4.5 Article

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 1677-1685

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23631

Keywords

clinical utility; exome sequencing; genome sequencing; incidental findings; secondary findings

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650, U01HG007436, U01HG007437, HHSN261200800001E]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at ). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available