPubMed

34.

Veras DF, Ayres S, Boyle J, Mansour J, Newson AJ, on behalf of the Education, Ethics and Social Issues Committee of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (2020) Human Genetics Society of Australasia position statement: Predictive and presymptomatic genetic testing in adults and children. Twin Res Hum Genet 23(3):184–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2020.51CrossRef

35.

Guttmacher AE, Porteous ME, McInerney JD (2007) Educating health-care professionals about genetics and genomics. Nat Rev Genet 8(2):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2007CrossRefPubMed

36.

Michaelson-Cohen R, Salzer-Sheelo L, Sukenik-Halevy R et al (2020) Teaching clinicians practical genomic medicine: 7 years’ experience in a tertiary care center. Genet Med 22(10):1703–1709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0868-4CrossRefPubMed

37.

Stoll K, Kubendran S, Cohen SA (2018) The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: keeping up in the era of precision medicine. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 178(1):24–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31602CrossRefPubMed

38.

Recchia G, Chiappi A, Chandratillake G, Raymond L, Freeman ALJ (2020) Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study. Genet Med 22(2):353–361. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0649-0CrossRefPubMed

39.

Farmer GD, Gray H, Chandratillake G, Raymond FL, Freeman ALJ (2020) Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists. Eur J Hum Genet 28(7):885–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0579-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider
Authors: Avi Fellner
Yael Goldberg
Lina Basel-Salmon
Publication date: 08-05-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Neurology
Human Genetics
Published in: Journal of Neurology / Issue 8/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-5354
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1459
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11758-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2023

Neurological and imaging phenotypes of adults with untreated phenylketonuria: new cases and literature review

Multiple sclerosis optic neuritis and trans-synaptic pathology on cortical thinning in people with multiple sclerosis

The phenotypic spectrum of epilepsy associated with periventricular nodular heterotopia

Muscle MRI patterns for limb girdle muscle dystrophies: systematic review

The potential value of disease-modifying therapy in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 1: an early health economic modeling study

A multimodal marker for cognitive functioning in multiple sclerosis: the role of NfL, GFAP and conventional MRI in predicting cognitive functioning in a prospective clinical cohort